SharePoint
Feedback by UserVoice

David

My feedback

  1. 1,734 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    295 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Modern Pages  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    In modern pages, we open links within SharePoint in the same tab by default, and external links in a new tab. In the text web part, users can specify to open links in a new tab, but that isn’t the default behavior. Similarly, for navigation links, they follow the same rule (within SharePoint, same tab, external to SharePoint in a new tab). This is true of the modern web parts that support linking as well (hero, quick links, images, etc.) This is the pattern we’ve adopted for consistency.

    After reviewing other areas of modern sites, like the site pages library, document libraries, lists, site contents, etc. we did find some different opening behaviors which we’ll review and resolve.

    Can you help us understand if this pattern isn’t meeting your expectation, if we have some inconsistencies within modern pages we’ve missed, or if it’s the other areas of modern sites where…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    Microsoft, it has been more than a year since you asked for more feedback, when will you be doing something about this issue!! How can you not understand the problem by now?!

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    I find that for the most part links within a SharePoint site do open in the same browser tab. However, I did find that opening Office documents in a library opened in a new tab, as did pages within a page library. This seems to be inconsistent with what Microsoft said should be occurring in their May 15, 2019 response.

    Also, the link to the W3 recommendation from the original poster of the issue no longer seems to work. I found the information at http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G200, and W3 recommends only opening a tab in two situations:

    1. Opening a new tab would cause a disruption in a workflow. For example, you are filling out a form and there is a link to help information. The help information should open in a new tab so as not to disrupt filling out the form.
    2. When you are logged into a secure site, and the link takes you to an external site that would cause it to terminate your logon.

    The W3 page references this resource https://www.webcredible.com/blog/beware-opening-links-new-window/ that discusses why links should not be opened in a new tab.

    David supported this idea  · 
  2. 9 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Document Libraries  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    Since the list view web part has the option to hide the command bar, when this option is selected, it should also hide the "see all" link.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    When I add the list web part to a page, the reason I do it is because I don't want the user accessing all of the items in the library or list. Therefore, there should the option to hide the "see all" link. Why is this needed on a page? It is easy enough to add a link to a page that goes to the list or library if I wanted the user to be able to access all items.

  3. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David supported this idea  · 
  4. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Web Parts  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David supported this idea  · 
  5. 10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Web Parts  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    Sorting the quick links by dragging them does not always sort how I want them to. For some reason, when I move one it unexpectedly moves other links and messes up the entire order.

    Allow for a simple check box to sort alphabetically in ascending/descending order.

  6. 2,918 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    229 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Document Libraries  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    With the current pandemic and utilizing MS Teams more, I think I have realized why Microsoft didn't think about renaming channels and the folders created in the SharePoint document library behind them. We're using it wrong.

    I believe the intent of channels were to facilitate conversations. The document library behind them was just intended to manage the attachments that people put into conversations. It was never intended to be a replacement for a formal SharePoint site or document library.

    Channels also were not intended to be renamed, and especially the corresponding SharePoint library folders behind them. Once a conversation had run its course in a channel, it was intended to be deleted and a new channel (conversations) would be added as needed.

    The files in the SharePoint library were just to store the files as long as you needed to keep the conversation around. If the documents were formally needed as part of a process, then they should be stored in a regular SharePoint site, which is why you can display a SharePoint site in a tab.

    Teams was thus intended to facilitate conversations and meetings, while SharePoint was intended to manage documents and lists and the two would work together.

    Thoughts? Agree/disagree?

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    Even though MS says they're working on this, maybe they are not since this is really an issue with Teams even though it uses a SharePoint document library. Everyone who has voted for this here should also vote for this on the Teams UserVoice at https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103-public/suggestions/38916427-rename-of-team-channel-doesn-t-rename-associated-s which only has two (2) votes.

    David supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    Maybe Microsoft hasn't responded because they're confused by the description, while everyone else knows what the original person intended by this suggestion.

    If Microsoft is reading this feedback, the issue has to do with renaming a "Channel" in teams, which results in the corresponding SharePoint folder not being renamed. If you rename the folder in SharePoint to correspond to the updated channel name, when you click on the Open in SharePoint link, the link does not get updated and it says it cannot be found.

  7. 3,635 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    351 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Document Libraries  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    The ability to complete PDF forms is even more important with Microsoft ending support for InfoPath. Since Microsoft's PowerApps solution for forms is so complicated, moving to PDF forms, which are so much easier to create, would provide a viable solution to non-developers. Combined with PowerAutomate or Azure Logic Apps, this would become a good replacement for SharePoint Designer workflows and InfoPath.

    David supported this idea  · 
  8. 67 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David supported this idea  · 
  9. 70 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    I realistically don't see Microsoft doing this. They seem intent on driving more companies to adopt PowerApps and Flow where they charge for its use. However, if they want to drive companies to paying for Flow and PowerApps, they need to make both of the development tools for these much easier to use as you stated in your suggestion.

    David supported this idea  · 
  10. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    David shared this idea  · 
  11. 7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    David supported this idea  · 
  12. 29 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    David supported this idea  · 
  13. 46 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Document Libraries  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    As others have said, InfoPath is so much easier and faster to use than PowerApps, especially when combined with the power of SharePoint Designer workflows. Unless you make PowerApps and FLOW much easier to use (and reliable), you need to maintain support for InfoPath and Designer Workflows as many organizations have built critical applications around the use of these two tools.

    It takes an enormous amount of effort to transform an existing solution to the newer tools. If Microsoft is "moving the ball forward," it shouldn't take more effort to build a solution using modern tools than it does with tools you are retiring.

  14. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Suggestion Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David shared this idea  · 
  15. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Suggestion Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David shared this idea  · 
  16. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SharePoint Administration » User Profile Services  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David shared this idea  · 
  17. 73 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    5 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Modern Pages  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  18. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Suggestion Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David shared this idea  · 
  19. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  Suggestion Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    David commented  · 

    I would expand this to include creating a new number format where you can exclude the thousand separator, and you can also specify a number of leading zeros (similar to how you can specify the number of digits displayed after the comma). Leading zeros in a field are useful in so many ways, but especially for a ZIP code field where a leading zero is valid.

  20. 43 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Document Libraries  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    David supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base