Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Preview without toolbar #764

Closed
schoier opened this issue Feb 10, 2021 · 8 comments
Closed

Preview without toolbar #764

schoier opened this issue Feb 10, 2021 · 8 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request v4 version 4

Comments

@schoier
Copy link

schoier commented Feb 10, 2021

Version used
4.0.0

Describe the bug
With the new version all previews have a complete toolbar. That makes it hard to get a good overview of the document.
image

In the old version the previews didn't have any toolbar (at least not when using "{{getPreviewSrc item}}" in the template).
image

Is there any easy way to change this, another slot value etc?

Desktop (please complete the following information):

  • Edge
@wobba
Copy link
Collaborator

wobba commented Feb 10, 2021

We simplified the code to use the same pattern for all files, and SharePoint redirects to the edit experience when appending "?web=1". We have a couple of options:

  • Re-add logic to use interactive preview for Word/Excel/PowerPoint
  • Show a one page thumbnail instead

@jensotto
Copy link

I think the preview should be a preview ie. view only, and not edit mode as it is now. You can end up having users do unforseen edits, and we have seen that edits are sometimes not saved adding another level of confusion and unreliabaility. Also all the menu items clutter the visible area for the document.

@wobba
Copy link
Collaborator

wobba commented Feb 17, 2021

Personally I'd rather remove the onhover larger view. If you want to view the doc or interact with it, then open it.

I know some people enjoy the feature and we have gotten feedback in Microsoft Search after we removed it from the OOB UX - but not a lot of it. And we haven't seen any movement in search success after removing it. It is better replaced with a better component, which don't exist.

@schoier what's your take if we remove it instead of changing it?

@schoier
Copy link
Author

schoier commented Feb 17, 2021

@wobba I usually use the pnp search in bigger search solutions, like archives. In these cases the preview is a very helpful feature. I agree that the preview isn´t good if you want to interact with or edit the document, but to get a preview of the document to make sure it is the right one before you open the file.

@wobba wobba added v4 version 4 enhancement New feature or request labels Feb 28, 2021
@wobba
Copy link
Collaborator

wobba commented Mar 3, 2021

I think if we change to the logic used in v3 getUrl that should fix this. There are scenarios where this logic fails, but probably something to live with.

@jamesdellowE2
Copy link

Removing ?web=1 so it is just a static preview rather than an interactive preview would be an improvement to avoid unintended edits etc. But the overall user experience isn't great even when you do that - there is a lot of wasted space at the top of the preview (the controls are quite greedy in the layout).

image

Do you have any control over the orientation of the preview - e.g. make it display vertically along the longest edge rather than horizontally?

An option to have a 1-page thumbnail could be useful.

@wobba
Copy link
Collaborator

wobba commented Jul 12, 2021

If we can figure out parameters maybe we can control width etc, but I'm unaware of this right now. Thumbnail image is doable, and is what the result uses on page. You can also question what the value of an interactive preview in a smaller frame actually will accomplish for the end-user.

@wobba
Copy link
Collaborator

wobba commented May 27, 2023

Fixed in the next version.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request v4 version 4
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants