It's hard to suggest much without a much more detailed description of what you want.
Speaking in general terms you may be able to use calculation fields if all you need to do is display data. You can actually "stack" these fields in transparent layers on top of each other, but define them so that only one field in the "stack" contains data at any one time. This can be difficult to maintain over time however, so I wouldn't use that approach if I could figure out a reasonable alternative.
Thanks for the suggestions. Yes, calculation fields would allow me to give alternate labels to fields and to the extent that the same field is present for both display and entry, this works fine. I suppose it would also allow me to make unwanted fields disappear along with their labels.
But the fields are not so uniform. For instance, I might have a Date field in all entries, but some might have a Secondary Type field on the next line. I could have this field in the table and just not use it for records of a given type. But in the case that I don't use this field, I don't want to just make the label and field disappear, but I want the following fields to display right after it without a blank line.
If you use calculation fields that return empty strings for the field label so that it disappears as well, you can use sliding up settings to make fields and other layout objects slide up/ resize enclosing part--the resize enclosing part options is what will remove the blank space below your last field after everything slides up.
This is an option you can select from the bottom of the inspector's position tab.
Key facts about sliding:
- It's only visible in preview mode and when you print/save as PDF...
- All layout objects below a slide/resize field need to also be set to slide up and resize.
- Objects in headers and footers will not slide.
- Portals will shrink/slide to fit the number of rows of records, but fields within the portal row will not shrink/slide.
- Consistent side borders are difficult to achieve with sliding fields.