Better visual delineation between `Reply` and `Start a new conversation`
It's very confusing to new users that there is a difference between replying to an existing conversation and starting a new one within a channel. This is a visual thing as much as anything else. The 'reply' buttons are not naturally attractive if you just want to start typing a message. There should be a logical gap between the bottom of a conversation and 'start a new conversation'. 'Start a new conversation' needs to be separated visually, as if it's a second order command rather than a first order...reply.
We have been iterating on different designs and are starting to test internally. I don’t have a timeframe but will keep you posted.
Little suggestion from my side - to hide the existing "Start a new conversation" bar, and add a new button for creating a new message, which would expand the bar back. Hopefully, everyone would then first look for a way to reply to existing threads, and then, thanks to one additional click, would start a truly new conversation.
Michael Wood commented
Simple as this... This is desperately needed
The group chat feature is great in Teams because there is no reply option and it works like how we all know a group chat should work. I would suggest making each channel have a setting that you can enable/disable replies as you wish on each channel. This allows teams to choose the way that works best for them and if you do not want to allow replies you don't have to as they just make the channel chat extremely messy for my team.
Brad Kanther commented
be awesome to be able to "enforce a subject heading" in the conversation settings.(this could solve the delination prbolem)
Be even more awesome when typing this "enforced subject heading" it shows other subject headings that already exist based on what your are typing?
p.s since there seems to be no chance of anyone creating a "forums" app in teams!
Brian Riesen commented
Please be sure to include Dark Mode as well, as the contrast when in dark mode is almost invisible in certain lighting and monitor conditions
Hello Alex, please please please... can you tell us anything about when this improvement will ship? This issue is causing huge problems for us! Important replies are being overlooked resulting in response times blowing out and deadlines not being met. I cannot stress enough: this problem is **the** major issue that is really destroying our confidence in using MS Teams.
Ueli Konrad commented
Hi Alex, any news on this? How is the progress with your tests of different designs?
joel Brun commented
after 2 years... still not a suitable solution ?
on android the UI is working each conversation are separated.
It's a shame that on desktop app (windows 10) and web app the UI is so confusing.
This user made a good summary of what we are experiencing
also please fix as soon as realistically possible! thank you.
This is the one issue I came here to comment about.
I think if users were given the option to give a newly created thread/conversation a title. That would have the positive side-effect of underlining the fact that the user is indeed creating a new thread and not just replying to an existing thread.
As an addition, it would be nice if admins had the option of stitching accidentally created conversations back into their intended threads.
Regardless, this original suggestion gets a big up-vote from me.
Sebastian Werner commented
If there is ONE ISSUE to name that makes the user adoption of Teams complicated in our organisation, it is this.
It's ridiculous how bad the UI is in this case, it needs to be solved asap.
This really is a major problem for us. Our customer-centred Teams sites all have Incidents channels to deal with incidents. We want to avoid having a separate channel for each incident because that would get messy fast. So we have a single Incidents channel for each site.
Now the problem is having a single conversation for each incident within the Incidents channel. With the current design that's impossible - people reply a few times then someone sees the big shiny text box at the bottom of the page instead of the insignificant Reply button and voila! a new conversation. A typical incident, which should be encapsulated in a single conversation, ends up being at least a dozen conversations.
Effectively conversations are non-existent because of the current UI design. It's absolutely impossible to get everyone to use that reply button.
Maybe you need to add the concept of "Threads" within a Channel. Something that would have its own URL which we could share, to ring-fence a conversation and prevent people starting new ones accidentally.
The sooner the better:
"Better visual delineation between `Reply` and `Start a new conversation`"
Rhajid Mundrustani commented
YES YES 1000x yes.
Even worse than straight up replying mistakenly at the bottom and creating a new convo, is when you actually DO create a new conversation. You press enter to send a line/paragraph. All fine..
EXCEPT THEN Your cursor then stays in the G.D. "new conversation" box so if you send another line/paragraph right away (aka speed typing focused on the work not focused on clicking new area of the screen) it creates another new conversation. Instead of letting you continue what you just started.
Renan Queiroz commented
I just add Microsft Teams to my organization team, and new users always have this misunderstood.
Please, put it on next release.
The communication from Microsoft on this is totally unacceptable.
There was another thread about this subject, and it was "in progress", what happened?
Dennis T commented
IMO much better implementation than Slack. I second the idea of starting a new conversation being a second order command while reply is the first order command.
Can we get an update? This is major!
I see that the development and product teams are still staffed entirely by Walmart greeters.
[Deleted User] commented
Please correct this. This should be a standard feature - "Start a new conversation" and the latest conversations should be at the top. Why that was not included from the beginning is very confusing.