I think it would be nice to have the option to hyperlink with different text showing, like any basic HTML hyperlinking. Like I can even do in this forum if I needed to.
Visually, having the url just there isn’t appealing.
I think that learning any computer language can be daunting for someone who has never coded before.
Airtable already has one computer language that it has to support–formula functions. Even though formula fields have a small vocabulary and simple grammar, you feel that the documentation is inadequate. A another full blown scripting language would require even more documentation and training material.
I think that sticking with an existing computer language, such as JavaScript is a smart thing to do. There are tons of free resources for learning JavaScript. There are also tons of resources for coding in JavaScript, such as editors that already know the JavaScript grammar. Plus lots of people already know JavaScript.
If Airtable wants a model for how to bridge the gap between no code and code, I would rather see different tools instead of a new language. For example, a tool could ask a few questions about what the user wants to do, then spit out code that performs that function. Another tool could record a user’s actions and then translate those actions into code. Then the user could run, examine, and adapt the resulting code.
I would be highly surprised if Airtable wasn’t working on their own scripting/automation processes for their platform — at least for some of the most common use-cases. This seems like what the “button field” is leading towards in the future — building automations into the platform in a very user-friendly manner. I’m super-excited about this new button field, and what it means for the future.
The Airtable people are smart enough to realize that 99% of their users don’t know how to write JavaScripts & don’t want to learn JavaScript. Their users are not coders, which is why the entire Airtable platform is based on simplicity & ease-of-use. Airtable’s user-friendliness is why so many people love Airtable so much, and what makes Airtable so much fun to use!
@kuovonne, @ScottWorld - I’ve tried to respond to your comments but apparently I’ve been banned from the community - everything I send is rejected as inappropriate, even direct messages.
I think that posts getting hidden or “waiting for moderator review” is an automated thing that happens occasionally… not sure why… maybe some keywords or external URLs that trigger it. Those posts almost always seem to get approved by a moderator later.
Sorry to beat this dead horse, but… @ScottWorld asked for examples and yet another - one that I did not anticipate - has emerged in the past 24 hours. :winking_face:
Throughout this thread, many have questioned my disdain concerning the nature of formula fields (and now button fields). Here’s another example of dysfunction where a user who is blocked from a natural and intuitive approach for placing a link into a PDF document that is actually clickable.
If formulas could be expressed as attributes of [real] fields, this challenging issue would not exist and the user would not be forced to write script to achieve his objectives.
There are many examples in the forum where roadblocks like this one have been documented and in almost every case, they stem from the underlying design choice concerning hybrid fields.
The pattern we see in forum threads like this one is common and almost always related to the unanticipated constraints of formula fields. Soon we may see a similar pattern emerge with button fields as we encounter the unpredictable roadblocks that hybrid fields make possible.
Where would you put formulas that rely on the values of multiple fields?
Such formulas need record level scope, and cannot be stored in the field definition of one of its underlying fields.
I would like to see more robust formatting options, which might be similar to want you want, but from a different perspective. For example, URL fields could have two values: a label and a url, then it could have formatting options to display the label, the url, both (in markdown format), clickable button, or any combination of the above.
You sort’a answered your own question. :winking_face:
A field with a formula [attribute] is architecturally no different than a field with a formatting attribute. The formula would have the ability to reference other fields and in the context of the current record - i.e.,
A formatting option doesn’t have to be aware of any values other than its own. Plus, I’m okay with Airtable controlling all the formatting options in the field definition. (For example, more field formatting options could include cell color/border, text color/size/font, etc all controlled by formulas. But, the user interface could get ugly really fast if Airtable gives users too much control.)
I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around this, can you walk me through it?
Could you give an example of where you would store this formula? Would it be in the field definition for {fieldName1}, {fieldName2}, or somewhere else? (Under the current architecture, it is stored in the definition of a formula field.)
Where would you put the formula thisRow.{fieldName1} + thisRow.{fieldName2} in the user interface? (Under the current architecture, it is accessed by customizing the formula field.)
Where would you put the output of the formula, thisRow.Value, in the user interface? (Under the current architecture, it displayed in a cell in the grid view.)
How would you access them in the API’s? (Under the current architecture, only the output of the formula is accessible, and it is a read-only value that can be read like any other field. Well, whether or not the formula is valid is accessible, but that’s a pretty tiny bit of info.)
In each cell for the same field; just the same as a current Formula Field. The only difference here is that a field doesn’t need to be a special “formula field” for it to perform formulaic computations. This makes it very easy to perform intelligent computations such as if there’s a value in this cell, don’t change it, but if empty, apply the formula. Most important, it’s a data field not unlike any other field except that it can be populated through formulaic methods.
No, but here’s three observations that might help…
We’re not Airtable engineers so any attempt to design the underlying architecture for something that is likely a distant thought for the team is presumptive on my part and largely wasted energy for all of us.
Hybrid [formula] fields have well-documented constraints and they should probably be addressed [eventually]; how exactly, is anyone’s guess. But, continuing with a design pattern that has caused an equal amount of anguish as it has happiness, is probably not wise.
Take a close look at the status-quo of spreadsheet formulas - array-formulas specifically - in Google Sheets and Microsoft Excel vernaculars. Also, play with a table and the formula architecture over on rhymes with Hoda. :winking_face:
