It is currently not possible to add padding to text on line shapes. The lack of this feature leads to hard-to-read diagrams because the line runs directly into the text, thus making the label difficult to read. A workaround has been proposed and likely used extensively by the community, which boils down to “don’t use text on lines, add extra labels.” Details can be found in the conversation linked above.
The proposal is that the currently unavailable text padding option should work for line shapes.
To bolster the argument for this feature let’s examine a view facts.
- It works in other software in this space
- It’s so expected that there is already UI for it
- It’s so expected that your own support staff thinks it works, even though it does not (see linked thread).
- Even though your feedback process may be broken, you still have evidence of this being a pain point for a significant period of time. Remember that feedback is a funnel. How many users did not take the time to complain?
I strongly feel that sufficient documentation has been provided in the linked thread, and the earlier post referenced therein so I’m not going to repeat it here. If you are evaluating this post in a “what should we work on” context, please refer to those earlier posts.
If you are a community member who agrees with the need for this feature and you’ve stumbled upon this post, I strongly recommend adding some commentary to show your support. If it would make your life better, go ahead and take the time to reply “plus one” if nothing else until this gets fixed.
Why does this seemingly small feature matter? Why have I taken precious time to complain about its absence? It’s because of the promise of what Lucid can be. Lucid clearly envisions itself as being the dominant player in the future for visual communication. Cool. Are you just “Visio on the web” or are you something beyond that? Clearly, you want to be something beyond that, given the existence of Lucidscale, but the absence of this seemingly tiny little feature is going to hold you back.
That’s rather bold of me to say, so what am I talking about? I’m talking about how the workaround that people are using to create a pleasing / appropriate / acceptable visual diagram suddenly has lost the semantic association between the label and the line construct that connects two objects - not to mention the hassle of moving and editing two unlinked shapes!
If you can retain this connection in your object model that underlies the diagram there will be great power. That’s what you want. But blissfully ignoring this feature with any sort of “people don’t care”, “it doesn’t matter”, or “we’re fine” simply drives people to a workaround that limits the ability for your product to be used when it matters the most.
To be fair, it’s not that competitors are in as strong a position as you are to retain the semantics of a label for the arcs between nodes in a graph presented visually, but I get where you’re going. I’m simply trying to say that the visual presentation of that graph really matters in boardrooms.
Thank you in advance for the consideration you can give to this topic. I look forward to any communication about the possibility of implementing this feature or the reasoning behind why it will not be implemented. While my response on this forum may be significantly delayed I believe you should have sufficient details about how to contact me should that be necessary. I’m certainly happy to elaborate on any of the points I have tried to make above.
