+1 on this idea for us. In my case, I’ve painted myself into a corner because the only way to give someone edit permissions is to make them an owner (or whatever) which lets them view all the tables, which is not something we can do. Because we are “all in” on AirTable, we have sensitive information in various tables. I’d like to be able to share the admissions table, for instance, with our admissions committee, and let them (or the committee chair, at least) be able to actually update it. Right now, I sent them a share link, which is awesome, but they have to then email me any edits. Similarly, we use a share link for a community directory, which is so great, but since I’m the only one with editing permissions, I’m not able to delegate that to anyone else. I don’t want someone who is just making directory updates to also be able to see admissions interview notes, security incidents, etc., even if they can’t edit it.
I imagine this is a tough nut to crack. I work for a school CRM company and the question of permissions looms very large. I think that AirTable adding full (read, add, update) table-specific permissions would really take it to the next level. Till something like that comes along, the benefits of a single database outweigh the inconvenience of not having very many people being able to actually update data, but it would really be nice.
Some possible solutions:
- Create the ability to add custom permissions. Each permission offers read/write access to particular tables (possibly even specific fields within tables), and then I can assign people to those permissions. Example: I’d create a permission called “Admissions,” and give that role the ability to view, edit, and insert data into the Admissions table. When logging into AirTable, someone with that role would only see the Admissions table, nothing else.
- Add a “Write Permission” toggle to the share links so I can create table-specific links to send to people in different areas that they can not only view but also update.