Feature/Region browser requests

[Elaine Meng]

3) The treatment of sequence-feature regions is not as informative and much more unwieldy.

(3a) would like more information about sequence variants, glycosylation sites, etc. (as opposed to simply "sequence variant" or "glycosylation site") in the Region Browser, not just in the Sequence Features dialog. It is far too unwieldy to have both of those open at once and try to figure out which entries correspond to each other. See for example the information in the Chimera region browser.
<​https://www.rbvi.ucsf.edu/chimera/docs/ContributedSoftware/multalignviewer/multalignviewer.html#regionbrowser>

... to take it even further, I was wondering a Sequence Features dialog is still needed. Actually it does useful things like switching on/off display of groups of features without your having to check/uncheck individual boxes, and segregates them by category, which both help a lot when there are tons of features. So I don't know if it would be possible to fold in all of that usefulness into the Region Browser instead. Maybe not. I do like the Sequence Features, it is just awkward trying to work with both of them (it and Region Browser) since they have different sets of functionality but both useful.

(3b) way too much vertical space is taken up by a bunch of helix, strand, and turn entries. You have to scroll past them a lot to peruse the more interesting entries. Would it be possible to put these secondary structure features at the bottom, or to make collapsible sections for the same types of feature? And along the lines of (3a) above, then maybe the sections could have their own checkboxes to control all their leaves at once. Maybe too hard/fancy?

[Eric Pettersen]

So I added a "Details" column to the single-sequence region browser table, that has much of the information that the features browser has, and I reordered the regions so that the secondary structure regions are at the bottom. Will show up in tomorrow's daily build.

The above was the "medium-hanging" (not low-hanging :-)) fruit. So the question is whether just these changes are good enough to go ahead and close this ticket, or do we really need just a bit more?

[Elaine Meng]

I love it!  The Details do have basically all of the info and it is also much better with all those secondary structure things on the bottom.  I think it's definitely good enough to close the ticket.  Not even sure what else you could possibly do...

[Eric Pettersen]

Part of your original set of suggestions in the ticket description was to make the table more "tree like" in that you could collapse/expand sections and have controls that affected entire sections. That would have been a tom of work, so I am happy to close the ticket!