Right, that sounds reasonable. Probably best to aim for that.
Wayne
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Murali Vadivelu wrote:
> Dear Wayne,
>
> It would be nice to have it like in Sparky. An arrow pointing to the
> crosspeak cross ('X') and the ability to have the labels all around
> the peak with an arrow or triangle per label. Why not having the
> default like it is now, as I find it useful too when assigning
> overlapping peaks to have a visual clue of the deviation, but add an
> facility to drag the labels anywhere around the peak which will cause
> an 'arrow + label' to be drawn in the style of Sparky. Would this
> manual creation of offset need an algorithm too or would it be simpler?
>
> I would also like to take this chance to request the ability to click
> and remove individual markers and rulers. It would be nice to have
> them in a few colours also, if possible.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Best,
> Murali.
>
> On 13 Jan 2006, at 10:50 am, Wayne Boucher wrote:
>
> > Definitely not an easy one! The current implementation is the
> > simplest
> > one imaginable, where every peak just draws itself with a fixed
> > offset.
> > To do better you'd have to consider the peaks all together and
> > define the
> > offsets all separately, using some algorithm. That could be done
> > (although if the spectrum is too crowded I doubt it would be perfect).
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Christoph Rademacher wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> may be this is a quiet easy one: is it possible to set the peak draw
> >> parameter to avoid overlap of the labels while maintaining all
> >> information? When I print crowded regions of my spectra I can not
> >> read
> >> the labels.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Christoph
> >>
>
|