Obviously, given that they've just declined the request to not show the "reply" button under every message, this is never happening. So long, Teams, it was terrible while it lasted.Jesse McNaughton shared this idea ·
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`”
Yup. Can't admit when you made a mistake.
Product is dead. Anybody interested in a slack competitor may as well look elsewhere.
Yet another "update, no update" response. The complete lack of meaningful information in the responses from MS staff on any topic which is not already baked into their Skype for Business / Teams convergence plan is frankly insulting.
This is a watershed topic for this product. It's obvious that Microsoft has designed this product to push people to use the threaded replies "by default" and end the Slack model of having one main conversation where asynchronous replies are the exception. The UI has a ton of problems when you try to use it like Slack, which are mostly mitigated when you use it as MS obviously intends.
The problem is that Slack is never going away, and more to the point, Slack absolutely owns this market because one-big-conversation is INTUITIVE. Reading the comments on this thread, it's clear that this is polarizing, but a lot of the comments in favor of the threaded-by-default model have to do with other people in those rooms preferring the slack model. The more you manipulate the UI to push people toward threads, the more you're going to ostracize and frustrate the folks who prefer the Slack model. And those folks are simply not going to go away.
And frankly, a happy-medium option isn't viable either. So long as there are two camps, one that prefers threads and another that prefers root-level messages, trying to appease both is going to leave Teams a total mess.
Honestly this is a fight MS lost before they even started. Accept it and move on - the slack model is intuitive, and works. inline replies should be treated as interjections, their UI options minimized, and the conversation flow left alone. You're simply not going to improve on the Slack UI.
We’re currently working on defining a compact mode experience. I will post more details when we have more to share.
Reply: Less white space.
But also: I can only speak for myself, but I'd be willing to bet that a large portion, possibly a majority of the outcry on this issue is really about the "reply" button. People are coming to Teams after having used Slack, Discord, and even IRC, and they are simply typing new comments into their channels (rather than replying to existing comments). They are using Teams conversationally, which is intuitive, but doing so results in an AWFUL user experience with immense amounts of intentional white space and a screen full of ugly reply buttons.
Unless you're willing to reconsider the decision to force every root-level comment in a channel to generate a "reply" button - to be treated, in essence, as a new conversation topic, this problem will never go away.
Doing so would be a fundamental redesign of the product, but it would be a fundamental improvement as well. What you've built, here, is so much worse for most people than a simple IRC server.
I should also note that, should MS try to cater to both camps and offer a UI which removes the white space between root-level comments and the "reply" button on every post, Teams will still be a second-rate product so long as the other aspects of this design concept remain in place. For example, the fact that a comment will move to the bottom if someone replies to it.
@Chris Webb: this entire thread is about providing an option for a cleaner, tighter UI. Emphasis on "option." In an ideal world, the entire UI would be configurable, with each individual feature having a separate setting - I could remove the reply button, but you could keep it.
That said, don't presume to tell me that I'm using the product "wrong." It doesn't matter how the product was intended to be used, it matters how customers want to use it. Starting threads is great for interjecting an asynchronous response, but is not a reasonable "default conversation mode" for most users - at least not the users I've interacted with.
Gino, it's not clear whether the items listed in your last post are already implemented, or pending implementation. Can you clarify this?
Your list of changes is missing some desperately needed items:
- The reply button on every single post is simply awful. At the very least, move it off to one side, so that it claims some of the width of the post, rather than increasing its length. Even better, put it behind the context menu along with the Edit / Delete / Unread options.
- Collapse an individual user's consecutive messages into a single, multi-line message (don't repeat their name, and the individual timestamps, for each consecutive message by the same user)
- Distance between posts is much too large. Not clear whether this is what you refer to about "Gutters reduced" nor, again, whether that's already implemented or pending
- Posts seem to line-break for no reason, even when they are not filling anywhere near the full width of the page.
- The sidebar font is too large, as is the width of the sidebar itself
- Once I've dismissed the prompt to install the mobile apps, stop showing it
- Provide the option to upload an avatar for my account, not just for teams
- Allow for the option to hide the website previews by default when members post links