Hi Will,
Thank you for the comment. I'm glad you like our CHAMBER.
We're aware of iviewer 0.7.0, which solved a few issues that I reported in this forum. We'll soon update iviewer and are looking forward to it.
> I like the Dark theme that you've done.
For fluorescent images, dark background is important.
Probably, you can think of preparing light and dark themes for the release, so users can select one.
> I was wondering whether you like the current behaviour of labels staying a fixed height on the image, and zooming with the image, so that they appear very small when you zoom out and quite big when you zoom in? The alternative is what most on-line maps do: keep a constant size of text with respect to the screen (not the image). The only tricky issue then is how to filter out less important labels when you zoom out (as happens on maps) so that the image is not overwhelmed by too many labels.
So far I haven't heard negative feedback about text label size changes. I don't feel stressed about it, perhaps because we're used to see the printed version of brain atlas, in which the size of the font does not adapt.
Making another option might be good.
As to the issue of "how to filter out less important labels when you zoom out (as happens on maps) so that the image is not overwhelmed by too many labels," I guess in the real map situation, you can refer to the population size of cities to prioritize them. For microscopic images, such a reference is not possible, so I guess you may want to introduce an additional field (eg. "SignificanceWeight") to the object to store sorting key as a positive number. By default, the object IDs are to be used. But you can specify the sorting order for all or some of the text objects by specifying numbers.
This sorting key should be separate from the sorting key on the ROI panel on the right. For the ROI panel, the comment values can be used by default, but you can customize the order by assigning values to a dedicated field (eg. "SortingKey").
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8643What do you think?