Add to Apple Watch should accommodate multiple users

rdaniel

My wife and I use shared vaults. Each of us wants a small subset of 5 or 10 entries in our own watch list and none of them are in common. I have my list, she has hers. Our combined vaults have on the order of 1200 entries. 1Password adds a given record to both watches if it is marked as add to watch. All of our vaults are shared in case either of us becomes incapacitated. (I know we could use the website in an emergency, but one of us is less tech-savvy than the other and a simple share makes all of the family records always available to each other.) But each of us wants only the passwords we use daily (mainly for the OTPs) in our work to be on our watches. The smaller the list the better for ease of use on the watch.

This is a relatively new feature as the watch is relatively new and it seems to be controlled by a tag in 1Password. Could this not be resolved simply by allowing the tag name for Apple Watch to be chosen in preferences for each user or app? From an outsider's perspective, it looks like the tag "Apple Watch" is arbitrary and the feature might be as easily driven by "HisAW" and "HersAW" where a given user's watch app just syncs with whichever one of those it needs to. That way users could create whatever tags they want that are short and meaningful to the user.

Thanks. Just a little frustrated that the AW feature is not very helpful for us for this reason. We each have to wade through the other's entries unnecessarily.

---

1Password Version: 7.3
Extension Version: Not Provided
OS Version: 10.14.5
Sync Type: iCloud
Referrer: forum-search:Apple Watch Tag

AGAlumB

@rdaniel: I can certainly understand where you're coming from and appreciate the desire to have this be per-person...but the reality is that it would require significant changes to 1Password's data structures to enable something like that (and requisite changes across something like 7 different apps, depending on how you're counting, in order for it to not break things), and I don't recall this request coming up before.

One thing we do see a fair number of requests for is per-person Favorites, rather than "Favorite" being a flag on the item itself, as you run into a similar issue with those in shared vaults: a Favorite is a Favorite for anyone using that vault, as it's part of the data. So it is something we'd like to find a good solution for in the future. It's just not something I see happening in the short term as there's a lot of complexity for relatively small gain, compared to requests we see multiple times a week which do not require changes to the underlying database format.

I'm sorry I don't have better news for you at this time. But I'll bring this up with the team so we can take this use case into account as well if and when we make big changes to accommodate Favorites, etc. Thank you for bringing it up!

rdaniel

Thanks @brenty. Changes always look easy to users.

Lars

@rdaniel - thanks for understanding! It's not something we're slamming the door on, just to be clear. It's just that the combination of relatively high effort/changes needed to make it happen, with relatively low user impact/benefit keep this from the top end of our priority list. I'd file it in the "someday, maybe" category. As always, keep an eye on release notes to see what's new in future updates -- you never know. :)

AGAlumB

@rdaniel: I was brainstorming this a bit last night but cut myself off until today so I could approach it with a fresh brain. Normally in a "shared vault" situation with Favorites, I'd suggest hiding it from All Vaults to avoid "cluttering" your own Favorites with someone else's. But with Apple Watch, that doesn't apply. Anything tagged Apple Watch will display on the watch. And there isn't a way to hide some vaults there because there would also then be no way to view them there: there is no vault switcher UI, and arguably no room for it -- but perhaps a solution could be found in the future. I was really hoping to come up with some idea of a workaround that would help you today, but I can't think of one. There are just so many different aspects to this. So while it certainly seems like a small thing on the surface (even last night I thought for sure there was some clever workaround) it's probably something that we'll only be able to find a better answer for in the future as part of much broader design considerations. So am really glad you gave us this feedback, otherwise it wouldn't really even be something likely to be discussed.

To paraphrase you, changes should always look easy to users; so it's good to think these things through in advance to avoid the opposite happening. :lol:

ref: b5/b5#950

rdaniel

8-) Thanks

Lars

@rdaniel - you're quite welcome! Glad we were able to help.