I have fields that are being populated by data from another source. I do NOT want anyone changing data in these fields. ... View more

Just a suggestion to add a horizontal line that represents the current time when displaying any of the week, day views. Apple calendar has it and it’s just great! It helps me to keep track what to do next and not worry about the time ... View more

Linking records seems to me to be the least exploited, most powerful feature on Airtable. I love the feature, but it seems to lack some continuity, IMO. Almost a head-scratcher to neglect. If I can say so respectfully. :confused: I’m looking for three very closely related things: If you can set a record link column to ‘single select’, why can you not arrange Kanban views by that column? This would make things amazingly easy in several of my boards. (For example, I have an phylogeny studies board where I group animals into a separate table of families; currently, I have to have a separate single-select list, and frequently update them to match so I can view and organize in Kanban view.) It makes a lot of sense to be able to group by self-joins in a sort of hierarchical or nested view. This is basically the number one feature I’m feeling the need for. Similar to here. Hierarchical views? If this needs to be a dedicated ‘parent’ type of link for that to work, or if it requires single-select, I can see either working. I would love a mind-map view of records; really, just something like a ‘node-edge’ sort of view, edges being linked records, drawn as a line between them, ‘defining’ the relationship by the column’s name. For example, as above with the ‘parent’ self-join; or a ‘smells like’ or whatnot. Or, “Bilbo Baggins” (node/record) is “Uncle To…” (edge/link) “Frodo Baggins” (node) and “Companion of…” (edge) “Galdalf the Grey” (node). If it could see across tables, or ‘auto-organize’ into common formats that would be awesome.But really I’m just hoping for basic self-joins only; showing the checked types of eligible relationships, and expanding records when clicked, changing attributes/links as dragged, etc. similar to the Kanban view. (Look at ‘Tiddlymaps’ for ‘Tiddlywiki’ for an idea of what that might look like. Super simple, not a ton of features, but really robust because of the underlying wiki ‘pages’ and tagging structure. I can see this working wonders with how records already work.) …I realize this last one is a lot bigger of an undertaking. But even a similar ‘group by’ view with a little more intelligent node-edge type relationships would go a long way. Thank you for your awesome work!! This literally has changed my life. …please notice me, senpai. ... View more

That says it all, right? ... View more

Following our discussion at Soon You'll Need a CDN - #15 by Ambroise_Dhenain Context With the upcoming change that will transform the currently public CDN into an internal CDN (where attachments can only be accessed from inside Airtable), Airtable customers are looking for a way to keep some attachments public. Proposal This could be gracefully handled with the ability to enable the “public CDN” option, for any “Attachment” field. Also, the ability to specify into which field to store the URL might be useful, the goal being able to know the public url of the attachment (one that doesn’t change!). Attachments configured this way would be properly stored into a public CDN, designated for that use case. The public CDN feature would have its own pricing and limits based on the customer’s plan. Motivations I’ve read that “Airtable doesn’t want to become a public CDN”, and that it shouldn’t be used for this purpose. I beg to differ slightly: Airtable doesn’t want to become a public CDN for free. The real issue at hand is for Airtable to store the attachments of all customers and support its cost. Also, there are real privacy-related issues about the current public CDN, because all attachments are automatically made public, which might not be GDPR-compliant, depending on what documents are made public this way. Aggravate by the fact there is no way to disable a public link ourselves to fix that manually. Airtable could imagine a few things: A free tier for public attachments, based on the customer’s plan (ex: 100 public attachments, 1000 public attachments for Pro, etc.) Something like “pay-as-you-go” where customers would pay additionally based on the number of public attachments stored, or size, or a mix of both (KISS, please) Make all attachments private by default (no public CDN, or more so “no long-lasting links”), while allowing us to enable public CDN (or so, “long-lasting links”) for the few fields where we really need it (and are ready to pay for it) Bring more options for Attachment fields where the public CDN has been enabled, such as: The ability to manually refresh the link (invalidate the old one, provide a new one) The ability to have “self-invalidating” links, that would expire after a set date (static or dynamic) It would make sense to propose such “public CDN” feature, which would be a good complement to the “internal CDN” that can only be accessed from within Airtable. Assuming it has its own pricing and managed differently, it would both provide great value, while forcing customers to only enable the public CDN for the few fields we need to have public. It wouldn’t be a hindrance to security, GDPR, or performances. I really hope such a system will be designed, better sooner than later, as it would help with the upcoming transition quite a lot. :crossed_fingers: ... View more

When rearranging dates in calendar view, dragging from a day in any given month to a day in a next month’s week is not possible, so you have to do it “manually” by expanding the event view and changing the date. Also, it would be nice to have a bird’s eye for proceses that start and end in different months. ... View more

Hello Airtable, Please, please please reverse this change! Double-clicking on the field name now only modifies the name of the field. It is a pain to have to right-click to access this menu. I don’t want to be overdramatic and claim this will totally ruin Airtable, but it’s much less efficient than the old method. I also noticed that when creating a new field, the field type is now the first dialog. Then we are prompted to put in a name. This is fine and I can get used to the new workflow. I understand that this reduces the number of times I use “Tab” to move between dialog boxes. I love Airtable and hope it continues to make progress! Just not the progress I don’t like :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: ... View more

I’d like a way to be able to test a change a formula field to make sure that the field behaves as desired before committing the change to a live production base. Right now, I’m making a change to a calculated status field that uses data from a bunch of different tables. The best way I’ve found to make sure I’m not screwing up the live data in the field with the change is to duplicate the entire base into a “beta” base to ensure that the relationships and data are good examples of the live data, test the change, and then make the change in the real base once I’ve got it working. I would love the ability to enter a sandbox mode in a base where I can experiment with changes and preview how the changes would affect the base without having to duplicate the entire base. Duplicating the entire base seems like overkill to test a change to a single field. The other issue I run into is that I sometimes test a bunch of changes in the test base and trying to remember what I’ve done and need to commit to the production base is difficult. I have a lot of Zapier integrations that use the production base which is why I can’t simply dupe and version the base like I would otherwise. Versioning the base in this manner would require that I update all the Zaps to the new base which would mean that I would have to re-create each zap from scratch once the new base is selected. ... View more

Apologies in advance, if this has already been recommended or if this feature already exists, and I just missed it. Currently, when editing the permissions on a specific field, the two exceptions for editing a field are for allowing fields to be set through forms and allowing fields to be modified by automations as shown below. I think it would be beneficial to have a 3rd slider in here for the option to allow fields to be modified by the scripting app as well. Considering that the slider for automations already exists and scripts can be made within an automation, I feel like this would make sense. As a personal example of how this could be beneficial, I have a field in one of my bases that is a list of keywords for a record, used to reference, and search on a record. This list is a comma separated list of words and phrases. I don’t really want someone going and trying to edit the list manually, so instead, I created buttons, one for adding keyword/s and one for removing. Both of these buttons prompt scripts that will direct the user to add and remove words accordingly. But, in order for them to use these scripts, the field must have permissions that allow their account, depending on what their permission level is, to edit that field. Another example I can think of as being beneficial would be if someone had a script to process certain data in a base according to a set of rules within a script. They may not want a user to edit a field manually, but they are okay with the user running a script that modifies the field. I feel as though this would be beneficial in terms of permission setting and security within a base. Thanks. ... View more