Have you ever driven a car that is an absolute joy in so many respects but has these incredible annoyances which are all the more annoying because they are so annoyingly easy to fix? Have you ever driven a car that is even more annoying because the annoying manufacturer spends a lot of time listening to annoying customers but does nothing to address their annoyances?
Well, that's how I feel about G Suite (formerly Google Apps) and I take no pleasure in saying that I am not alone. Take a nostalgic trip through the relevant user forums and you will see that many of us have been yammering on about G Suite's eminently fixable flaws for what seems like an eternity. These are genuine deal-breakers for the type of business user that Google should be cultivating. But, for stickier types like myself, they are sorely testing our patience.
Way back in 2006, Google was still finding its feet in the nascent Cloud productivity space following a number of related acquisitions. This wasn't an easy time for developers as the dominant browser creaked under its monopolistic weight and the wider industry succumbed to second phase growing pains. If Gmail and Calendar were the hooks for early adopters like myself, we only really dabbled with their experimental siblings as Google's online alternative to Microsoft Office entered a three-year beta cycle. But at least it was "free" and we knew what we were getting into. So, in the hope that things would get better, we kept our powder dry and our legacy tools on standby to circumvent the obvious limitations of their up-and-coming rivals in the Cloud. But even when Google Apps came out of beta in 2009 to become a paid service, it was reassuring that reliability was being prioritised over functionality. Not that we were looking for every bell and whistle in the book because the perils of feature bloat were already apparent with Microsoft Office. But there remained a number of flaws in Google's leaner-and-meaner alternative which badly needed fixing. So we soldiered on using essentially the same modus operandi while all the time wondering when we could dump our legacy infrastructure to complete our move to the Cloud.
As we fast forward to 2016, it would be churlish of me not to salute the improvements in G Suite over the past ten years. However, behind all the hype and window-dressing, there remain a number of potential deal-breakers that could — and should — have been addressed a long time ago. So, just to be really annoying, I hereby propose five elementary tweaks that will make G Suite annoyingly great for business.
If there is one eminently-fixable annoyance that sums up my frustration with G Suite then this is it. Google offers technical reasons for this behaviour which might even persuade some folks that it is a feature rather than a bug. But, on the planet that I inhabit, it is a more than just a bug — it is a deal-breaker and a blight on Google's reputation. I hasten to add that this ever-so-basic functionality is implemented faithfully by Zoho.
Google developers will tell you that this is outside their control; however, there are many other client-side issues outside their control for which they have proved more than capable of devising clever workarounds. One solution that comes to mind is a client-agnostic virtual rendering model which tracks page transitions using standard font metrics. Client-side rendering code can then employ self-adjusting page dimensions so that page transitions can be forced at consistent points in the document. This may not deliver a perfectly consistent viewing experience within each page but at least it will "keep everyone on the same page" which is the key objective.
As things stand, users are inclined to preempt this problem by inserting artificial page breaks at opportune points in the document. Of course, these little nudges will need to be reviewed every time the document is changed. This is hardly a good advertisement for G Suite workflow.
Notwithstanding our futile attempts to wean ourselves away from paper, predictable pagination is still essential for all but the most trivial documents — even when they are only viewed in the virtual world. This is especially true for businesses and it is one of the reasons why Google Docs is still the poor relation of G Suite.
Well, that's how I feel about G Suite (formerly Google Apps) and I take no pleasure in saying that I am not alone. Take a nostalgic trip through the relevant user forums and you will see that many of us have been yammering on about G Suite's eminently fixable flaws for what seems like an eternity. These are genuine deal-breakers for the type of business user that Google should be cultivating. But, for stickier types like myself, they are sorely testing our patience.
As we fast forward to 2016, it would be churlish of me not to salute the improvements in G Suite over the past ten years. However, behind all the hype and window-dressing, there remain a number of potential deal-breakers that could — and should — have been addressed a long time ago. So, just to be really annoying, I hereby propose five elementary tweaks that will make G Suite annoyingly great for business.
1. Continuous Underlines
This is one of those gotchas which G Suite users are likely to run into long after their trial period expires — and when it hits them, it usually hits them hard. Trying not to be a burden on humanity, these patient and tolerant converts decide one day to add a little decorum to a document with nothing more demanding than justified text. This sleight-of-hand proves to be so pleasant and uneventful that they are encouraged to keep it in mind for other appropriate occasions. After many such pleasant and uneventful experiences, the day finally arrives when they decide to underline an important sentence in one of these justified tomes. Suddenly, they notice that the individual words are underlined but the spaces in between are not. Instinctively, they try to undo and repeat the operation but to no avail. They may even close and reopen the suspect document, but all for nowt. Some will go so far as to underline these obtuse spaces individually — not that this should be necessary — but still no joy. Yet they never copped this problem during the many months since they threw in their lot with Google. So, just to be sure that they aren't losing their marbles, they trawl through their Google Drive for previous encounters with multi-word underlines in their growing body of work. With much relief, they discover that all of these prior examples work as expected. So what gives? A temporary server glitch perhaps? A browser bug? A frantic search on the Google Docs forum finally reveals the unthinkable — continuous underlining is not supported with justified text. And this is when these normally placid creatures start to growl and bare their teeth.If there is one eminently-fixable annoyance that sums up my frustration with G Suite then this is it. Google offers technical reasons for this behaviour which might even persuade some folks that it is a feature rather than a bug. But, on the planet that I inhabit, it is a more than just a bug — it is a deal-breaker and a blight on Google's reputation. I hasten to add that this ever-so-basic functionality is implemented faithfully by Zoho.
2. Pagination Consistency
Another annoyance that Google Docs users will run into before long is inconsistent pagination across different client operating systems, browsers and screen resolutions — and Chromebooks are no less immune to this problem than their more idiosyncratic counterparts. These inconsistencies are also known to affect table-of-contents generation, printing and PDF exports; although, at the time of writing, it is unclear if improvements have been made in these areas.Google developers will tell you that this is outside their control; however, there are many other client-side issues outside their control for which they have proved more than capable of devising clever workarounds. One solution that comes to mind is a client-agnostic virtual rendering model which tracks page transitions using standard font metrics. Client-side rendering code can then employ self-adjusting page dimensions so that page transitions can be forced at consistent points in the document. This may not deliver a perfectly consistent viewing experience within each page but at least it will "keep everyone on the same page" which is the key objective.
As things stand, users are inclined to preempt this problem by inserting artificial page breaks at opportune points in the document. Of course, these little nudges will need to be reviewed every time the document is changed. This is hardly a good advertisement for G Suite workflow.
Notwithstanding our futile attempts to wean ourselves away from paper, predictable pagination is still essential for all but the most trivial documents — even when they are only viewed in the virtual world. This is especially true for businesses and it is one of the reasons why Google Docs is still the poor relation of G Suite.
3. Pagination Control
There are many scenarios where you will want to prevent page breaks at particular points in a document. With traditional word processors, this requirement is supported using pagination options such as widow/orphan control, keep-together and keep-with-next.
With an eye to simplicity, Google Docs makes a fair fist of automating pagination control where it is blindingly obvious. So, for example, normal text is hard-wired with widow/orphan control since nobody in their right mind wants a dangling line at the start or end of a page. Similarly, headings are hard-wired with keep-together and keep-with-next functionality because there is no sane reason for disabling this behaviour.
However, there are times when you will want to prevent page breaks within a section of a document that falls outside the scope of automatic pagination. Unfortunately, Google Docs has no explicit pagination controls and users are forced to surround inviolable sections with manual page breaks.
G Suite product managers need to understand that pagination consistency and control are basic requirements of any word processor. The fact that Google Docs users are becoming conditioned to using manual page breaks is a sure sign that all is not well. Not for the first time, it is also necessary to point out that Zoho excels in this area.
4. Inherited Ownership and Permissions
The creator-is-owner paradigm is a throwback to early multi-user operating systems which carried on through the personal computer revolution and the arrival of enterprise networks. However, this proved to be disastrous in collaborative business environments which is why file systems were eventually tweaked to support inherited ownership and permissions. This allows sysadmins to create common directories, also known as shares, which can be accessed safely and consistently by network users with varying privileges but without the freedom to muck up the basic collaboration structure.
Since Google Drive started out as a personal app under the umbrella of Google Docs, it is hardly surprising that it has evolved in a similar fashion to its owner-obsessive forbears. In this case, folders and files are shared by the creator on a casual basis by generating convoluted links of dubious longevity. Indeed, it is not unheard of for shared files and folders to "go missing" for want of a valid link which is only exacerbated by the compensating tendency to maintain local duplicates.
Clearly, this is no way to implement shared access to files and folders on a platform that prides itself on its collaboration smarts. The solution is not rocket science by any means and the lessons of history are already pointing the way forward. So Google has no excuse for not nailing this annoyance with all due haste.
Related to the previous proposal is the urgent need to extend the basic view/edit permissions and tedious user access lists currently supported on shared files and folders. There is no need to make this too convoluted — indeed, lessons can be drawn from Microsoft Windows whose security model is so over-the-top that it can never be safe. Access control can be streamlined within the existing G Suite security framework using builtin and custom groups.Clearly, this is no way to implement shared access to files and folders on a platform that prides itself on its collaboration smarts. The solution is not rocket science by any means and the lessons of history are already pointing the way forward. So Google has no excuse for not nailing this annoyance with all due haste.
5. Extended Access Control
The following built-in groups are sufficient for access control:
- Public
- Friend Domain Users
- Local Domain Users
- Local Domain Admins
Custom access groups can be implemented by extending the existing groups functionality in G Suite which is currently used for mailing lists and forums. Custom groups should allow membership from both inside and outside the local domain.
With this basic security group structure in place, it should then be possible for domain administrators to create "common shares" assigned to one or more groups, each with its own set of permissions. Given the way businesses are organised, it would also be beneficial to offer similar access control for sub-folders within these common shares. However, non-admin users should not have the freedom to change permissions within the common share hierarchy — even on files and folders that they create.
The following group permissions will cover all practical eventualities:
- File: Read
- File: Append
- File: Edit
- File: Delete
- Folder: List Files
- Folder: Add Files
- Folder: Delete Files
Postscript
06-Apr-2017
I am happy to clarify that since this post was written, Google has launched Team Drive which goes a long way towards addressing proposals 4 and 5 above.25-Apr-2018
Almost one year on, Team Drive still has a glaring permissions flaw which is preventing wider adoption amongst serious business/corporate users. This utter "disconnect" from reality has sadly come to personify Google's hubris in the productivity space and is only exacerbated by the bland corporate responses to user feedback.
05-Jun-2018
After hearing this announcement, I was hoping beyond hope that the above permissions flaw was being addressed. But alas, my tests have shown that Google is utterly clueless when it comes to enterprise basics. Nonetheless, more robust access control is clearly on the agenda, so the penny should drop...eventually.
06-Sep-2018
Finally, after a year-and-a-half, the penny has dropped. Google has introduced the Team Drive role we've all been waiting for. A Content Manager can edit, reorganize and delete content, but cannot modify Team Drive membership (and, presumably, cannot delete the Team Drive itself — although this is not explicitly stated).
Starting in October 2018, the roles in Team Drives will be:
- Manager (was “Full access”)
- Content manager (new role, and the default role for new members of the Team Drive)
- Contributor (was “Edit access”)
- Commenter (was “Comment access”)
- Viewer (was “View access”)
03-Apr-2019
I just noticed that the underlining bug in justified paragraphs has been fixed. But did it really have to take so long?