Its not just autofill, whole design is a mess and it hurts my eyes even looking at it.
4 Likes
Oh my! Bitwarden went, in 1 big swoop, from being the most usable and fastest password managers to one of the worst.
Why?!
What is this obsession of companies nowadays to make changes for changes sake.
I honestly doubt if actual users were asked to test the current version. That last update broke So much.
It’s dead slow now, it’s no longer intuitive, syncing now has to be done by hand often as otherwise it doesn’t happen, loading the data takes ages, the chrome plugin to autofill on the filed (rather than from the toolbar) looks like it’s wading through thick molasses.
I just don’t get it, I’m a long term users and (used to) advise others to do so in a professional capacity but in all honesty I can’t do so any more.
Please come to your senses and go back to how it was before this mess … please…before you loose too many users.
5 Likes
If it’s that slow, then that’s not normal even for the new extension. It sounds like you experience this problem Chrome extension takes forever to load UI after authenticating and is extremely slow and unresponsive which already started with the old extension. (and so I would predict, you use Chrome and MacOS - as those are mostly affected)
And there seem to be bugs around syncing as well at the moment.
- The ability to organize vault items into folders
1 Like
Could you please elaborate a bit more, what exactly makes it harder for you now? Because that ability in general is still there. There are still folders, items can still be “put into” folders, and though there are general problems with more clicking, more scrolling, long folder names and nested folders… I personally find it not that harder to at least get into a particular folder by choosing the folder via the filter (that, and working with the items in the folder, were the main things also the old extension made possible before):
(personally, at least for that act, changing to the “Vault” tab, scrolling down to the folders, clicking the folder (–> old extension) was not quicker for me than clicking the filter, scroll down in the filter, click the folder I want (–> new extension).)
1 Like
I’ve gone through the alternatives listed here: PSA: How to easily autofill using the new browser extension UI , but I much prefer the consistency of clicking the bitwarden extension itself. The new “Fill” button is very small and prone to misclicks.
3 Likes
Added one more lost functionality:
1 Like
Team
It is the 4th January, I cannot believe that there are still people creating posts for issues that have been fixed. Only to have the same information being repeated back to them. You cannot see the forest for the trees! and must be sick of copy/paste the same response…what does this tell you?
A definition of a bad joke is one in which you need to explain the punchline. In this topic description, if you need to tell everyone how to fix get the original functionality back, then it should probably be a default.
This compounding change issues resonates with survivorship bias (Survivorship bias - Wikipedia). This is caused by looking at what the data shows, and not what it means. This is demonstrated by a picture of a plane with bullet holes in places as diagrammed through WWII.
Bitwarden made a new plane (UI and dramatic UX changes) and sent it into the world. However, there were a number of bullet holes put into the plane (this thread, Reddit to name a few). The devs have listened to this (great job).
However, because the data only showed a small number of complaints over the number of deployments, I would ASS-U-ME that they thought the way to appease this small minority was to give the option back to the people. (Yeah mostly). The issue has now been compounded where some people have enabled the old functionality.
However - what the data does not show, is the number of people each poster represents and those that HAVE NOT posted their issue, either because they have not taken time out of their day to google a fix, don’t want to create an account, or just human nature of not saying anything and walking with their feet. The shear number of posts about this change should ring bells that there is more than a small minority that are dissatisfied.
There was a group of people who stated that the UI was outdated. Did they complain about the UX? These people would be representing themselves with there suggestion. However, in this forum, one individual may be representing a larger group of people. Ie one person will be posting on behalf of 10,100,1000 users. Most, like me, will (also) be the family go-to IT fix person where I am now fielding calls about the change in BW and having to spend my time telling them how to revert to get the (expected) functionality back.
This post is currently 689 posts long, so lets assume that is around 200 people. At the time of the change, the post count was a lot less and we got the option of the quick icons back. If 100k people had posted disapproval, would have you left the default being the new method, or reverted to the previous default?
There are a range of people out there with various computer skills…some that embrace change and cannot get enough of it, through to those that ring IT if a desktop icon changes. People don’t like forced change and you have just made a lot of people have unhappy days.
Please, can you revert to the old behaviour of everything by default as the noise it is generating by insisting on the new way is deafening.
It is bad enough that you have to customize each instance of BW to how you like it (previously I did not have too)
For those that use keyboard shortcuts to autofill - they may turn off the icons to put into a drop down menu for the quick actions, but I would think most wouldn’t even bother doing that.
Make a popup saying that there is new options that the user could toggle, but please don’t just unilaterally change workflows of people because you have a hunch that it makes the UI/UX better. The reasons people promote Bitwarden was because it was easy to use. I was speaking yesterday to a friend who finally got around to evaluate a password manager. They have decided to go with another product due to the new UX - I did explain that they could revert some of the actions, but they like out of the box. How many of these events are you not capturing? I have also not seen so many people state that they will look for alternatives/switch.
So please - can you revert it to the default (old) behaviours please and silence the noise!!
5 Likes
Unless they added that in since the last version I tried (2024.12.4) there were no folders organizing my vault items. It just shows everything unorganized, except in a big alphabetical list.
This is the “All Items” display, an (IMO pointless) way of viewing the unfiltered vault contents; however, this is something that exists in addition to the folder view (the “All Items” section hasn’t replaced the folders, as your comment implies). The folders are still there, but using them requires clicking on the “Folder” filter (as opposed to clicking on the “Vault” icon, which was required in the old UI). If you haven’t hidden the vault filters, then the number of clicks to open a folder is unchanged from before; however, if you do hide the vault filters, then an extra click is required to get to a folder view.
1 Like
Which is completely useless and effectively removes folders from the platform as an organizational function. Yet another dealbreaker in this train wreck of an overhaul.
2 Likes
From the first version of the new extension, it was possible to still view the content (items) of a folder. Like before. So, organized - and not just everything in a big alphabetical list. Via the “folder” filters, here again:
I think, the “toggle” for the filters came only with version 2024.12.1 or 2024.12.2:
1 Like
I am aware of the filters. I’m not interested in them. What I want are folders. And those are gone.
These are folders:
The difference here is that my vault items in the good version are organized into them. As opposed to the filters you insist are the same thing. They are in fact not. In the new version of the extension, there are no folders. Just a list of vault items.
Stop trying to talk to me about this like I’m stupid. I assure you I am not.
5 Likes
I really try to understand you. But here, I really can’t. With the same kind of logic, you could say about the old extension: “because using folders required clicking the “Vault” tab (and after that the folder), folders are completely useless and that effectively removes folders from the platform as an organizational function”.
You can get the (more or less) exact same view of a folder - only that the list of folders is now in a “filter” and not in the “Vault” tab.
1 Like
I think my mistake here is in responding to you at all. I’m going to be ignoring you going forward because all you seem to do is condescend to other users and that is very rude.
1 Like
I’ve been trying to keep up with the tweaks BW is making, perhaps I missed this one…
Browser extension (Chrome, if it matters), when you click to open, below any matches, it starts listing every entry. Is there any way to turn this off?
Why does it do this? Is there some reason to display every entry below the matching entries? Maybe I’m overlooking some great new function.
Thanks.
4 Likes
Obviously, your vault items are still organized into folders, or else not even the 2024.11.2 extension (or the Desktop app or Web Vault, for that matter) would be able to display the items in any organized way. Using the new UI does not remove that organization.
The only difference is how the folder structure is displayed. It is clear that you are no fan of the new display, but you have not successfully communicated what it is about the new display you find objectionable.
Here are some possibilities, if one objectively examines the actual differences between the two UIs:
-
The click target for viewing the folders is different from what you’re used to (“Folder” filter at top of the new UI vs. “Vault” icon at bottom of the old UI).
-
If the vault filter visibility has been toggled to “off” in the new UI, then an extra click is required for accessing folder contents (3 clicks in the new UI vs. 2 clicks in the old UI).
-
The folder names are displayed in a smaller font in the new UI.
-
The number of items contained in each folder is not visible in the folder list in the new UI.
-
In the new folder list, folder names are cut off at 20 characters (using Compact mode and Default width in the new UI), instead of at 44 characters (in the old folder list). Even using the “Extra Wide” display option, the new UI can display at most 38 characters of the folder names.
-
When a folder has been opened, the number of items in the folder is not displayed in the new UI.
-
When a folder has been opened in the new UI, the folder name is hidden if the vault filter visibility is toggled.
-
When a folder has been opened, the folder name is in all uppercase in the old UI, but the new UI does not capitalize the folder name (instead preserving the original capitalization scheme for the folder name).
-
If a folder contains vault items in addition to subfolders, then the new UI can no longer display both the folder items and the subfolder names at the same time (and an extra click is required to “view items in folder”, when the folder also contains subfolders).
-
When the extension is popped out (detached from the browser), folders are not visible by default, and the folder filter closes if clicking in the pop-out window outside the folder list.
So if you want to provide some constructive feedback, perhaps you could indicate which of the 10 issues above is/are the dealbreaker for you.
Edits: Added one more difference (inserted as Issue #5) on 1/4/2025; clarified Issue #9 on 1/5/2025; added Issue #10 on 1/6/2025.
2 Likes
Per the staff notice at the top of the thread, the ability to collapse the “All Items” category at the bottom is coming “soon”, but not yet available.
No, there does not appear to be any good reason to display the full, unfiltered vault contents by default.
However, the new UI evidently uses a new paradigm of applying filters to help locate vault items. When filters are applied, the “All Items” category at the bottom actually displays only items that match the filters (it shows all such items, except for any items matching the filters that either are favorites or have a URI match to the open webpage — those items are moved up to the “Favorites” section or “Autofill Suggestions” section, respectively).
So the “All Items” section actually shows “All Other Items Matching the Filters” (“Other” being anything that is not already shown in the “Autofill Suggestions” or “Favorites” sections). Therefore, if no filters have been been enabled, it would make some logical sense that the “All Items” section should display all vault items (except for “Autofill Suggestions” and “Favorites”).
I’m not saying any of the above to defend the choices made, just to try to explain why the “All Items” section is there when the browser extension is first opened.
2 Likes
Hi Nail1684. Good question. First, a minor but important correction: I don’t think the default obfuscation in Bitwarden is a mistake. I simply don’t think it’s the best choice for a significant set of users, and not the best choice all the time, and thus should be an option. I do think it’s the best choice for some users. Also, many users may want it one way in some situations (e.g. work/home) and another way in other situations (e.g. when traveling). Thus a user-facing toggle is ideal.
Second, a clarification: When I used the term “security code”, I was using Bitwarden’s English UI language resources, in which it refers to CVV codes as “security codes”.
Third, a bit of another correction/clarification, I don’t need to always see the plaintext passwords and security codes. It’s more of the opposite: I don’t ever need to have them obfuscated. Thus, when I need to see one, which happens multiple times per typical day, it always adds an additional step for each field to show its actual data. If I’m just using a keyboard, it’s even worse, as it requires multiple keystrokes (or perhaps there is another keyboard shortcut one must remember?). It’s also an accessibility issue.
Now, I think you may be wondering for which tasks one may need to see the actual data as opposed to the little “circles of obfuscation”. They are numerous, but here are some common ones:
- When entering credit card data into a web form, Bitwarden isn’t great at filling in all the required fields. Sites typically require filling in the credit card number, its expiration date, and its security code. Because it’s an error-prone endeavor to push all these items to a clipboard manager and then pop them out in the correct order, I find it best to look up the credit card in Bitwarden and simply memorize the expiration date and security code (to my brain’s short term memory) so I can manually enter them into the web form.
- When placing orders via telephone, form fillers do not help. As such, one must be able to see all the real data.
- When placing orders on a device on which Bitwarden cannot or will not be installed, seeing the actual data on the Bitwarden device is essential.
- It’s helpful to be always see the actual password for each login because it provides another opportunity to detect passwords that could benefit from the complexity or length being increased. For example, I once used a service that limited their password length to 14 chars that could consist only of uppercase letters. That’s too short and uses only 26 different characters. That’s no good, especially if you’re planning for the future. A few years later, they changed their max password length to 256 chars and allowed over 1000 different characters. They didn’t notify anyone of this change. But because the previous Bitwarden UI allowed one to always see their passwords, I noticed that the password was only 14 chars and contained only uppercase letters. I went to change it, discovered the password could be much longer and more complex, did so, and quickly decreased the probability of a brute force entry into that service.
5 Likes
You can already bring back most of the old features by changing a few settings, see here: Usability issues (UX) in redesigned UI (2024.12.0) - #107 by FaviFake
If the changes suggested above don’t satisfy your needs, yes, there is a hack to get it back, but it’s much less secure because it’s an older version that no longer gets security updates. If you really want to learn how to sideload the outdated extension, I’m sure @nelph0nd can help.
1 Like