Lock shared views but still enable record editing

[R_Felciano_QIAG]

Hi –

We are running into challenges in having a large number of users with Editor permissions that need to be able to update records in our tables, but also make changes to the View configuration (filters, groupings, etc) that break usage models that we’ve put in place.

The bulk of our users are ones that need read-write permissions at the record level, but don’t need the ability to change the view filters/configuration of public, shared views. So our use case is something like this:

• Configure a views that work well for a given purpose
• Assign an owner responsible for making any changes to the view configuration (including fielding requests for such changes). For example, a “View Owner” field at the View level.
• Lock this configuration, such that it can only be unlocked and edited/updated by the above owner
• Make the view visible to all our users as a sort of “officially blessed” view
• Allow other users to edit the records but not change the view configuration in-place
• Allow them to clone the view privately if they want to make their own version of the view (but leave the original untouched), for example via Private Views
• Make sure everyone can determine who the “owner” user is so they can contact them to ask for changes / updates to the locked view.

Private views don’t do it because their visibility is tied to all users, not individual views – we want to be able to show/hide (or publish/unpublish) one view at a time, vs show/hide everyone’s private view.

I’m aware that user permissions is an active area of enhancement requests, so this overlaps somewhat with the following (especially the first two), but I couldn’t find this specific use case written up so I thought I’d submit it independently.

1. Limiting Editor Permissions
2. 'Locked' view filters
3. Private or User Views and Reverting to Sticky Public Views
4. Airtable-Based Art Portfolio Web Site
5. https://community.airtable.com/t/link-to-other-base/10

Thanks,

Ramon

[Nick_Bergthold]

+1 for this request. I’ve spent days trying to get Airtable to a suitable place for my organization’s use, but without more granular permissions like this one, we’re not able to move forward.

[Magoon]

+1 from me too! This would be very helpful!

[Julian_Kirkness]

I also find this a huge issue - especially when views are being used to trigger Zappier Zaps. In this case I would even advocate being able to HIDE these views from most users as they have the additional effect of cluttering up the UI.

[Jim_Archambault]

I agree with all of the above. This is the one piece of the puzzle that is causing us concern with rolling this out to a bigger user base.

[Petr_Serdyukov]

+1!

We really do not have enough opportunity to share a part of the table with access for editing or commenting.
Need more opportunities for sharing tables!

My organisation want to completely switch from Google tables to your service, but the lack of this capability limits us.

[Heracles]

+1

The ideal scenario is to share only a view with an external collaborator, and allow edit access for them.

[Thomas_Weiland]

+1 Very important in connection with Zapier

[Moe]

Heracles:

The ideal scenario is to share only a view with an external collaborator, and allow edit access for them

We built a tool that allows you to do that.

miniExtensions

Basic Editor with Advanced Permissions for Airtable - miniExtensions

Share a basic editor for Airtable View with a password-protected URL. Limit access by controlling which fields can be edited.

[Kristen_Glennon]

+1 for this — I run a very intricate base dependent on multiple filter views — the users need to be able to update records and enter data but I am just keeping my fingers crossed that they do not get curious and play with filtering – the ability to lock a specific filter but allow for record editing would be AMAZING and ease some stress on my end