Not sure what the status of the info tool request may be 6 months on?
Have faith in your ideas. If you have an idea you want to advance, have faith in the rightness and value of that idea. Do not weaken the presentation of your idea with posturing that distracts from your credibility and the clarity of what you want.
Take the above: Art suggested "Info tool - click on an object, see the attributes of that object." Everyone knows that suggestion was quickly implemented, none of this "6 months on" stuff about it. Skip that and just say what you want.
Likewise, don't lose credibility by failing to take advantage of resources. The path to getting what you want into any Manifold product is simple and clear and set out for all to use in the Suggestions page. Review that page carefully if you want to influence the direction of the product.
As the Suggestionspage makes clear, use discussions in this forum to sharpen your thinking, but don't mistake talking stuff out with friends with sending in a suggestion. Art knows that very well, so that's why what he posted here wasn't a request, it was kicking off a discussion thread to sharpen any requests he might eventually make.
It's a good process: it results in higher quality suggestions that people really want and it helps people build more credibility and greater influence by saving them from sending in ill-considered suggestions. When your friends help you in the forum it is much easier to send in suggestions that are really sharp and well thought out, and which have compelling influence. Always good!
I have just added 459 drawings into a map, and each drawing has a label tab, so over 900 tabs at the bottom of the map.
The above reads like an arithmetic error, which certainly you did not intend. If each drawing has a label tab, and you add 459 drawings, should there not be 459 tabs? Let's work on that so that when you do send in a suggestion any errors do not detract.
While we are at it, we should not weaken a perfectly good idea by wrapping it in a pathological example of highly inappropriate use.
You may have your reasons for putting 459 layers into a map. That Radian can handle that OK is a credit to the technology. But normally it is a very, very bad idea to do such things that are highly contrary to effective data management or data presentation. There are many very useful tools and concepts in database to help better organize your data. If you are trying to consume 459 separate items of anything in a single swallow, that is almost certainly a very deep administrative or data design mistake. There are better ways you should be using.
Now, I agree that on a "one off" basis sometimes we need to do something quick and dirty. For example, there are legacy formats (some US military formats come to mind) that will bring in a map showing a region as hundreds of small drawings/tiles. The format was organized that way because of the restrictions of hardware in software many decades ago. If you just want to take a quick look, then, sure it is great that Radian can give you that look even if a map ends up with hundreds of layers.
But to actually use that data the first steps are to union it into more coherent form, to reduce the infrastructure craziness that prevents efficient, modern use of the data.
It's true there are facilities in Radian, such as the Layers element of the Contents pane, which make it much easier to work with maps that have many layers. But those are not intended to make it efficient to use hundreds of layers at once, as trying to apply hundreds of layers at once is intrinsically inefficient and wrong. If there was an application where that was really necessary, you would need a different user interface completely.
What you are asking is very simple and should not be weakened by saying it is necessary to handle weird pathology of 459 layers.
QGIS can identify any feature without the user having to select which drawing/layer/source it belongs to.
That's a design decision that cuts both ways.
The point of having layers in a map is to be able to organize and use your data in sensible, efficient subunits. When you have too many subunits to keep track of them all, the use of subunits is no longer helpful, not being either sensible or efficient. it is time to combine some of them.
Rational use of layers in a map also means they should, ideally, have some visual distinction to them. That's why formatting is usually tied to layers, because that way you get natural efficiency in terms of "what you see is what you know" (WYSIWYK... just invented the term, thank you for future credits... :-)
If a map is so cluttered with so many layers you don't know in what layer the objects you see are located, well, you've done a lousy job of designing your map. We all do that, of course, since sometimes "quick and dirty" is the convenient way, and sometimes maps and their layers have a way of growing way out of control. Every one of us has probably many times ended up with a map with zillions of layers, most of which aren't even turned on, and thinking, "OK... time to clean this up..."
Now, a key, absolutely essential way to keep order with many layers is to have precise tools for picking those things that are only in the layer of interest. It is essential that an alt click operates only on the active layer so that when you click on an object of interest in the active layer you do not have to worry about data being reported for an overlapping object in a different layer. This is non-negotiable, as it is a massively important filter function.
The right solution is to have a modified command, such as a Shift-Alt-Click, that will reveal what is clicked underneath the mouse without considering whether what is clicked is in the active layer or not. That's a perfectly sensible thing which maps having eight or twenty or whatever reasonable number of layers might benefit from.
I think we could all agree on the above, but even so the user interface design task is not done yet. To go from a "talking out loud" conversation here in the forum where we can casually write things we haven't really thought through to a razor-sharp suggestion that will have the impact we want, we need to think through at least two aspects of the matter:
1. What about overlapping objects? Consider a "let's overlay everything on the planet" format like S57 where the illustration in the topic show routine use of dozens of objects overlapping. (Click on the link to read the topic and you'll see what I mean.) For which one of them does a "super alt click" display attributes? Would it not be better to have a "super select" that selected all objects from all layers on that spot which you Shift-ctrl-clicked? You could then see in Select - Window which layers are involved. Something to think about.
2. Think about how this feature will be useful to the greatest number of other users, and what that implies for how it should work. If you ask for something specific that is a big interest only to those people who create maps with over 400 layers it may be a perfectly fine tool for such situations, but if it is only of interest to one in ten thousand users it is not going to get as high a priority for implementation as a feature that virtually every user might want. So think about how the broad base of users might do something like this.
I'd be curious to hear what your suggestion would be based on the above. How should a Shift-Alt-click work given the above two issues? Are there better ways than a Shift-Alt-click? Are there other issues besides the above two?