It doesn’t, actually! The option has been been back for several days now, see here: Usability issues (UX) in redesigned UI (2024.12.0) - #107 by FaviFake
1 Like
One quick question. I’ve been trying to keep up with this thread, but it can get overwhelming at times, so I apologize if answered. Chrome extension mode.
I don’t want it to show all my passwords below the “Autofill Suggestions”. I want it to show my credit cards. I do not want to click on TYPE|CARDS, I want it to appear by default.
Is there something I can set so this happens? Thanks!
1 Like
You can set your cards (and if you wanted: identities also) to “favourites” (the star symbol). That way, they are constantly shown beneath the Auto-fill suggestion.
If it aren’t enough to hide your “All vault items”, add some dummy cards or identities.
They could have gone back and provided relief to us and fixed all these issues on their own time, instead of dragging all of us through this, which is one of the reasons I’m continuing to be salty about it. I should not have had to revert to 2024.11.2 like this – they should have rolled it out.
And I too am probably going to cancel my renewal. I have doubts that they’re going to make any serious steps to correct this, it seems they’re dead set on this course and that’s not an org I would be willing to support going forward.
Even though my renewal isn’t until February, I’ve begun the somewhat painful process of evaluating alternatives. I really don’t want to move to a different platform, but apparently that’s where we’re at. 
2 Likes
Based on what one of the employees said on Reddit (here, here) and from observing pull requests on Github, I doubt there will be a complete revert to the previous version. Nothing like that was said at the recent Vault Hours either, they intend to work on a current UI. But who knows.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed because I came to Bitwarden after testing and rejecting many other password managers.
2 Likes
Thank you, I appreciate the quick reply. Not the answer I wanted, but it is the answer.
It’s unlikely I’ll do this. Why should I kludge & tweak to force it into what should be std behavior. One more straw…
I’ve also started looking at alternatives. Maybe there’s nothing better. Maybe there is. Changing PW managers is a PITA.
2 Likes
The tiny little “Fill” button is driving me insane. Why on earth would it default to “view” when you click instead of filling as it has always done??
4 Likes
Just got the update, this is horrible compared to the old UI. Lost functionality, wasted space and it just is terrible design all around. How can I revert? This is unusable.
2 Likes
Such a bad experience with the new design.
Just used it to save the login for Bitwarden Community and it didn’t even save the right info to allow me to log in again. Something with this update just seems off.
Other gripes to share:
- Items in an organization when looking at the list there is no icon anymore, need to click in to see what is shared or not shared
-The Fill button should be the edit/view button and the ability to fill the login via clicking on the entire row should be the thing that fills in the
-Never had issues with it copy and pasting before and now with this new update sometimes it doesn’t copy to clipboard
-It says assign to collections for things already in a collection that doesn’t make sense the wording
-I get I can now make the box wider but you shrunk the amount of characters showing in the row, why would you reduce that down
I do think the look is cleaner and enjoy that but feel like we should have the same general usage of the extension.
1 Like
So they could make room for the “fill” button nobody wants.
4 Likes
That “Fill”-button was originally an “Auto-fill” button = larger than now.
That was actually a screenshot from me, I was very unhappy about:
On of the main feedback of the public beta (October) was, that that “Auto-fill” button was so large, that the vault items (title & username) were barely readable (first 8 characters or so… depending on the translated language). So the feedback was “please make that auto-fill button smaller, so that we can read the items again!”.
And so, we arrived at a smaller “Fill”-button… 
But I don’t think this is “the end result that will remain like this forever now” - honestly, I don’t understand that so many people see it that way at the moment.
1 Like
It was publicly announced - here in the forum and on Reddit. Everyone could have participated.
But I agree, that the tests could have been more broad.
I’m not from Bitwarden. I don’t want to defend them.
I just wanted to explain “what happened” (and why the smaller “Fill”-button indeed could be an example how they reacted to feedback and are willing to make changes - obviously unfortunate that the process also lead to mistakes that possibly could have been avoided).
Qualitative (or even semi-quantitative) user surveys (especially with a self-selected sample of respondents) is something very different that quantitative usability testing, in which performance metrics and user inputs (e.g. mouse movements/clicks) are quantitatively measured during performance of common tasks. Just listening to the “squeaky wheels” on social media or sending out surveys that ask users “which of the following words best describe your impressions of the UI” is not a valid substitute for quantitative analysis.
Even in this very feedback thread, what appears to be a consensus about the seemingly unpopular “Fill” button could very possibly be an example of selection bias. The thread will quickly attract users who are unhappy (e.g., because they are used to autofilling by opening the extension window and clicking on the item names), who all speak in unison. Meanwhile, users who routinely use autofill methods that do not require interaction with the extension UI may be satisfied (or even happy) with the new Fill button, and therefore see no need to create an account on the Community Forum to post a complaint in this feedback thread.
If Bitwarden were to switch the UX design so that opening the item always requires clicking on a small “View” button/icon (and clicking the item name always results in autofilling), then I guarantee that this feedback thread will see a flood of unhappy users who liked it better the other way.
@Kevin_Harris @dflinn Please take note. 
Do not succumb to social media pressure — instead, engage the services of some consultants who specialize in quantitative testing of UI designs.
2 Likes
I get that. And I agree. But I reacted to “just asking fanboys” - because that didn’t sound right either.
@anon10321843 Honest question: what would you have said to an auto-fill button like that (and ignore my editing - I don’t have the original):
?
Actually I don’t disagree now. That’s why I made that suggestion:
But I must say, I’m not in the mood to discuss the inconsistency-issue again (see aboooooove), so I’ll leave it at that. 
PS:
Yeah, that option didn’t exist two months ago. 
2 Likes
Since @Nail1684 is campaigning for his idea, I will make a plug for my own proposal.
The main concept is to enlarge the autofill button size by leveraging the nonfunctional space currently used to display the item icon (e.g., website favicon, or card logo), and to place the autofill button on the left (this satisfies the principle of placing important actions first, while also preventing the autofill button form shifting locations depending on what quick-copy icons have been displayed on the right side of the item).
In the draft concept illustrated below, the autofill button encompasses only the item’s icon, as well as a pictograph (or word) added to remind the user that the button action is autofill.
For items that do not have any URI match (or if the autofill action should not be available for any reason), the item icon can still be displayed, but without the button border or autofill pictograph. This will keep the clickable item name in a consistent location always.
The same UI button could also be made available in search results, where clicking the left button would result in a forced autofill (autofilling when there is no URI match). To remind the user that autofilling without a URI match can be risky, the button border and/or background could have a different color in this context, or a different pictograph could be used (even something extreme, such as a 
symbol).
1 Like
I think I don’t agree completely. If they didn’t shrink the target then everyone would be forced to a wider view. ?!