Cool! Thanks for the hard work.
Moving the list of pages to the left side makes a lot of sense. I like that and look forward to seeing it.
I'm excited about the ability to have conditional groups in record details and forms. I'm guessing that it will only be available on the new record details pages with their limited design choices. I haven't moved to them yet, but this might push me in that direction. Will the conditions be able to be set based on a formula result?
Can I submit a request? When editing an interface, I have often accidentally changed data, especially accidentally creating new records or new linked records. When editing an interface, would it be possible to prevent actually editing the data? Maybe limit editing data to when in preview mode?
Thanks @kuovonne!
Glad you like the move of the page list - note you can also minimize this if you want more screen space in Interface Designer.
re: conditional groups - yes this will only be available in the new record details and forms layouts. With respect to conditions being set based on formulas - could you share a use case you have in mind on what you want to happen? We are scoping out the work now so any details you have in mind are helpful!
Consider the request submitted! I've shared it with the team and we'll be keeping an eye out for similar feedback from other customers to inform our roadmap.
I can't wait for
- Conditional logic on record detail & form layouts
If that means that record details could show different fields (or allow for editing) based on set conditions, that would be great for task management. Such as projects that involve different steps, and you want certain fields to be completed before employees move on.
Also it would help with the record detail views becoming too crowded. Which is why I hope pagination or slides in record views could come about.
I would love:
- Pagenation for record details
- conditional (visible) fields based on conditions in record details;
- floating headers and/or more dynamic headers for record details where you can store important details beyond just one field
- Ability to assign specific color selection charts. It is frustrating when I cannot purposely select the colors I want.
- CSV download button.
As for non-Interface specific items that I would love:
- An improved formula validation/error indication. When writing and editing formulas, the explanation and instance of where there is an error in the formula is not very clear. It would help if AirTable would simply use AI or some more visually direct way to just tell me that I am missing a parenthesis or something.
- improved formula writing box: sometimes AirTable is pretty buggy when I want to expand the window of the formula editing box. Sometimes you expand the box and it snaps back. It would be nice for the option that formulas can be edited in a full side or bottom view with more space and more tools to help build the formula--like drag and drop fields. this would be especially helpful when writing formulas that are based on the selections of single select or multi-select fields, and you have to write in the selection conditions, instead of just having the formula be aware of the selection conditions available for the field you are working with. Also, a preview window.
- email validation fields for forms: When clients sometimes fill out forms, the Email Address field doesn't actually make sure that they are writing in a proper email address which causes a lot of automation errors for submission responses. It would be great if the email address field actually validated if there is an "@" or a proper ".com" or ".org" and no unacceptable characters.
- Address validation fields: I often see e-commerce have the capacity to validate addresses when going through a checkout. I would love that option in form submissions.
@Kelly_OShaughne Overall these are nice updates. I, too, am looking forward to conditional groups
Bug: You can add buttons to linked record views on detail pages, but they dont have the Apperance options so you're stuck with gray and cant control the "color after" or "label after" properties.
Request: I would love to use a button on linked record views to bulk update them, or trigger an automation for all of them.
Request: Interface forms cant redirect users like form views can. We won't be able to transition to them until redirects are enabled.
Request: When conditional groups are added, I would like to say "this group is editable if..." in addition to "this group is visible if...". Conditions for both should also be able to handle *just* looking at the logged in user and not specific record data. For instance, sometimes the condition is "Logged in user email is 'x@x.com'", not "Logged in user is tagged in the collaborator field"
@Kelly_OShaughne
> With respect to conditions being set based on formulas - could you share a use case you have in mind on what you want to happen?
We have a workflow where different fields in a record need to be filled out under different circumstances. Some of the circumstances are based on the lifecycle of the record as represented by a single-select field. However, other fields apply only under more complex situations that are best calculated from a combination of other fields. For example, have a {special handling info} section appear (and be required) when there are a lot of line items, or the calculated total is more than a threshold amount.
Some conditions could be managed using a combination of conditions of editable fields. However, other conditions require knowing the result of a calculation.
I also tend to use formula fields for validation, and would like to be able to leverage those same formula fields in multiple places: shown in interfaces, conditions in automation, and ideally whether or not a form could be submitted.
Can't wait for interface form validation and Android support! I'm currently forced to pay for third-party software like Fillout and Softr in order to overcome those shortcomings, and it's clunky having to manage a web of software tools. Really hope those get released soon 🙏
I absolutely agree with what @kuovonne described.
@Kelly_OShaughne, I would like to add some more points as well. Provide some use case examples for my company.
We use AirTable as a tracking tool for tracking the onboarding and eligibility screening of new participants for our subsidized voucher program. Staff complete the tracking tool for each record (which stands in for each participant) to move through the process of screening them in various different capacities. I use formulas and automations to update a Single Select field, called PHASE, as a stand-in for an applicant is position in the process.
However, this involves using many different fields (date of eligibility briefing, briefing attendance, number of household members, any children under age of 6, disability status, income level, immigration status, application completion, CORI/SORI statuses, etc).
In the interface, these fields are all expressed in the record details, but there are many, and to prevent our staff from potentially skipping steps, I employ a formula that basically highlights the NEEDS, what specific fields still need to be completed or marked in a manner that we accept as conditionally approved to move on to the next status. This is a complicated formula that evaluates overall completion and writes out what fields are empty/need attention at different project stages. Sometimes I even use automations with formulas to restrict undesirable responses to fields-based relations to other field inputs.
Conditional fields will allow for a dynamic setting where the outcome of certain field selections would prompt staff to complete other relevant adjacent fields. For instance, we have a field that is called "PENDING DOCS & VERIFICATIONS" which is a stand-in for what specific items are we still waiting on from the applicant. Applicants have three chances to provide the needed items, marked by three different date fields standing for each attempt we pursued to get these documents--date field is the date the request letter is sent. However, I would like it where the staff person cannot input a second or third request date if the PENDING DOCS & VERIFICATION fields is empty. We want staff to input what they are waiting for in PENDING DOCS & VERIFICATION so we know what we are waiting on and why are we sending another request to the applicant.
A second example would be for our company's leasing up process. This also incorporates dozens of different fields. The government rules and regulations require that a voucher be issued to the participant before processing a new unit application.
Ex: I would like it so the fields and steps related to processing a new unit application will be restricted for editing unless the voucher issued field are completed first. This is all in our record detail page in the interface.
In this screenshot the user did not mark that they issued a voucher (green outline), but they did mark that they went ahead and scheduled and inspection, which is premature.
It is all about trying to prevent user error in processing the actions through AirTable.
Ex: We shouldn't schedule a unit inspection unless the user has confirmed the year the unit was built.
Ex: If there are children under the age of 6, federal law dictates we must have a Lead Notice on file--staff should not be able to continue the process of entering data in AirTable unless if the Lead Notice has been resolved through a checkbox of receipt.
Ex: child under 18 should not be asked for proof of photo ID).
All this exists for the form completion for adding new records, it would be fantastic if it existed as a tool to direct what fields should or shouldn't be filled out at what stage/time in the project. Even just the ability to visually mark fields that need attention would be huge.
Hey @Kamille_Parks11 - thanks for your notes!
>Bug: You can add buttons to linked record views on detail pages, but they dont have the Apperance options so you're stuck with gray and cant control the "color after" or "label after" properties.
>Request: I would love to use a button on linked record views to bulk update them, or trigger an automation for all of them.
>Request: When conditional groups are added, I would like to say "this group is editable if..." in addition to "this group is visible if...". Conditions for both should also be able to handle *just* looking at the logged in user and not specific record data. For instance, sometimes the condition is "Logged in user email is 'x@x.com'", not "Logged in user is tagged in the collaborator field"
^ I will share these with the team, thanks!
> Request: Interface forms cant redirect users like form views can. We won't be able to transition to them until redirects are enabled.
Good catch! This is launching as a fast follow in the coming weeks, keep an eye out for it!
@Drew_Nemer - appreciate you walking through your use case! It's incredibly helpful to understand the granular details of workflows to ensure we build a solution that actually addresses customer needs. We're currently in development on this functionality, so I will share this use case with the team as input to our approach.
Hi @Kelly_OShaughne
I am more than happy to provide as much case details as you need. Feel free to let your development team know that they can reach out to me directly if they wish to learn more about our use cases and workflows.
I am very happy to learn that there is development progress on these matters
@Kelly_OShaughne I usually use Airtable on a computer, but I was trying to build out an interface to be used on mobile. I used the new Gallery page with a new side-detail sheet. I was able to open the interface page on my iPhone, but could not figure out how to open the interface on my iPad. Are interfaces supported on iPads?
@kuovonne - our Airtable tablet / iPad experience is web based, we do not have a separate app for iPad.
@Kelly_OShaughne
| our Airtable tablet / iPad experience is web based, we do not have a separate app for iPad.
I am confused. What do you mean there is no iPad app for Airtable?
@Kelly_OShaughne
Here is another thread about the native iPad app not having interfaces that are accessible in the native iPhone app.
https://community.airtable.com/t5/other-questions/interface-not-showing-on-ipad-app/m-p/171669#M50473
>Request: When conditional groups are added, I would like to say "this group is editable if..." in addition to "this group is visible if...".
does this mean that currently we can set a group of fields in an interface form to be visible based in conditions?
