I hate to share bad new, but the team has declined this suggestion.
This item is still on the backlog, but I’ll have a survey soon to gather additional feedback from you all.
Just hover over a person’s avator and click the org chart icon in the screen that appears. Or you can click the “Organization” tab in your 1:1 chat with them. If you want to move around your company’s org chart, just click the different people who appear in the chart.
Given Teams has implemented the basic org chart functionality (which is great!) it seems like a full "top down" org chart should be not only simple to provide but also a no-brainer feature.
This NEEDS to be provided!
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`”
Seeing the current "Working On It" status to minimize the "reply" button is upsetting.
It's extremely evident that users are still using the "new conversation" field to reply and making this "reply" button even more inconspicious is going to lead to more and more people screwing up the threaded chat.
If the reply button is going to be made smaller then it MUST be in conjunction with a change to how threaded conversations are started. Without making "Start a new conversation" a button of some sort - users will turn this threaded convo view into a giant messy chat room with no organization.
This seems insane to me.
If the reply button is made LESS pronounced then every channel will turn into a messy chat room with no organization!
I can understand how this request might have been generated from some small 5-person crew but with an org of 100+ people like ours, a less obvious way to "reply" will destroy functionality.
I believe there should be a button at the bottom for "Create a new post/convo" (as any threaded conversation platform has?) and the reply field can happen when you click on a convo - removing the wasted space and complaining from smaller groups.
The threaded conversations work great but I'd vote that the "reply" button needs to be completely rethought.
My users still (regardless of the multiple trainings) reply to conversations by creating their own topic because the "reply" button isn't intuitive.
Something needs to be reworked so that the layout drives a user toward correctly replying to a conversation.
I believe creating a button at the bottom that says "Create topic" which then allows users to enter text into the field would work much better and drive users to utilize the platform correctly.
Incredible that this wasn't rolled out with the platform. Very short-sighted.
This item is still under review.
No new details about when a decision may be made. I’ll keep an eye on it and let you know once I get details.
This item is on the backlog.
The team is working to determine the best way to implement this requested functionality.
I don’t have any additional info beyond that but I’ll keep working to get more details from the feature team.
Making good headway on this feature request. No release schedule is available yet, but I’ll let you know once I hear it!
Thank you all for your support and feedback.
This absolutely needs to be addressed. I've brought it up in other threads here that related to the reply button.
The 100+ employee org I maintain right now has a massive problem with accidentally creating a new convo instead of replying - heck, even i do it sometimes. Every other threaded convo system i'm aware of utilizes a "Create a new post" kind of button and that seems to be a universal standard that works very well.
I know a number of people were excited as this suggestions, however the feature team reviewed this request and it has been declined.
YES YES YES!!!!!
No big update. However, the ask about speech to text meeting notes needs to be a separate request and therefore I have created a new suggestion for it. You can go here and up vote it! https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103/suggestions/33534778
As for recording of video meetings, this is still coming along nicely.
Recording of meetings is on the roadmap for the Q2 2018 calendar year.
Still under review, no new details to share.
Can't move my entire dev/product team over until an import function is created.
**** - even a third party "so-so" bandaid would be good enough.
Item is still being reviewed.
I like Manny's idea below.
This is a preference based issue and should be "fixed" so that both sides win.
After reading a few of the "use cases" below - it seems the folks that are requesting the merger of "Chat" and "Teams" are ones working in small groups/companies.
For an org of our size - having these tabs combined would destroy functionality. Maybe it would be better to provide users (or admin) with the ability to pick between two "types" of views for Teams. One of these views could be better situated for those who only have a handful of people in their team.
We very much enjoy having the "peer to peer" chat functions (those from S4B) under a separate section.
If the "Teams" and "Chat" tabs were to be merged together, it would be a chaotic mess!
Allow admins to decide which style UI that works for their environment - forcing this kind of change down the pipe on us will absolutely move us away from Teams entirely.
Good news, this feature request is being actively worked upon.
No timeline is available yet, but I’ll keep an eye on this item and post more updates as they come in.
Thank you all for the feedback!
I have dropped S4B and migrated comepletely over to Teams in our org (100+ employees).
I get alot of complaints from users who want to be able to "mute" particular channels that may/may not apply to them. Currently you can only turn off notifications globally which is not effective.
Many of our users have turned off notifications entirely because they have no way to control which channels alert them - this is killing the adoption of the platform because now no one sees anything going on.
Still actively being worked upon. I don’t have a timeline but it is getting good traction.
I’ll post more info as it becomes available.
This is still under review.
As Suphatra mentioned, a lot of things will need to come together as this is a complex piece. I hope to have further details to share, but a this time it is still being investigated.
Thank you for all your feedback. I hope to have more news soon.
A must have!
No new updates, we are still working away on this.
The unified presence is getting closer to release! It is still in development and planning to launch in Q1 of 2018! (The Office 365 Roadmap can be found at: https://products.office.com/en-us/business/office-365-roadmap?featureid=24191#abc )
I’ll keep you posted as more information is shared!
"What is more important to you, having the presence be different (i.e. reflect your machine activity and not just your Teams activity) or having it be synchronous to Skype for Business?"
-- If Teams based it's presence off of machine activity then by nature it would be synchronized to S4B. Teams should be capable of being the only in house chat platform in an org. Those who have both only seem to do so because of the missing features that are slowly being implemented.
Why are you using Skype for Business and Teams at the same time? (I’m not being facetious, this is an actual user research question so I can understand your use case/scenario.)
--I've migrated all users off of Skype and over to Teams. There are alot of complaints currently with screen sharing, presence settings, and some other S4B features that aren't present - however this platform is fine for our 100+ employee organization.
I've successfully removed S4B from our environment and migrated all users to Teams (100+ employees)...
Unfortunately, they are all very frustrated with the "presence" functionality.
Why can't Team's presence system work the same way S4B did?
-Presence system is based on computer usage (not app usage)
-Presence system is integrated to outlook (scheduled meetings turn user to "busy" - etc)
I'll bet if these simple features were built into Teams - no one would complain about it.
You had a great system before - zero sense in changing it!
This item is still on the backlog. No new information is available at this time.
I’ll keep an eye on this request and let you know as soon as I have additional feedback.
But an issue that MUST be addressed none-the-less
No new updates. We continue to work towards the S4B convergence.
Official roadmap for the convergence: https://skypeandteams.blob.core.windows.net/artefacts/Skype%20for%20Business%20to%20Teams%20Capabilities%20Roadmap.pdf
I've moved our entire org over to Teams and disable Skype across the board.
There is no reason I can find for our environment (or any other environment) to need both if Teams can provide some of the core features provided by S4B.
-Screensharing needs to not require a video/phone call
-Presence integration into outlook is a MUST
-Presence system based on device usage NOT app usage is a must
If we can get those things in place - 95% of my user complaints will be solved and our environment will no longer have a use for S4B
The desktop screenshare is an important feature of skype that my users utilized often.
Forcing users to do a video conference first before being able to share their screen is a huge inconvenience. Either allow users to set a preference so that their webcam is not defaulted on during a video call or provide a way to share a screen outside of a video call.