We have to write feature requests for obvious bugs now? If someone no longer exists in AD why are you clogging up Teams with "Unknown User" records? This is ridiculous
Thanks everyone for the clarifications to this request. Upon further technical review, we have decided to decline this request at this time.
Please continue to contribute your ideas — they push us to innovate, problem solve, and really understand your needs.
yes, in a channel. We need weapons to deal with Teams' disasterous thread design in channels. About 10% of the people I work with understand how to use Teams 'properly' and not use the 'Create a new conversation' compose box to reply to existing threads. Everyone else just creates threads with their replies, and our channels are a huge mess. We're either playing thread police, making people delete and re-post their replies properly (thus making them never want to use Teams again because we've made them feel stupid) or channels just decend into anarchy. The *right* thing would be for you all to actually fix this incredibly user hostile design, by for instance removing the 'create new conversation' compose box *entirely* from channels, forcing people to click Reply under threads, and forcing new-thread-creation as an explicit action under a "New" or "+" button. But as long as you insist on having at least 2 compose boxes on screen at any time (again, this is INSANELY BAD UX), you need to offer admins weapons to police threads without badgering people about it.
Teams is seeing pretty great adoption in our IT organization but there are some folks that struggle with the threads concept and frequently enter replies to threads as separate conversations. This can really create confusing discussions to follow in our channels.
Right now I do a lot of polite messaging 1 on 1 to help people with this. It's no fun because people don't like to feel like they're doing the wrong thing, and it makes them also have a reason to say they don't like the tool.
I already have a suggestion (or have voted for) to allow admins / owners to re-thread messages, hopefully through some drag and drop method.
I think though you guys should take a more aggressive approach in handling these users who are struggling with the threaded concept. I think it would really benefit all your customers and your adoption strongly.
If you could detect when users appear to be replying, but are actually starting new threads, and maybe pop up an alert saying hey, you were just replying to a thread, but now you're about to start a new one, did you mean to still be replying to the thread? Or maybe this is a job T-Bot could do, helpfully messaging people with pictures / gifs showing them how threads should be used.
I think this is a big UX/adoption opportunity and I would love to see you guys pursue it!
This feature request is working its way through the backlog queue. No new details are available yet.
I don't personally have a need for scenario A, it is Scenario B that for me needs to be further explored and defined.
"be able to add an existing SP site as a tab into a channel" is option B, but that can be many things, right?
Rarely would I want a tab to just be an entire sharepoint site - but if I did, I could use the existing web view tab and accomplish that (and indeed in some channels I do exactly this).
But a SharePoint site is really a collection of apps right? What I think Option B needs to be expanded into, is Tab support for these various SharePoint apps *AND* a philosophy that for *all* SharePoint App-Based Tabs there is ALWAYS an option to select an existing one rather than just always create new.
It is not particularly important to me what is happening on the back end between the Team and the SharePoint site and the Group etc etc. I just want to be able to say (in any channel, on any Team in my org) "this specific SharePoint resource is important to this channel and should be a tab." - and today the ability to do this is very hodgepodge.
Here is a rundown of SharePoint apps and their support as Tabs in the current state, ordered by their own frequency of use for myself:
* SharePoint Lists. Currently no real support for Tabs at all. Only option is to use Web Site tab and link to the list. This is way better than nothing but native support of lists as tabs would be neat.
* SharePoint Document Libraries - *Already fully supported!* in fact this has been supported since launch of Public Preview. Great job on this implementation guys!! This implementation should be the model for *all your other SharePoint apps tabs!*
* SharePoint OneNote Notebooks - You guys are *so close* here - if you simply had the create Notes tab UI mimic the SharePoint Document Library UI *exactly* it would be perfect. Right now you only allow creating a new notebook. Let me just give you the URL of an existing Notebook in SharePoint please!!
I hope this helps!
Adding any emoji as a reaction remains under review.
I am marking this as partially done to let you know a new reactions bar with Like, Heart, Laugh, Surprised, Sad, and Angry has begun rolling out to all users.
2, with 1 being an option for (grumpy and lame) administrators.
We’re updating our command library all the time, so keep checking the menu in the command box to see what’s new by typing / or @.
This is the most logical integration point between Flow and Teams.
172 votes31 comments · Public » Apps, Connectors, Messaging Extensions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
The feature team has declined this request due to the fact that a similar experience already exists.
You can achieve very similar functionality with the existing integration. The OneNote integration has been redesigned so that you can add an entire notebook as a channel tab, but always show a particular section (be it new or existing). Within each tab, you can also create other sections as well as pages within any section to better organize your notes.
Thank you for your feedback and suggestions.
Thanks to everyone who volunteered for testing the Office 365 group calendar. The TAP team will be reaching out as we are closer to being ready.