Sam Hall
My feedback
-
12,702 votes
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.
Sam Hall
supported this idea
·
-
2,224 votes
This feature is still being reviewed by the feature team. No decision has been made yet. I’ll keep you posted.
-Warren
-
5,750 votes
We have been iterating on different designs and are starting to test internally. I don’t have a timeframe but will keep you posted.
Sam Hall
commented
I rarely use Teams, but occasionally someone mentions me in a channel so I get and email, which forces me to open the platform. Then I tend to reply by starting a new conversation, then I realise my mistake which enrages me and I give up on it once again.
-
53 votesSam Hall
commented
Microsoft shouldn't try to shoehorn a **** Wiki feature into Teams. Just provide the integration hooks for decent wiki platforms and be done with it. How much time and effort will the Microsoft Teams dev team have to waste on this feature which is fundamentally flawed? At least change the name to avoid confusion. It's more like a place where people post content that other platforms would consider "Sticky Posts" or at best it's a "Channel Notes" feature. A Wiki it is not.
-
65 votesSam Hall
commented
I agree, this "Wiki" feature is useless bloat. I found the feature amusing at best, especially the way you can actually have multiple Wiki's in a single channel (just to confuse it's purpose even further). Fragmented knowledge, hidden and scattered across channels really flies in the face of what a "Wiki" is about.
When I look around our Teams channels, the wiki feature's usage is limited to what I'd call sticky posts on other platforms.
Sam Hall
supported this idea
·
-
4,512 votes
I’m happy to share that the team has started exploring designs for this feature.
Sam Hall
supported this idea
·
As a team leader, this is a terrible idea (I'd have thought that the reasons are obvious, I mean the clue is in the name of the product). A successful team collaboration tool should offer private IM features as an exception to the normal channels of communication. Blurring the distinction between the two features is not conducive to open and collaborative discourse. I would have to abandon using Teams as a team collaboration tool if this were implemented and I'd suggest you rename it to something less misleading if you did implement this.