I would appreciate the current issue view with which we are working fine. There is one functionality that we are relying on is that we heavily use bulk entry for Watchers. We wish we can continuously use that bulk entry in the current version as well.
For custom fields selecting values from drilldown list is not comfortable and long values are partially hidden. Is there a way to remove the right side panel? I prefer getting all the fields in middle, folding left side panel and not having right side panel at all, like it was in old view. Might be old fashioned but you get all relevant fields in one section in full width of the screen.
Please keep the option to switch using old issue view.
I am very unhappy about this. The WYSIWYG editor is simply inferior and insufficient for my use case compared to the old text based editor. Many others have listed heaps of reasons why, in this comment thread, in issue tickets, and elsewhere. You have had ages to implement a proper editor(i.e. keep the old one) and yet it is as worthless and terrible as the day the new issue view was launched.
You claim that you want to make the new view the best view for everyone, while completely ignoring strong, valid and constructive criticism presented by others about one of the most essential pieces of the issue view. I understand that you have to keep making superficial changes to the product for the sake of job security but I simply cannot believe that you are acting in good faith and listening to community feedback, as you so often claim.
The user experience editing links created automatically when entering URLs is not very good. Pretty much everyone is getting it wrong.
For instance, if you simply paste a url like https://foogle.com into a JIRA ticket, a link is automatically generated. Sometimes this might be accidental as part of pasting a larger block of text. Then you realize there's a typo in the link and fix it to https://google.com. This isn't an issue with the "old view". You change the url and the target is changed.
Losing the ability to makes notes/info in a text editor or tool of choice using the markup is a huge loss.
Making notes outside of Jira and copying them in when ready is something we do frequently.
The old markup does NOT display properly when copying it form your editor of choice into the new view.
Using the new view for lengthy notes is not a great option at all. If it is a work in progress end up with many saves and it clutters the history and generates the automated Jira emails for edits/updates to a story.
Copying and pasting in from the editor of choice, I have to go through the jira editor to fix up everything that does not appear properly.
I can't seem to find the "new" mark up in the documentation yet.
Can anyone here recommend a third party Jira client I can use now that the old view is gone? Specifically I need the ability to edit the markdown in an external editor.
Now what do we do...this morning I am forced to use the "new" view, which has lost so much functionality. Leaning a worse interface is so discouraging....!
Our access to the old view is gone now too. What was so difficult about simply not taking away the old view? Nobody was asking you to make updates, just DON'T TAKE IT AWAY. Sooo disappointing.
@Carol Bachelu How did you resort to the old view? The way I was doing it was disabled. I really need to get back to a page that is useful! Please share with the group.
I wonder why anyone can state such a sentence when user experience shows that this simply is not true:
The new issue view’s unique value has always been its immense customizability.
At least from what our admins tell me.
You cannot set paragraph spacing, lots of wasted space on the screen, constant scrolling.
And no way to display attachments in a grid pattern and not in this strip view. If there are more than 5..6 attachments on an issue chances are high you may miss one with this sliding view and constant clicking and loading of previews.
Who thinks this is practical and good UI design?
And don't get me started with page bloat: a single issue with a max.10 kB of actual information requires a HTML file of >800kB and more than 14 MB of Javascript files. What is this monstrosity?
254 comments