I don't really see the benefit, but if there are some framework benefits then I understand why the work is done. So I am not 100% against the changes, but there are definitely some challenges with the UI.
Everything looks the same. There is no indication what is selectable, what is editable, etc. Above there was a comment about people not knowing how to change issue type, and I didn't realize until seeing that comment that that was even possible.
Personally, I would like some indication of fields vs headers. I don't get this "make everything white/same as the background approach". Borders or background shading just makes it much more clear where the field is.
Placeholder text isn't distinguishable enough from user entered text.
Summary + description behaves differently from other fields. Other fields have a header + a field. Summary has just a field. Description has just a field. Makes it seem like the description is the summary field.
Formatting in the description field is gone. The result is users are creating the issue, then updating to format the description correctly. This causes more email (and our internal notification) noise.
Custom field descriptions are gone. Our workflow, like all companies, is not 100% standard out of the box. We have some custom descriptions explaining what they are set to or when not to fill them in. This information is no longer present on the new UI.
I'm hoping the UI can be cleaned up and improved for usability. I've been dragging my feet writing up issues today because the UI has been such a chore to work with.
This is a great feature but currently I can't promote the most important field, `status`, to the quick form mode bottom bar. In the full creation window, users can select the status (we allow all transitions) but I can't add the base `status` field in the screen editor, and thus I can't get the status field to show up on the quick create button. Is there a solution to this?
53 comments