Submitted ideas will be evaluated by our product teams for upcoming releases and will be responded to so you know where things stand. For product support, please use the community forums or contact TAC.
NOTE: All Cisco employees & Channel Partners must enter Ideas through this Ideas Portal.
Removes the need to create a webex meeting or webex team channel and keeps you in the context window showing past chat for context.
This is a must feature which needs to be introduced asap. MS teams has this nice feature
In all honesty... creating a space to have a conversation with more than one person is pretty horrible.
This would help us in our transition from Cisco Jabber to Webex. Our end users are used to being able to simply click the add button on a direct message to make an ad hoc group chat (space).
This would throw off the larger user interface logic. We chat with another person or with a designated group of people. Adding one more person to a DM message exchange creates potential for unmanageble disorientation.
I also agree that this is a big missing feature.
Ideas were shared already: It should be possible in a 1:1 space to mark multiple messages and create a new space and copy the marked message to the new space instantly
WOW, what a great idea. certainly one of the abilities that we are loosing as we migrate away from lync/Skype. certainly saved a lot of time being able to pull someone into a conversation on the fly.
I think this would be easily solved by allowing selection of multiple messages/threads to be forwarded. Currently, a single message can be forwarded to a newly-created space in order to spawn a group space from a 1:1 conversation. If we could select multiple messages or threads and forward them all at the same time, it would allow moving of an ongoing conversation between spaces--including to a new group space created on the fly during the forward process.
I agree that you wouldn't want to add someone to a persistent chat space but there has to be a quick way to continue a conversation by adding additional people. Setting up a new space takes too much time.
I disagree.Adding a person should always require you to create a new space. Reasoning:Private chat history should never be open to be shared with new people i a space for privacy reasons..By definition a space is for communicating about one 'topic', whereas a one to one chat could be about anything at all and completely unrelated to the 'topic' you would like to discuss, (potentially you could have a 'conversation with someone for years about multiple topics both work and un-work related and adding someone to this conversation would show the full history of your communication.
On the other hand, the ability to press one button to create a new space, and add any additional members from there would have the same effectiveness as far as the speed of communication is concerned, and would preserve the existing two person space as a separate area not shared.
I think the issue is the need to seamlessly move into talking to more folks without the clunky overhead of creating a new space and adding the preexiting chat-ee to it is what's most being asked for. My manager is alwasy in a rush. Taking a minute to start over can mean losing her entirely to the next distraction.
I disagree as this impacts the sanctity of a 1 on 1 chat. Not that I ever complain about someone to someone else, but it opens the door to that happening if said person I was complaining about was added to our 1:1.
If it eliminated the previous chat history and became a group space, that would be fine. However, then there would be an enhancement for that old 1:1 chat history to repopulate should you ever contact the original person directly again.
Adding a person should create a new space. You don't want others to see your private chat history.
Need this ASAP.
I don't agree to this - adding a new participant to a persistent chat can violate privacy or other sensitive information being inadvertently displayed.
Agreed. Too much time and noise added when I have to create a space and manage it after I use it (keep it there or remove).
They should combine the following similar Ideas with this one...
WXCUST-I-527 - 63 Votes
WXCUST-I-558 - 15 Votes
WXCUST-I-547 - 4 Votes
--- +83 Votes
This would be so very helpful...
You won't be notified about changes to this idea.
©2020 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.