Like make the entire item clickable to autofill, and replace the fill button with a “view” button instead.
2 Likes
The way it worked in the old UI was that when on the Tab page (roughly equivalent to the “Autofill Suggestions” area in the new Vault page), clicking the item name would autofill the information. However, when on the (old) Vault page, the same action (clicking the item name) would cause the item to be opened for viewing. Having the same action produce two completely different results depending on context is confusing, and poor UX.
In the new UI, if the same action (clicking the item name) produces two completely different results depending on where on the page the item is displayed, that would be even more confusing, since there are even fewer context clues to allow the user to predict the outcome of clicking the item.
Please share your thoughts on this question.
1 Like
A much larger Fill button would help a lot, but the old UI functionality would be preferred by me 
2 Likes
If I may chime in: one problem here is, that the larger the fill-button get’s, the less characters of the item title and username you can see. That’s why I made a suggestion of more or less making the item the button itself. (–> Usability issues (UX) in redesigned UI (2024.12.0) - #168 by Nail1684)
3 Likes
No, of course not. The best way to handle that would be to have clicking on the item bring one to view that item, rather than fill the wrong credentials.
1 Like
It should do what the Old UI did: nothing, no fill happens because there is no URI match. Old UI brings up the information indicating there is no URI and making available the username and password for copy selection.
2 Likes
If the same action (clicking the item name) produces two completely different results (autofilling or viewing) depending on where on the page the item is displayed, don’t you think that would be confusing, since there are few if any context clues to allow the user to predict the outcome of clicking the item.
Personally, I found that inconsistency confusing even when the two behaviors were tied to the view in the old UI (clicking an item name autofilled when in the Tab view, but opened the item when in the Vault view). With everything on one combined Vault view (as in the new UI), I think it will get even more confusing.
First, this is not what the old UI did. Second, clicking an item and getting no result will make users think that something is broken.
The Old UI was not inconsistent. If one clicks on the Old UI and there is no URI, no auto-fill can happen for obvious security reasons. This is not an inconsistency. So the UI does the right thing and brings up the information so you can decide on what to do.
2 Likes
Exactly. That is not counterintuitive. When I first started using Bitwarden that behavior made perfect sense. I don’t know why that would be confusing to anyone.
What IS confusing is clicking on a vault item I mean to autofill and have it go inexplicably into “Edit” on that item. That makes zero logical sense.
5 Likes
“Inconsistent” simply means that the same action (clicking the item name) does not produce a consistent (i.e., identical) result. Clearly, the old behavior was inconsistent (even if you preferred it that way).
Edited to Add: Responding to your comment below, to avoid unnecessarily bloating this thread. My earlier response was in response to you saying that it was previously possible to click an item that did not have a URI match, resulting in nothing happening. What actually happened was that the item was opened for viewing (same as in the new UI).
Don’t know what you are referring to. I just checked the old UI’s function on an old Firefox install that I have marked to not update extensions (just cause of this mess caused by new Bitwarden). I click and no auto-fill happens (i.e., nothing happens autofill wise). I guess you are talking about the fact that the UI brings up the information for viewing when there is no URI? This is not an inconsistency. This is how the UI should behave.
2 Likes
If there was URL match, it was very consistent.
In different circumstances (such as no URL match) it was very consistent.
No — if you clicked on an item that had a URI match, it would either autofill (when in the Tab view), or open the item for viewing (e.g., when searching). Inconsistent.
Agreed. This method worked well for myself. I never experienced the old UI filling information in incorrect sites.
One of my workstations still has the old UI and it works like this as well.
@tekdout The issue with the “inconsistency” is not whether it worked or not. Obviously it worked. - The issue is, that doing the same thing (clicking on a vault item) resulted in two different outcomes (auto-filling or opening the item view) in general. The vault items looked the same - and it depended on their mode/state (being in the list of the suggested items in the “tab” tab or being in the list of all items in the “vault” tab) what resulted by clicking.
The inconsistency is neither the one or the other for themselves, but that they existed both at the same time, so to speak.
And that indeed is not a good design, because it requires working memory to know when leads an action to what two possible outcome… it leads to confusion (I had that more than one time)… it leads to mixing-up the two (I had that more than one time… wanting to view an item and instead auto-filling it - or wanting to auto-fill an item and instead entering item view… the latter happened because I still was in the “vault” tab and forgot to change to the “tab” tab…).
If that is still too abstract: imagine, there was no standard for pressing the door knob down or up for opening the door (PS: I mean that in the sense of two different outcomes: sometimes the door opens when pressing down and sometimes it doesn’t open, but it requires the opposite: to pressing up – that’s only an analogy and obviously it doesn’t match completely to the situation in the old UI with clicking a vault item…). Silly example and with no real consequence. But we wouldn’t consider that good design or “UX”.
I have experienced credit card information being autofilled when I only wanted to view the information, or a login being autofilled when I wanted to edit the item. On the other hand, I have also experienced a search result item being opened for viewing when I was expecting the click to result in an autofill.
Bad design is replacing a big clickable area for the item’s most common function with an unexpected result (that happens to be one of the least used functions).
3 Likes