We got a flood of feedback in research not to eliminate this button completely, but to minimize it. So you’ll see a design change soon that makes the Reply button a little bit less conspicuous.
Let me know if you have any questions!
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 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.
This suggestion is hilarious and totally worthy of serious consideration. I’ll pass this to our design group!
Thanks for helping us make Teams awesome. :-)
YES YES YES!!!!!
Send me a tweet at @skprufo if you have any questions on this. I’ll let you know when it goes live.
I know this feature will make migrating to Teams much easier for so many of you
- and that’s why its an important feature. We’re having trouble implementing it because it requires access to information and functionality not yet exposed (create teams, channels, write messages, “imitating” real users, etc.). So, we first are working to make this functionality available-namely, providing a “Create Teams” API, which is difficult and complicated, and thus going to take much longer than we anticipated.
Thus, I am interested in crowdsourcing your creative brains for alternative solutions that could work temporarily while we work on this feature. If you have any ideas or hacks you’ve done to import data from another productivity tool, please share!
Thanks so much, especially for your support of Teams.
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.
Thank you for this feedback!
You’re right, Sam: the only difference between these two tabs are their privacy settings. They have the same function: chatting.
While we may not implement the solution above, we hear the feedback loud and clear and are reviewing the problem.
Thank you for your feedback and please continue to help us make Teams great!
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.
This gained a lot of traction five months ago and seems to have tappered off. Now that we’ve created “Follow a channel” — do you still have a business need for this feature? If so, could you share that information in the thread here on UserVoice, under this item.
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.
Thanks everyone, I’ve sent your feedback over to the Framework team. They are working on a solution. Will let you know as this progresses.
So it turns out there are some several external dependencies that are hindering our plans for this feature. We are pulling it back into review so we can determine feasibility. Here’s to hoping we find a way to bring this to you — right now its very difficult. We are not taking this off the table though; we know this is an important feature, so we’re tracking the external dependencies to see where they land.
A must have!
Start off your weekend with good news: we’re working on this!
Thanks to everyone who brought this feature to the forefront and shared feedback on their use case scenario. Very helpful!
I wrote some more product updates on today’s Teams blog in my weekly column, “Weekend Reading” —
"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!
But an issue that MUST be addressed none-the-less
“Leave a chat” is currently in our Ring 1 for internal testing, so you’ll see it soon once it passes our validation tests.
“Must a chat” is on the backlog, so we haven’t started work on this yet.
Hope you’re enjoying your July!
Adding a +1 on this.
We've moved our entire org over from S4B to Teams and this has become a huge pain point.
If someone creates a group and some users decide they don't want to be apart of it - there is no escape and they are constantly hit with notifications on something they don't want/need.
I can understand this being a missed item at launch but for it to still continue being an issue is crazy. This is a MUST HAVE and needs to be correctly immediately.
This is under review! If you have more ideas/feedback specifically on this item, please sign up for user testing here: https://1drv.ms/xs/s!AryUNzh1ogZzif8pDcOcx2pW45I87w
You can also tweet me at @skprufo if you have any questions.
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.
Hey guys, I’m rallying to get you more info. In the meantime, here’s the official response from our PR team:
“We are actively working on guest access. Thanks for your patience and stay tuned for more."
I share in your frustration and promise we are dedicated to delivering this feature, and I promise to continue to advocate for you. I appreciate your investment in us and Teams’ success.
If you have any questions, as always — just email or tweet.
skprufo Email: sparavimicrosoft.com
VERY unhappy to find out that I was unable to allow my users to share files within their groups externally. I assumed this would be more of an internal tool by nature but allowing external parties in to an extent is a MUST if I have any hope of migrating our users away from Slack.
Hi everyone, wanted to give you an update since it’s been a while.
We did resolve this issue, and have this live in our internal rings — we are now starting to move it along our outer rings for more validation testing. It was having some validation issues before, which is why the fix didn’t come out sooner, but it should move much more smoothly now.
I’m anticipating this will be done by the end of the month. I’ll make sure to update you once its complete. Thanks so much for your patience, and for helping us make Teams great!
This is insane.
Skype for Business/Lync did it right. It showed if the user was available or away (literally).
This "update" to Teams now automatically switches you away but requires manual intervention in order to be shown as available?! Whoever made this decision needs to stop providing input.