Views limitation



  • Samuel Mosher

    Agreed with @..., I don't think there should be a maximum. The Views sidebar understandably would need a "minimum" - but all views available to a user should be accessible from that page alone, either through some kind of twisty that expands a nested view, a link that loads more, etc.

    The best way we could see that working out is having expandable categories, and a final "Unsorted" bucket.

    Our team could manage without having the view counts. I'm guessing there is a large tax with computing those values that probably led to this restriction in the first place. Maybe there's a happy medium - the numbers are cached and refreshed every so often, or just a red dot or star to indicate there's tickets in the view. But our team could live with no counts being present.

    Another big ask: Favorite views. This way, agents can select the views that matter to them. It puts us in a hard spot to manage views for an entire org when we have some agents working on a significant number of workflows that each have their own unique sorting and grouping needs. It's either global + sequential order, or personal views, and nothing in between.

    This problem is compounded by the fact that the Manage Views page is, at best, an exercise in frustration. Today alone, I've had to help 6 different agents use this page due to the way it works. It is less intuitive than most. A great fix for this would be making the Ticket View title link take you to the view, and not the edit page. Then, having a persistent link to the edit page, instead of any hover-over action. This would also be an important accessibility improvement, due to the way screen readers work.

    Finally, making the list of views and their IDs exportable to CSV would be a boon for us. At the least, it would help those who might not be comfortable using the API to take those IDs and build a list of views in something like Excel or Google Sheets for their agents to reference.

  • Anne Poortema

    I'd also opt for an endless amount of views. As a company with many teams we need at least one view per team. We can't use a view like 'only from my group' as agents are in several groups but only work for one group at a given moment. It is not doable to keep putting them in and out of groups. Also, that way they can't help another team when it gets too busy.

    Zendesk seems to be designed for agents that only do what they are told. We like to keep our agents thinking and arranging their work themselves instead of  a teamleader micromanaging them. For that reason they also need to see how workload differs across the teams and be able to help where they can in order to keep waiting times for clients short.

    Please add room for more views, and don't limit the amount. Especially if you want to land bigger clients, you need to.  

  • Nathan Purcell

    The bare minimum of views is the number I have added. If I have 200 views, I want the ability to have 200 views in that column. 

    If I add another view, I would like that to also appear in the column. 

    Considering we have the ability to grant access to view by group membership, this is not as unwieldy as it may sound at first. Very few people in the system will have access to all views - but even if they did, I still want them to see all views. 

    Because it's inefficient to require an agent to go looking for specific views. It's also an overlook risk factor if the views are not at the forefront. 

    "Bare minimum of views with counts"? All of them should have counts. Also, the counts should not be capped to an artificial number (see suspended tickets, capped at 5K). 

  • Stephen Fleming


    To echo Nathan and Samuel's sentiment, I would prefer to see no maximum on the number of views available.

    Given that we can limit who has access to certain Views, not all Views would be available to all Agents. However, the Zendesk Admins in my team require the ability to be able to see what is going on and how workflows are performing for the various teams in our company.

    Additionally, I would love to see an equivalent of the categorisation feature available for Triggers, added to the Views page. Being able to keep certain Views grouped in a category would be extremely helpful.

  • Jason Favill

    Do we have any updates on this feature? From a coding perspective, I don't understand the lock on 12 when the UI has plenty of space for many more. 

    Our company has teams that prioritise work based on certain queues (views) these need to be unique hence the requirement for more. 

    The limit should be set by the user and not the creator. A "more" option should appear when the list is at a high capacity. 

  • Josh Dronzek

    Build in brand specification to this too. Certain brands need certain views.

  • Jesuloluwa Olaoye

    In addition to this, can we also have the views visible when agents are working on the tickets? It's important that agents are able to keep an eye on the queue while solving tickets without having to navigate away to the views page.

  • Chad Smith

    Salvador Vazquez, my company would be looking at upwards of 30-40 views for most of our agents. Essentially each view is specific to a client that you are working with, and then we would also have summary views for all tickets open, tickets pending, and tickets on hold, specific to a user or a particular group. It would even be nice if the views were a scroll, or if there was a 'View More' or even a Tabbed Page action that had to be taken below the current section to show the additional views. (if it is a load issue)

    For comparison we use JIRA for tracking our software development and I have the ability to see and run 82 filters (their version of views) on demand at any time. 

  • Henry Domis

    Why a limit number of views? I read the objective is to get 20 views (7months ago), why 20 and not 21? Why not developing infinite views (scrollbar exists since the begining of the Internet)? Once the 20 views access will be available (or not...) you'll need to make a POC for 40 views which will last X years again. I don't get the point here.


Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk