Commenting on AT Interface

[Anonymous]

When I @mention someone on Interphase and they get an email notification to link them to the base to see the comment, is there a way to link them to the Interphase via that notification? I’m running into a bit of trouble with @mentioning someone and they’re taken to a gridview instead of the Interphase view. My gridviews and my interphase shows different fields so when they’re taken to a grid view, they don’t see the necessary information/fields.

[Justin_Barrett]

Welcome to the community, @Ivy_Zhong! :grinning_face_with_big_eyes: Airtable doesn’t currently provide any options for changing how the @ tagging behavior works, probably because the tag is tied to a record. An interface (not interphase) is just another way of viewing and interacting with records, similar to view types like gallery, Kanban, etc. As far as Airtable is concerned, the important thing when tagging someone is the record, not the environment in which the record is viewed.

[Jazmin_Poyser]

I understand what you’re saying @Justin_Barrett . But I second @Ivy_Zhong 's point.

We use Interfaces to display ‘only what’s necessary’ data for management, as an interface dashboard for Managers to change Status fields and leave comments in the comment field - the Comment box field type that AirTable has provided in Interfaces, and that is editable from Interfaces.

We use this Comment box on Interfaces to @mention colleagues and converse about the key details of the record. Not all details of the record need to be seen for this. There is alot we capture in a record that isn’t needed for this purpose/for management’s review.

We want to be able to only do this (@mention commenting) in Interfaces, as the ‘back-end’ of AirTable gridview is over-complicated for management. Yet the @mention email notification link opens the ‘back-end’ gridview, when they’re used to using only the Interface, and it really confuses the process.

[Justin_Barrett]

Thanks for sharing more about your use case, @Jazmin_Poyser . I can see how the workflow that you describe could be very useful in that type of situation. Whether or not the Airtable devs implement that feature (or something like it) remains to be seen. It may be possible for the @ tagging system to operate contextually, so that it sends a record link when used in an expanded record, an interface link when used in an interface, etc. Only the devs can say for sure.

[Jazmin_Poyser]

Thanks for your response @Justin_Barrett . Am I able to up-vote this anywhere? Or is it passed onto dev team as feature request/feedback?

[Justin_Barrett]

@Jazmin_Poyser There currently isn’t a public space where feature requests can be upvoted other than the #show-and-tell:product-suggestions category here in the forum. If you find it there, give the initial post in the thread a thumbs-up to show your support. Higher votes don’t necessarily mean that the feature will be implemented sooner (or at all), but it still gives Airtable staffers an idea of the popularity of the idea.

I also recommend reaching out to Airtable support directly (in the app: Help → Contact support) to let them know. While Airtable staffers do frequent the forum and note popular threads in that category linked above, direct requests are never a bad idea.

[Jazmin_Poyser]

Thanks Justin, will do. appreciate it.

[Michael_Kneller]

I’d like to one up this. We’d love for interfaces to be our single source of access for the bulk of users, but in order for that to happen, interfaces need to be far more integrated into how Airtable operates.

Right now, instead of Airtable being a facility with several different entrances to different wings for different employees, it’s definitely a big warehouse everyone waltzes into where they can see everyone else’s stuff all laid out on the floor. Interfaces was a step in the right direction, but instead of different wings, they’re booths, with no locked doors in between them.

[Susan_Stevie]

Agree with Michael_Kneller1: I’d like to give access to interfaces only…they are designed for a user who doesn’t want to figure out things in the DB (views still get messy). And since they are designed such that individuals know what they need to execute, very efficient for the user.

More, if this is possible, we could add more users, who would only interact with certain interfaces, essentially limiting their data table access, but drive more efficient process. For example, we have invoicing and payment that we link to the table, but we had to build a separate base and sync tables between them to protect non-public info. We can use third party portals, but really, this would simplify our work in building out tools.

[Rachel_Fowler]

+1 to this idea! My team would like to use this feature (@mention comments taking a user straight to the interface) for management to access only the need-to-knows without getting bogged down in other details, and to eliminate the redundancy for those more involved in the project of having to share certain files, notes, etc with them elsewhere as must currently be done.