What is the proposed idea/solution? Single and Multi-select linked fields in forms should have a toggle in rules to allow users to add a record. How does is solve the user problems? Cleanly and intuitively allowing form users to add new options which may become new trends. @ScottWorld  kindly provided some work-arounds, but the ideal one would be built-in and mirror the UI of adding a record in grid view. How was this validated? Add records in a link to another record field in a form  When adding a new record from a form how do I add a new record "on the fly"  HELP - Attendance log with add new record option in a form or interface  Also my boss was frustrated that it wasn't an option out of the box and we have a project on pause now because of it. Who is the target audience? I think this is a feature that will be used for companies using AirTable for internal processes. In my case our employees encounter new types of customer types and customer issues and I want them to be able to cleanly and intuitively add new options which may become new trends. ... View more

To whom it may concern, An enhancement suggestion from Kalypso: Update the Date Dependencies configuration such that it assumes that when Start and Due Dates have been established and a Predecessor is changed, the Start and Due dates are updated instead of assuming those dates should stay the same and adjusting the Buffer. Alternatively, this could be a toggled option if current behavior is desired for some organizations.  Expected Benefits: Enable the ability to set the Date Dependency behavior to align to an organizations use case. For those that would desire assuming dates should be updated, it will make it more efficient to updated without having to navigate between two separate views to make the update.  Please consider adding this capability.  Regards, Jason Knighten ... View more

To whom it may concern, An enhancement suggestion from Kalypso: While it is currently possible to link multiple Predecessors, the date calculations do not consider the impacts of any Predecessors beyond the first one. This can get complex but here is a pass at recommending how the solution should be designed: Finish to Start dependent task should base it's start date on the maximum finish date of all dependent tasks Example: Task 3 is dependent on Task 1 and Task 2. Task 1 ends on 10/24 and Task 2 ends on 10/31. Since Task 3 is Finish to Start and dependent on both tasks being completed, it should use the Task 2 10/31 finish date to define the Task 3 start date as 11/01. Start to Start dependent task should base it's start date on the maximum start date of all dependent tasks Example: Task 3 is dependent on Task 1 and Task 2. Task 1 starts on 10/19 and Task 2 starts on 10/26. Since Task 3 is Start to Start and dependent on both tasks having started, it should use the 10/26 start date to define the Task 3 start date as 10/26. Finish to Finish dependent task should base it's finish date on the maximum finish date of all dependent tasks Example: Task 3 is dependent on Task 1 and Task 2. Task 1 ends on 10/24 and Task 2 ends on 10/31. Since Task 3 is Finish to Finish and dependent on both tasks being finished, it should use the 10/31 finish date to define the Task 3 Finish date as 10/31. The start date would then be calculated based on the Duration of Tasks 3. Start to Finish dependent task should base it's finish date on the maximum start date of all dependent tasks Example: Task 3 is dependent on Task 1 and Task 2. Task 1 starts on 10/19 and Task 2 starts on 10/26. Since Task 3 is Start to Finish and dependent on both tasks having started, it should use the 10/26 start date to define the Task 3 Finish date as 10/26. The start date would then be calculated based on the Duration of Tasks 3. Expected Benefits: Improve ability to build dependencies to match real world dependencies requirements Please consider adding this capability.  Regards, Jason Knighten ... View more

To whom it may concern, An enhancement suggestion from Kalypso: Type and Buffer, currently only available to update in Timeline view, should be part of the Date Dependencies required fields and thus available for update in other views and/or with Automations.   Expected Benefits:  Ability to configure all elements of date dependencies in any view Enable ability to use Type and Buffer fields as Automation triggers or targets of automation updates Please consider adding this capability.  Regards, Jason Knighten ... View more

To whom it may concern, An enhancement suggestion from Kalypso: When using the Date Dependencies settings, Start dates (And due dates if a Duration is already set), should auto populate when a Predecessor is selected.  Currently, dates are not initially set by selecting the Predecessor and invalid dependency error is displayed which is not fixed by opening and selecting Fix all However, the dates are updated if, after setting the Predecessor, the date of the Predecessor is modified or the Due or Start dates as manually set Screen shot after having entered a Duration and selecting Predecessor.  Selecting View All for the 1 Invalid Dependency error and selecting Fix All has no effect. However, if I update the date in the Predecessor, or select a date in the dependent task, then the dates are displayed.  Here I changed the date in the Predecessor and the dates in the dependent task populate.  Here, (after undo), I have selected the start date of the dependent task.  Neither of those solutions should be necessary. Expected Benefits: More efficient and less confusing data configuration process for project schedules that utilize Date Dependency features. Please consider adding this capability.  Regards, Jason Knighten ... View more

It is possible to impersonate a user while building/previewing Interfaces. Unfortunately impersonation is limited to the visibility of records, but doesn't consider the impersonee's permissions. E.g. an admin that impersonates a read-only user can still change the value of a field through an automation triggered by a button. Respecting the impersonee's permissions at least in preview mode would be very helpful for building interfaces. ... View more

It would be nice to be able to customize the content of tooltip in Interface charts by selecting another fields to be displayed in the tooltip. ... View more

Yes, that's the idea. Allow my to buy more storage for my paid Team plan.  I'm even willing to pay! But I only value the storage, not everything else that comes with moving from Team -> Business (that move just to get an 80GB storage for $300/yr seems rather...hmm...excessive; I'll try to ignore comparisons that Dropbox offers 3TB for free). I'm a simple user, and quickly hit the AT 1GB limit in just a couple weeks of learning to use the service, and have one Base. The 1GB is a low storage amount, but I somewhat understand it...Free is really a trial plan, no problem. I liked AT and wanted to continue, so had to move up to Team ("For teams building apps to collaborate on shared workflows"). I don't mind paying more just to get storage, but the 'Team' is just me and my cat. Team could be also described as "For individual users that need more storage" and 'Business' described as "For individual users that need a bit more storage." Point is, it really doesn't make much sense to not allow individuals (and actual Teams) to purchase additional storage (which I understand from another thread is provided by Box). One day maybe I'll reach where I require other functionality, but I suspect I'll go through the Team level of storage (20GB, which is easily reached in my work, which is based on the Museum template) before I need more functionality, and then will have to think about another solution. Quite the bummer to not create a Free-Good-Better-Best pricing structure where your limits aren't based so much on feature differences, but capacity. A pricing model like this gets implemented as AT wants to use this lever to get companies to move to the next tier, so it tells us that a lot of users care more limits such as storage versus features. If AT doesn't want to be in the storage-adding business that is OK, but it would seem that then the ability to point to attachments held elsewhere would be a requirement. And I realize from the Community that AT doesn't read these comments or respond, so this post is indeed for cathartic purposes only.  ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? The idea is to have a table within the database that stores information about the base's users and is accessible to use for filters in interfaces without having to have copious numbers of linked records across the base. For example, the table outlines the user, their manager, team, etc... then, in the interface, I can filter to check if the current user is in a certain team and show them records if they are. ... How does it solve the user problems? It removes the need to create a multitude of references across the base. I currently, for example, have a user and a team table, and each has multiple reference fields to outline how they relate to others, like their managers, their manager's managers, anyone who should have visibility over this person's records, etc...  This would allow me to instead have the following filters: - if record owner is current user (currently possible) - if current user is in X team - if current user is in leadership team These wouldn't be possible without linking the X and/or leadership team to each record in the table, which isn't very efficient to do, particularly if you have thousands of records. ... How was this validated? Doing a lot of work around the visibility of records within Airtable interfaces based on values in the table. ... Who is the target audience? Bases that have multiple people working in them. ... ... View more