SOLVED

SharePoint Online - classic configuration or not?

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-782809%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ESharePoint%20Online%20-%20classic%20configuration%20or%20not%3F%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-782809%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EWe%20are%20implementing%20a%20greenfield%20modern%20SharePoint%20structure%20using%20a%20hub%20and%20team%20sites.%20It%20seems%20to%20me%20that%20functions%20like%20content%20types%2C%20workflows%20and%20to%20some%20extent%20the%20term%20store%20are%20slowly%20being%20superseded.%20To%20what%20extent%20should%20we%20be%20using%20these%20%E2%80%9Cclassic%E2%80%9D%20options%3F%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%3CSPAN%3EThe%20challenge%20is%20that%20some%20users%20may%20expect%2C%20what%20appears%20to%20be%2C%20the%20more%20granular%5Ccustomisable%20functionality%20of%20the%20classic.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FSPAN%3E%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-LABS%20id%3D%22lingo-labs-782809%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3ESharePoint%20Online%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3C%2FLINGO-LABS%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-782998%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20SharePoint%20Online%20-%20classic%20configuration%20or%20not%3F%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-782998%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EI%20think%20using%20the%20modern%20experience%20for%20green%20field%20scenarios%20should%20be%20your%20primary%20goal.%20Many%20of%20the%20structures%20%2F%20functions%20from%20classic%20experience%20are%20still%20there%20or%20have%20an%20equivalent%20that%20provides%20similar%20functionality.%20In%20general%2C%20deprecated%20functionality%20(once%20officially%20announced)%20will%20stay%20in%20SharePoint%20and%20supported%20by%20Microsoft%20for%20quite%20a%20long%20time.%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CBR%20%2F%3EI%20don't%20see%20any%20movement%20in%20the%20basic%20structures%20of%20Fields%2C%20Content%20Types%2C%20Taxonomy%2C%20Lists%20and%20Libraries.%20I%20think%20it's%20safe%20to%20build%20your%20solution%20around%20these%20for%20the%20foreseeable%20future.%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CBR%20%2F%3EThere%20are%20many%20things%20in%20SharePoint%20Online%20still%20available%20that%20have%20a%20better%2C%20modern%20alternative.%20We%20shouldn't%20use%20these%20anymore%20in%20greenfield%20scenarios%20and%20we%20should%20plan%20to%20replace%20them%20in%20brownfield%20scenarios.%20For%20example%20I%20wouldn't%20design%20new%20solutions%20anymore%20that%20incorporate%20Workflow%20(2010%2F2013)%2C%20InfoPath%2C%20BCS%2C%20Content%20Organizer%2C%20etc...%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-783140%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20SharePoint%20Online%20-%20classic%20configuration%20or%20not%3F%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-783140%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ETotally%20agree%20with%20Paul%20here%20and%20no%20worries%20about%20using%20Content%20Types%2C%20Site%20Columns%2C%20etc%20in%20modern%20they%20are%20there...and%20indeed%20the%20modern%20experience%20we%20have%20for%20document%20libraries%20is%20much%20more%20better%20than%20the%20classic%20one...I%20know%20you%20are%20still%20missing%20many%20function%20you%20used%20in%20classic%2C%20but%20in%20general%20modern%20is%20much%20more%20productive%20than%20classic%20when%20dealing%20with%20documents%20and%20informaton%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-784792%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20SharePoint%20Online%20-%20classic%20configuration%20or%20not%3F%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-784792%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F60%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Juan%20Carlos%20Gonz%C3%A1lez%20Mart%C3%ADn%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3B%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F1803%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Paul%20Pascha%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EThanks%20for%20the%20advice%20-%20it%20does%20confirm%20my%20thinking.%20I'm%20not%20a%20SharePoint%20person%20so%20there%20is%20no%20exposure%20to%20the%20classic%20world%20other%20than%20what%20I've%20read%20on%20sites%20like%20SharePoint%20Maven%20etc%20but%20as%20I%20work%20through%20some%20of%20the%20%22how%20to%22%20on%20these%20sites%20from%20time%20to%20time%20the%20traditional%20seems%20to%20be%20in%20conflict%20with%20the%20new.%20For%20example%3A%20using%20the%20term-store%20to%20define%20meta-data%20for%20a%20documents%20approval%20status%20may%20not%20be%20the%20best%20option%20when%20a%20user%20can%20use%20MS%20Flow%20directly%20request%20sign-off%20and%20the%20status%20is%20automagically%20shown%20via%20the%20built-in%20sign-off%20status%20column.%20There%20are%20other%20similar%20examples%20I%20could%20give%20but%20I%20guess%20this%20about%20moving%20the%20power%20to%20the%20end%20user%20(who%20like%20me)%20isn't%20a%20SharePoint%20native.%20So%20I%20have%20one%20further%20question%20does%20(or%20will)%20the%20auto-magic%20extend%20to%20things%20like%20Search%20and%20so%20therefore%20we%20are%20best%20to%20leave%20these%20%22as%20is%22%20and%20let%20the%20magic%20do%20its%20thing%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
Highlighted
Occasional Contributor

We are implementing a greenfield modern SharePoint structure using a hub and team sites. It seems to me that functions like content types, workflows and to some extent the term store are slowly being superseded. To what extent should we be using these “classic” options? 

 

The challenge is that some users may expect, what appears to be, the more granular\customisable functionality of the classic. 

3 Replies
Highlighted
Best Response confirmed by Kevin Crossman (MVP)
Solution
I think using the modern experience for green field scenarios should be your primary goal. Many of the structures / functions from classic experience are still there or have an equivalent that provides similar functionality. In general, deprecated functionality (once officially announced) will stay in SharePoint and supported by Microsoft for quite a long time.

I don't see any movement in the basic structures of Fields, Content Types, Taxonomy, Lists and Libraries. I think it's safe to build your solution around these for the foreseeable future.

There are many things in SharePoint Online still available that have a better, modern alternative. We shouldn't use these anymore in greenfield scenarios and we should plan to replace them in brownfield scenarios. For example I wouldn't design new solutions anymore that incorporate Workflow (2010/2013), InfoPath, BCS, Content Organizer, etc...
Highlighted
Totally agree with Paul here and no worries about using Content Types, Site Columns, etc in modern they are there...and indeed the modern experience we have for document libraries is much more better than the classic one...I know you are still missing many function you used in classic, but in general modern is much more productive than classic when dealing with documents and informaton
Highlighted

@Juan Carlos González Martín @Paul Pascha 

 

Thanks for the advice - it does confirm my thinking. I'm not a SharePoint person so there is no exposure to the classic world other than what I've read on sites like SharePoint Maven etc but as I work through some of the "how to" on these sites from time to time the traditional seems to be in conflict with the new. For example: using the term-store to define meta-data for a documents approval status may not be the best option when a user can use MS Flow directly request sign-off and the status is automagically shown via the built-in sign-off status column. There are other similar examples I could give but I guess this about moving the power to the end user (who like me) isn't a SharePoint native. So I have one further question does (or will) the auto-magic extend to things like Search and so therefore we are best to leave these "as is" and let the magic do its thing?