They are in separate collections because they are separate systems. Not everyone need to have access to everything. From what I can gather from the documentation, Folders are for my own vault and Collections are for the Organization vault.
How would folders help? Folders aren’t showed in search results either, neither in the Browser extension or when just accessing the vault from a browser.
For example
Confluence
Production
Test
Development
All of these have a local administrator account, the same for all the other 154 systems, some have test environments some have not, that’s at least 155 passwords for the production servers, and about 400+ passwords in total just for local administrator accounts.
I tried to pinpoint that in my thread PM Need a better GUI but you moved that to a 6 year old post
Even if I search for just Confluence and the title is
Lokal administratör - Confluence
I can’t differentiate between
Lokal administratör - Confluence Test
Lokal administratör - Confluence
Lokal administratör - Confluence Dev
Since the UI cuts it off, especially in the Browser extensions.
If the text was 25% smaller this would be a much smaller issue. But I can’t specify that anywhere without Popping out the extension and scaling the browser.
The UI only supports 12 character (monotype) long password names.
If the size was 75% zoomed,
21 characters would be supported.
I’m beginning to think it was a problem recommending Bitwarden for our organization.
Easy fixes such as showing Collections or folders mentioned in my post PM Need a better GUI should be top of mind for the UX person at Bitwarden and changed within a year, not 6+ years.
I’ve just tried it out. 2 things that I would like to change:
On-open, focus the search bar. In the old UI this was also the case.
When I open a website which doesn’t match the URL that I provided in Bitwarden. I search for it, now I have the fast option to copy the password. But not the fast option to auto-fill (auto-fill only has fast option fin the tab “autofill suggestions”)
I’d like this also in the part beneath it.
This is a good thing because a URL mismatch is an indicator that you might be falling victim to a look-alike website. After confirming the second website valid, the “better way” is to add the second URL to the vault entry, which confirm that auto-fill is appropriate.
If not, can you share what it looks like and information on what browser and OS version you are using (here or in a DM if you are more comfortable), thanks!
Part of the problem is that you are not even using the beta extension, even though you are posting in a thread for discussing the redesigned UI (which can be previewed in the beta version of the browser extension).
Use the Collection or Folder filters to limit search results to show only credentials for the system that you want to access.
I agree that Bitwarden’s design’s (old and new) have low information density and do not make efficient use of space. @Kevin_Harris has promised that the new design is going to include an option to enable a “Compact Mode”, but no details about the UI design for this mode have been published to date.
Beta extension is only available for Chrome. We’re using Edge.
But this is the only place people actually discuss the UI.
So posting all the problems here where the developers actually read seems to be the only way forward, considering there are multiple post about this kind of stuff over the last 6 years that hasn’t been acted upon.
But I’ll stop polluting the discussion and come back later when the extension is made public and we’ll see if the webb-app is updated at all.
Thanks Dee! Makes a lot of sense after it was explained.
The fact that you had to explain it is significant. It isn’t intuitive, so users (like me) are going to struggle with it.
Some might even throw in the towel because they can’t find what they’re looking for… “but the launch website option is always in the overflow menu - I must be stupid”
What’s the harm in leaving all the menu options in place? Less code. Less to test. Faster and more reliable.
My understanding is that the Launch function will be moved out of the kebab menu for all cases, so the above scenario should not be occurring after the revised UI is released.
It clutters up the menu, and slows down users who are looking for a function that they need (as opposed to a function like “Fill & Save”, which they will never need for an item that appears under “Autofill Suggestions”).
The only improvement I would suggest for @dflinn and @Kevin_Harris is to move the “Autofill” and “Fill & Save” menu options to the bottom of the kebab menu, so that the top four items in the menu are always “Edit”, “Favorite”, “Clone”, and “Assign to Collections”.
No I do not see that… but… Disregard, I am running a self hosted instance and is probably due to not updating my server yet.
I just logged into the Bitwarden.com instance and I do see it there. Thank you.
Does adding a compact mode increase development time and complexity across the app, whether now or in the future? Would this require developers to write updates or enhancements a few more times than just once? I’d hate to see time being spent on maintaining two different views, when their time could be spent on fixes, enhancements, progressing the product forward.
For some users, the new UI design has made implementation of a compact mode a high-priority fix — without a compact mode, we will be forced to spend more than twice as much time scrolling when using the extension, and are only able see as few as 8 characters of any displayed item name or username. For some users like myself, this is unacceptable.
Bitwarden has evidently already committed to devoting resources to this UI redesign effort — why not take the time to get it right? Anything worth doing is worth doing well.
If you read some of the earliest messages on this conversation, you will find that there are some “flags” one needs to set to enable the beta UI when self-hosting.
Compact mode is an enhancement that is progressing the product forward.
Just as I claim that plain-language descriptive words are better for casual users, I also realize that experts in a field speak in lingo that is specialized and highly efficient (time and/or space). In the world of UI, icons are often that lingo.
Having views that cater to the 2-3 largest populations seems like a pretty good way to offer customizability without adding the complexity that comes with a million preferences.
I get that, but enlarging text much and added spacing, lessening what you can visibly see; I just wouldn’t think there would be a single soul that would want something like that.
But I guess just as some may love cars that are functionally reliable, there are some that love the flashy expensive cars and are ok with spending costly dollars in repairs/parts. There’s a use case for everyone.
Compact mode would be the opposite of what you’ve described.
In the interest of producing a UI design that appears “fresh” and “modern” (by popular demand), Bitwarden has now introduced larger fonts, larger margins, and extra padding, which has resulted in a 50% loss of information density in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions (75% total reduction in information content).
Implementing an option to enable a compact display mode would allow experienced users to restore the information density to a reasonable level. I feel that it is an absolutelyessential use of resources to proceed with development of the compact mode as promised.
