Limitations of the new SPFx

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-31608%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ELimitations%20of%20the%20new%20SPFx%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-31608%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EI've%20got%20a%20customer%20who%20would%20like%20to%20use%20new%20new%20team%20sites.%20There%20is%20however%20one%20major%20downside%20that%20we%20can%20see.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EI'm%20missing%20the%20list%20view%20web%20part%20or%20something%20equivalent.%20I'm%20aware%20of%20the%20Highlighted%20Content%20but%20that%20seems%20to%20be%20very%20limited.%20%26nbsp%3BWhat%20should%20I%20do%20if%20I%20want%20it%20to%20be%20easy%20for%20site%20owners%20to%20add%20library%2Flist%20overviews%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E1.%20Go%20for%20the%20old%20team%20sites%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E2.%20Go%20for%20the%20new%20team%20sites%20and%20develop%20our%20own%20Client%20Side%20Web%20Parts%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E3.%20any%20other%20ideas%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-31667%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Limitations%20of%20the%20new%20SPFx%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-31667%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EModern%20team%20sites%20with%20an%20Office%20365%20Groups%20has%20been%20deployment%20to%20100%25%20of%20First%20Release%2C%20see%20this%20%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSharePoint%2Fstatus%2F801144386234896384%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22nofollow%20noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSharePoint%2Fstatus%2F801144386234896384%3C%2FA%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-31666%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Limitations%20of%20the%20new%20SPFx%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-31666%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EThat's%20a%20good%20question...what%20it's%20not%20clear%20to%20me%20is%20if%20modern%20team%20sites%20in%20Groups%20are%20generally%20available%2C%20i.e.%20for%20customers%20where%20first%20release%20is%20not%20enabled...my%20guess%20is%20%22No%22%2C%20but%20I'm%20not%20sure...so%20adding%20here%26nbsp%3B%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F67%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Christophe%20Fiessinger%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3Bto%20comment%20on%20this.%20By%20the%20way%2C%20I%20see%20here%20two%20scenarios%3A%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E(1)%20Use%20features%20out%20of%20the%20box%20without%20any%20kind%20of%20customization%20until%20everything%20is%20ready.%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E(2)%20Go%20ahead%20with%20the%20idea%20of%20use%20SPFx%20for%20customers%20that%20cannot%20wait%20until%20everything%20is%20ready%20and%20requires%20some%20customization.%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EI%20would%20stay%20with%20(1)%20and%20try%20to%20convince%20customer%20to%20focus%20on%20adoption%20and%20usage%20to%20give%20time%20to%20go%20to%20the%20next%20level%20(enhance)%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-31662%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Limitations%20of%20the%20new%20SPFx%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-31662%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EDoes%20this%20mean%20that%20office%20365%20group%20sites%20should%20not%20be%20used%3F%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-31661%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Limitations%20of%20the%20new%20SPFx%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-31661%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EIMHO%2C%20you%20should%20not%20propose%20to%20customers%20a%20solution%20based%20on%20the%20new%20SPFx%20since%20it's%20not%20finished%20yet...indeed%20the%20team%20gave%20this%20message%20in%20the%20ESPC%20hold%20in%20Vienna%20last%20week.%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-31626%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Limitations%20of%20the%20new%20SPFx%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-31626%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EQuite%20frankly%2C%20this%20is%20the%20most%20frustrating%20piece%20of%20the%20modernization%2C%20its%20nice%20and%20shiny%20and%20new%2C%20but%20missing%20so%20much%20of%20what%20I%20would%20call%20%22basic%22%20sharepoint%20functionality%2C%20we%20can't%20feasibly%20start%20using%20it%20until%20this%20gap%20is%20closed.%20I%20think%20you%20have%20to%20just%20keep%20the%20old%20team%20sites%20(or%20mix%20and%20match%20the%20modern%20and%20classic%20pages)%20which%20provides%20for%20a%20horrible%20user%20experience%20(and%20I'm%20not%20sure%20that%20cost%20justifies%20the%20means%20just%20yet).%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CBR%20%2F%3EI%20was%20shocked%20the%20number%20of%20list%2Flibrary%20view%20web%20parts%2C%20search%20results%20web%20parts%2C%20and%20other%20%22basic%20sharepointy%22%20things%20that%20all%20of%20our%20current%20sites%20use%2C%20and%20are%20missing%20from%20the%20modern%20stuff.%20I%20would%20rather%20not%20have%20to%20redesign%20every%20little%20piece%20of%20our%20SharePoint%20environment%20just%20to%20take%20advantage%20of%20modern...%20%3A(%3C%2Fimg%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
MVP

I've got a customer who would like to use new new team sites. There is however one major downside that we can see. 

 

I'm missing the list view web part or something equivalent. I'm aware of the Highlighted Content but that seems to be very limited.  What should I do if I want it to be easy for site owners to add library/list overviews?

 

1. Go for the old team sites?

2. Go for the new team sites and develop our own Client Side Web Parts?

3. any other ideas?

 

 

 

 

 

5 Replies
Quite frankly, this is the most frustrating piece of the modernization, its nice and shiny and new, but missing so much of what I would call "basic" sharepoint functionality, we can't feasibly start using it until this gap is closed. I think you have to just keep the old team sites (or mix and match the modern and classic pages) which provides for a horrible user experience (and I'm not sure that cost justifies the means just yet).

I was shocked the number of list/library view web parts, search results web parts, and other "basic sharepointy" things that all of our current sites use, and are missing from the modern stuff. I would rather not have to redesign every little piece of our SharePoint environment just to take advantage of modern... :(
IMHO, you should not propose to customers a solution based on the new SPFx since it's not finished yet...indeed the team gave this message in the ESPC hold in Vienna last week.
Does this mean that office 365 group sites should not be used?

That's a good question...what it's not clear to me is if modern team sites in Groups are generally available, i.e. for customers where first release is not enabled...my guess is "No", but I'm not sure...so adding here @Christophe Fiessinger to comment on this. By the way, I see here two scenarios:

(1) Use features out of the box without any kind of customization until everything is ready.

(2) Go ahead with the idea of use SPFx for customers that cannot wait until everything is ready and requires some customization.

 

I would stay with (1) and try to convince customer to focus on adoption and usage to give time to go to the next level (enhance)

Modern team sites with an Office 365 Groups has been deployment to 100% of First Release, see this https://twitter.com/SharePoint/status/801144386234896384