This Product Ideas board is currently undergoing updates, but please continue to submit your ideas.
Again running into issues with not having more granular control of User Permissions. Wondering if this is on the Roadmap and if so (Though I know you can’t say when) is it one of the higher priority items?
You all are awesome. Thanks!
I am in full agreement with other commenters on this thread. Granular permissions would make the difference between a barely useful database and an incredibly powerful tool. I am running an HR and program participant database and need to be able to allow certain employee / participant records to be seen by some users and not others, while allowing higher level staff to view more records. If I can set recording view/edit by a parameter, such as location, that would make Airtable a perfect fit for our needs at New City Kids.
Seeking the ability to allocate some users access to edit records but not create nor delete them.
I work for a broadcaster where we use airtable to track our commissioned recordings and associated broadcast rights. Because records are easy to delete and production staff only need to update existing records (i.e. recordings that have already been commissioned), I would hope to be able to grant them access to update existing records. This reduces the risk of inadvertent deletions.
To add to these suggestions - I’d like to be able to add a team member who can do things like sort and filter (perhaps temporarily) - non-destructive actions - but not edit the content itself - which is destructive.
So I’m asking for another level of user permissions rather than the more granular by-table (etc) permissions other people are asking for in this thread.
I need the ability to restrict access to not only functions such as edit, view, delete, but records.
There are two ways I’d accept:
1: Allow a single base design to contain different data for each “copy”. Basically, a template base that can be used to load data specific to one sales person. Multiple sales people would have their own “copy” with their own data but design modifications only need to be done once in the template to be reflected to all bases.
2: Allow access to view records based on user. This way I could ensure Salesguy X has access to specific accounts only.
Anything you add on permissions will be a great step forward. I’ve heard a number of great suggestions. Here from simple to most complex:
The ability to lock a user our of specific tabs
The ability to lock a user out of specific views
The ability to define read/write privileges for tabs or views
The creation of custom user groups which would apply to the above
The ability to hide columns per user group
The ability to set filters on tabs or views per user group
Anything will be a step in the right direction, Airtable is an amazing and intuitive platform with a huge future but you’ll need these kind of basic capabilities to be used in serious applications.
Still hoping for more granular permissions than there are currently!
Adding a +1 here! Looking to at least hide tables from specific user groups – so a ‘groups’ section to our shared users list would rock. Plus, some people should be able to edit some info, but not ALL THE INFO.
Limit by tab and record (user can only see their owned records). Any organization constrained by PII rules needs this.
A possibly simpler approach would be to lock down views (e.g. only Creators can modify them). That would allow me to precreate views filtered to individual users so that they could not remove the filter and see other users’ records. It would also be helpful if you added a “Logged in User” to the Filter drop-down (right now it shows individual collaborators, which would require a separate view for each user. Adding “Logged in User” would allow me create one view that auto-filters to the logged in user).
Love your product, but the lack of user permissioning in Airtable is holding back both a) the companies that use your product and b) the growth of your company.
While you think of yourselves as a new-breed “collaboration tool”, it is clear from comments in this thread that many companies are trying to use your product as an SAP-like enterprise management tool (ERP).
Airtable enables companies to easily create and manipulate very stripped down cross-linked databases (without all of the baggage and cost of traditional ERP tools like like SAP) and immediately publish the data for distributed availability and use, including on mobile devices – all without any required specialized knowledge other than basic spreadsheet skills. That is super powerful and does not exist elsewhere!
However, without better user permissioning, companies using Airtable are unwilling to use it broadly and invite more (paying) users into the database because there is no way to allow users to view/edit data without granting access to view/edit the entire database.
You are missing a massive opportunity here. Look at capterra.com and all the software out there that has been created for specific end-markets (here is the list of just the categories of software: http://www.capterra.com/categories). Airtable could be used for just about all of those categories.
By contrast to software developed for specific end-markets, a product like Airtable is 100% flexible so companies can set up their data and processes exactly as they want them and they can manage data and processes across the entire enterprise with just one database – essentially companies can create and easily roll out their own custom enterprise software.
Your target market is enormous and you have the opportunity to be the first mover. But I’m afraid if you don’t address users’ needs re: permissioning, somebody else will come along and build a similar product that does.
Well said. I really like airtable but we won’t be able to keep using it for much longer without advance permissions + linking records between bases.