Thomas Nimstad

My feedback

  1. 7,547 votes
    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)

      We’ll send you updates on this idea

      939 comments  ·  Public » UX/Design  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
      planned  ·  Suphatra responded

      Hi everyone, thank you for your patience since the last update.

      We want to extend a huge thanks to all of you who have engaged with us on this topic of compact chat. Your input has been invaluable and helped inform our design and decision-making.

      As we look to 2019, we will be pursuing plans to continue to make the product more and more space efficient. We see this as a guiding design principle, as well as a backlog of requests from UserVoice that we catalogue, discuss, debate, brainstorm and problem solve.

      This principle is also why we will not be making a sharp design turn towards a permanently heavy dense design. Our user base is a wide range of people — such as high school students, the visually impaired, open source developers, and your every day knowledge worker. Because of our broad reach, we must maintain a standard of…

      Thomas Nimstad commented  · 

      @Sean Ellis. Amen to that!

      Thomas Nimstad commented  · 

      @James O; Well, the threading is part of the reason the chat flow sucks. I've personally never seen any good threading ever. The most popular old forums like PhpBB based ones etc was all single thread, and that's for a reason. There were those with thread but none of them went popular. And after being using Teams for close to two months I can see how the threads just create confusions for all members of the channel, not sure where to reply, and spawning new threads because missing out on details in another etc etc. A single flow would be much more straight forward. And interesting part is that Slack added threads but put them in separate flows, most certainly for the reasons I lists above. That said, having it configurable would make sense as long as we get rid of all the Reply links and excessive spacing.

      Thomas Nimstad commented  · 

      @Micah
      I think you're talking about the 1:1 chat. That one is ok, even though there could be small improvements (like removing the redundant name printed above each chat message since it's a 1:1 chat).

      What I'm referring to, and what all other have reacted to, is the Teams > Channel chat where it's impossible to run a good dialogue due to the bloated interface with the Reply separator and excessive spacing and horribly sized emoticons etc.

      As being the general opinion the "Reply" link needs to be an icon on the right side. Personally I like to get rid of threaded chats completely, it just confusing.

      Hopefully we will get configuration options per Channel where the creator can configure "Allow threaded messages Yes / No" etc. Then everyone can do their choices.

      Thomas Nimstad shared this idea  · 
    • 1,918 votes
      Sign in
      Check!
      (thinking…)
      Reset
      or sign in with
      • facebook
      • google
        Password icon
        Signed in as (Sign out)

        We’ll send you updates on this idea

        189 comments  ·  Public » Messaging  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
        declined  ·  Warren responded

        Hate to be the bearer of bad news. This item has been declined. There will be no work to hide or remove the reply button.

        As many people have commented, a big ask is to help improve how people distinguish between giving a reply and starting a new message.
        For that the focus will be on this item. “Better visual delineation between `Reply` and `Start a new conversation`”
        http://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103/suggestions/19224826

        Thomas Nimstad commented  · 

      Feedback and Knowledge Base