Skip to main content

What i don’t like is that there are no UML arrow objects, only the generic arrows and the set of arrow-heads that must be applied manually.

It would be good to either have

  • specific arrow objects (like most other charting tools); or
  • an arrow setting (from the cog beside the arrow - currently only showing “Add multiplicities”, “Reverse line direction”) that allows you to pick relevant arrow type

It is tedious to change each arrow head, or cumbersome to batch change arrows (have to remember the relationships for this action!).

Also, the arrowheads are not consistently sized and shaped for UML.  The aggregation/composition/implementation arrowheads are differently sized and shaped to the inheritance arrowheads , which makes the diagram look poor.  There are smaller versions of the inheritance/implementation arrowheads but these do not look like proper UML arrowheads.  Adding larger sized and evenly proportioned inheritance arrowheads would be nice.

If i’ve missed some functionality that already solves this then let me know.

Hi Peter! I’m a PM here at Lucidchart and appreciate your feedback immensely. Can I read back to you what I’ve captured here to be sure I’ve parsed out all the great ideas? I’m hearing that you’d benefit from:

  • One of:
    • a UML shape library for just pre-configured lines with the appropriate endings
    • an option to change line endings via the gear that appears near UML lines
  • updated arrowhead sizes — either customizeable or more accurate to UML standards

Anything I missed there?

 

I’d also like to better understand “It is tedious to change each arrow head, or cumbersome to batch change arrows (have to remember the relationships for this action!).” I am hearing here that you don’t love changing line endings as you go because it slows you down, but going back and doing them in bulk at the end isn’t straightforward either because you have to remember what everything should be and deal with careful selection of multiple lines. Is that right?


Hi Chloe,

Yes, your understanding of my suggestion is correct, except for “updated arrowhead sizes — either customizeable or more accurate to UML standards”, where customisable isn’t the suggestion.  instead it is consistency with the other UML style sizing and proportions e.g. the hollow and filled diamonds are currently bigger than the filled arrow options.

Thanks for taking the time to respond


Thank you for your correction and insights Peter!