Could we have a shortcut that just cycles between virtual desktops?
I'm just starting to use virtual desktops and it's odd that they are "in a line with ends" in the interface. If you only have two open and can't remember whether the one you're in now is "on the right" or "on the left", you have a 50% chance of the shortcut you choose doing nothing (referring to ctrl+Win+Right and ctrl+Win+Left). Is there a reason that continuing to press one shortcut doesn't cycle back around to the other side of a "loop"? Could something like "Ctrl+Win+Up" be used to just cycle through desktops, or maybe switching to the most recent other desktop like "Win+Tab" used to do for "most recent Window"? Sorry if this is in the wrong place or a duplicate. I'll gladly re-ask it elsewhere if needed.
Teams vs Yammer / Facebook Workplace
Our business moved to Facebook Workplace last year, previously we were using Yammer. We also have MS Teams with a Business wide team. So what benefit does Yammer or Facebook Workplace have over teams? Nothing. All it does is create a information fragmentation and cause confusion for users. The whole inner loop and outer loop talk means nothing if they cannot explicitly state when to use one software over another and provide functional reasons why one is better than the other. Teams is rapidly becoming the go to area for everything within business so why shouldn't it encompass all features of Yammer and Workplace If teams has pretty much the exact same functionality as Yammer / Facebook Workplace (i.e. only differences being the two mentioned below, which can be rectified through the UserVoices linked below, please vote), why not create the exact same communities that are in Yammer in Teams. Have a org wide team, have all the smaller communities people would join, just in teams. Then they can come and go as they please from those teams. For getting work done they still then have all of their normal project teams or department teams etc. there as well. Discover-ability of teams is going to get better in September, so why have two platforms which again confuses people. Its almost as if there is no point in public groups within teams as all those end up being are communities in Yammer and generally work the same way. Can some one please provide some direct functional differences between the platforms that cause Yammer / Workplace better for general community communication (other than the two mentioned below). Because from what I have seen and from all my experience with the platforms there are pretty much none. So why not just create the functionality of Yammer / Workplace (i.e. knowledge sharing communities) within teams. Uservoice: Embed Media within Teams so that you don't have to open a separate browser to play videos and it plays inline in the conversation feed area (exactly like Yammer and Facebook does): https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com/forums/555103-public/suggestions/16945996-embed-media?category_... Personalized feed (more an improvement to the activity feed in teams to match the Facebook / Yammer personalized feed that takes conversations from all communities you are apart of. I cant find the UserVoice right now for the personal feed. Yammer and Teams are apart of the same subscriptions so why does Microsoft waste development costs on Yammer when they aren't getting any more subscriptions from it. Put all of the development into Teams and incorporate the only two features Yammer or workplace has that differentiate them, then it becomes the powerhouse for everything a business does and needs. Then all information is in one place, all tasks will be in one place (new teams tasks app, when it finally gets released), all internal calls/meetings and comm's in one place (bar email for external users), workflows in one place through power automate linked to teams, SharePoint site linked to a org wide group and team for its intranet, all associated files stored in one place linked to the team. There's my rant over but still i would really like to know why there are two platforms when they do pretty much the exact same thing. Don't mention inner and outer loops because that is just marketing talk that means nothing when we look at actual functionality. Does anyone have any clear cut reasons to keep the platforms separate?Adding a Translator Widget to the Tools Section of the Sidebar
Feature Request The Tools section of the Sidebar has almost every widget one would need, even including a handy dictionary. However, it is missing at least one additional tool: the translator! It seems that the widgets inside the Tools section are the same ones displayed when you search for them with Bing, so adding the translator should be easy. The translator is a powerful tool and having it alongside these other tools is necessary! An Additional Thought (it may be related, but is really a separate idea) Depending on how the dictionary widget works, it might be a cool idea to be able to select a lookup language. If I have a word in another language and I want the definition, it would be convenient to just ask the dictionary for the definition of that word (and be able to tell the dictionary the language to which it belongs); as opposed to having to use the translator (which isn't included in the Tools section) to get the word in English, then going back to the dictionary to get the definition.Integrate Audio into Tasks
I would love if the application had an integration of voice messages for example into the creation or the detailed section of each task. Oftentimes I don't have time to detail the tasks thoroughly and having the ability to register my voice would speed up my workflow massively. I'm not proposing a speech to text feature but the ability to have a voice message linked to a task. Implementation wise I would hope that we have the option to create audio only tasks and even if there is a time limit in order to prevent server issues, I believe this feature would have enormous benefits for the users. Alternatively, even linking voice messages would be helpful, given that the application is used globally and most languages don't have the option of being transcribed.
Feature Request: Add an optional user-defined description field to bookmarks
Hello! I'm constantly re-naming and re-organizing my bookmarks (favorites) so that they make the most sense to my future self when I have to circle back to some resource I might not have even thought about in quite some time. But it can be difficult to put enough information in the 'Name' field to remind me if it's really the location I want to be opening. One feature that I think would be really beneficial is to add an additional 'Description' field that can be defined when creating/editing a bookmark (favorite). If this field is populated with some text, then it should be displayed in the bookmark's tooltip when hovering over it. I see no issue having this field be character limited to some number of characters, as long as it can contain a couple of sentences. I think this would be a really neat feature that would enable users to have much simpler 'file structures' for their bookmarks (favorites), while also making their bookmarks more reliable over time. Sometimes users will make multiple links to various sub-pages that all exist within the same website. But with this extra information available, one could more easily just link to the higher-level URL of a website; because the bookmark (favorite) description could contain just enough info to help them find what they need from the one access point. Often, websites re-organize their pages in ways that could break old bookmarks, but higher-level URLs of a website change much less frequently. So this feature wouldn't just make navigating your bookmarks easier; in practice, it would also allow the user to make useful bookmarks that would be more reliable over time. Please let me know what you think! Cheers, -Dan
Various suggestions.
Add custom block lists to the crawl prevention feature. I also suggest that custom preferences for browser extensions be synced. I would also like there to be an option in the browser translator to translate only the selected text, that is, the text is selected and when the text is selected a translator icon appears offering the possibility to translate only the selected text instead of all the page, this is done by many extensions but it would be nice if it is something native to the browser. The custom settings of the browser flags are not saved either, this would also like it to sync. The browser's site preferences are also not synchronized. And it would also be good to remove the support for Adobe Flash from the browser as it is somewhat obsolete. And the latter would be an excellent innovation, I think. That the browser does not use the HTTPS / SSL certificates of the operating system, that it uses the HTTPS / SSL certificates that are in the cloud on a Microsoft server. You could also put the entire storage of the browser in the cloud. This would be innovation in security since all the data of the browser would be in the cloud and not in the operating system, thus avoiding infections. It would no longer be necessary to use litter boxes for the browser. This initiative could even be extended to Windows, for example, that the operating system is on the cloud and not on a local physical disk of the computers. I don't know if it will be easy to implement or if you think it may be difficult to implement, but I think Microsoft has the necessary talent in your people to carry out any innovation. Thank you very much. Best regards. E-.
