We are working on a design with more density in mind. Until this design is solidified we are putting this item back to Under Review.
9 votesRichard Bradley shared this idea ·
It looks like some people in the thread below have figured it out — we actually have this. You can start a chat both ways; the system will automatically recognize if this person is on Skype for Business or on Teams.
Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.
Whilst it is true that we can initiate chat both ways, there are some issues and further unification would be very beneficial.
I am speaking from the perspective of using the browser view of both Skype and Teams (I need to maintain a platform agnostic approach with the use of various operating systems including) mixed with the apps view (e.g. on mobile phones).
Until Teams can fully replace the Skype interface then it is inevitable that some users will have both Teams and Skype open (in a mail or calendar tab). If a chat session is initiated from Skype then the Teams view does not register the conversation. This means that the conversation can not continue when the user moves away from their browser and relies on their mobile Teams app. This means that they then have to use the mobile Skype app.
When a Skype user responds to (or initiates a conversation) then the user is often notified in Skype and Teams becomes irrelevant.
If the user doesn't immediately acknowledge the message then there are times when both Skype and Teams creates a notification. Reading the message in one app (or browser tab) does not clear the notification in the other views of Teams (or Skype) and our users are becoming frustrated by clearing them down.
This thread has been going for some time now and we're not seeing any resolution.
Associated with the chat streams in Office 365 documents, this chat unification topic is one of the most significant defects that we are having to address with our users.
This feature request is still in the works. No additional updates are available at this time. I’ll keep you posted as I hear more.
As a Team owner I would like the choice of: whether documents can be opened in the desktop app at all; or permit the Team members to choose; or set desktop or on-line as the default.
115 votesWarren responded
Thank you all very much for the great response. The survey is now closed. The feature team will be reviewing all the data that was gathered and responded based on the findings.
Again, thank you for helping us make Microsoft Teams the best it can be.
It would be great for the owner to be able to choose who can actively collaborate in the edit of a document (editors) and who can only view (viewers).
Not wishing to take away from the capability of the desktop implementation of editors (e.g. Word, Powerpoint etc.) it would also be very useful to be able to prevent editors from using anything other than the "on-line" version so that we have real time edit collaboration and avoid the issues with one or more people trying to work on their own desktop version of it.
I might be pushing things a little here but to add to owner, editor and viewer roles it would also be useful to have a "comment" role where the person can't modify the document as such but can embed comments and see comments from others (I'm not referring to the conversation stream associated with the document - I am referring to the comments inserted directly into a document for review). This would be perfect for reviewing contracts and other complex documents where edit control is very important.
It is great that I can get an email notification when I miss a chat message. Based on one I missed yesterday, it looks like Teams waits 30 minutes before sending the email. I have no issue with this but I suspect that some of my users might like to be able to configure how long it waits.
That said, a test performed today has not resulted in an email notification being received yet - even after waiting over an hour. I am logged into Teams and I can currently see a notification in an inactive browser window but the message remains unread.
However, this is not the only reason for my feedback – it is about consistency and intuitiveness…
The content of the email notification and the action of clicking on "Open Microsoft Teams" could be improved and perhaps these notes and attached screen-shots may help explain.
I am 100% focused on the browser experience of E1 users - the user base has a mixture of Windows, MAC and Chromebook users as well as iPhone, iPad and Android smart phones and tablets (and there is no requirement for the additional cost of E3 licenses).
1. The email from Teams to my Office 365 account results in some of the content being blocked “To help protect [my] privacy…” A Microsoft product blocking a Microsoft communication over fears for my privacy! It blocks the Teams icon and the speech quotes bubble.
2. The content of the email presents the time in a remote time zone. Irrespective of whether I and using English (American) or English (UK), the likelihood of me wanting to see it in the PST zone depends on where I am in the world. This is not consistent or intuitive. The time I received the email in the attached example was 19:19 GMT (UTC+0) half an hour after the message was sent shown in the email body as 10:49 AM PST (no consistency in 24-hour versus 12 hour time presentation either).
3. For some strange reason there is a lot of white space at the bottom of the email that keeps going however much I scroll down!
4. When I click on “Open Microsoft Teams” it doesn’t just toggle me to an already open browser view, it opens a new browser tab and tries to open the link URL:msteams (which does nothing useful if the Teams App is not installed – which can’t be installed on a Chromebook and is undesirable to install amongst the user base for which we want to provide a browser-only experience.
5. In the newly opened tab it suggests I might like to “Open web app”. It would be very good for this to be configurable so that it knows I never want it to ask me (or my other web-only users).
At least when the Web app does open it takes me to the conversation I missed – so it is useful – just a shame it takes so many mouse clicks and time to load the page of information.
This item remains on the backlog.