Duplicate Item in 1Password8 - missing shortcut and more cumbersome

esquared

In 1Password8, there are two issues related to the use of "Duplicate Item".

1. The keyboard shortcut is missing (was Command-D on MacOS)
2. Duplicate asks for the destination vault.

Of those two, the second is more important. From a usability perspective, what I want is just to create a copy of the item in the same vault. I don't need to be interrupted in my process to answer yet-another-question about where it should go. If I want to move the item to a different vault, I can do that as a separate action. I've never, and I mean never, wanted to create a duplicate in a separate vault w/out first editing something about it, be that the username/password/urls/whatever. From a UX perspective, you are forcing me to think about things I don't need to worry about and interrupting my workflow.

Both of these items were, IMO, perfect in 1Password7. Please consider reverting that behavior.

---

1Password Version: 8.x
Extension Version: n/a
OS Version: MacOS 12.4
Browser:_ n/a

ag_mike_d

Hello @esquared, sorry for the delayed response.

Thanks for your feedback about the current process of item duplication and your request to see the return of a keyboard shortcut.

I can understand your use case here and I'm sorry that I am unable to offer a work around for the current process. Duplicating the item and then selecting the same vault you are currently using to save the original item, is the best go to.

While I can't make any promises, we're listening and I've added your thoughts and feedback to two internal feature requests for our Product team consideration:
1. A keyboard shortcut to duplicate an item
ref: IDEA-I-1357
2. Duplicate an item to the same vault without the need to first select a vault from a pop-up
ref: IDEA-I-1356

Please let us know if you have any additional concerns and have a great day!

esquared

@ag_mike_d - thanks for the acknowledgement and recording the feedback.

If I may offer a general suggestion - consider the UX practice of least friction. What I mean by that, and how it relates to 1P7 v. 1P8, is that in every action that a user takes, the tool should minimize the amount of interaction required to achieve the desired outcome. In the case of duplicate item, there is very little value and a lot of friction in asking where the duplicate should go.

There are a number of places in 1P8 where friction is substantially higher than it was in 1P7, including but not limited to:
- duplicate item (this issue)
- reordering fields (this other issue and this one too)
- copy / paste field title (this issue I just created)
- changing field type (this other issue)

On that last one, the mere need to specify a field time at the time of field creation is, IMO, friction in the extreme, and from a programming perspective, looks like the implementation (presumably strongly-typed OO), is leaking into the UI.

While your product is security focused, your users need to feel as if the tool supports them, not the other way around, and as it flows now in 1P8, there is a lot of the the tool imposing a mental model on the users inappropriately.

As I've said elsewhere, and so I don't come across as only negative:: I LOVE 1Password. I still recommend it, and I still require use of it by my employees, but I tell people to stay with 1P7 for now. Please let me be your advocate for the new version by addressing the issues raised here and elsewhere. I want 1Password to (again) be the paragon to which all other similar tools aspire.

PeterG_1P

Hi @esquared, this feedback is very welcome.

I LOVE 1Password.

We really, really appreciate this! It will not surprise you to know that we care a lot about what we do here, and hearing about positive experiences with the apps is part of what keeps us going. We of course want 1Password to be an experience without peer. Speaking of that...

Please let me be your advocate for the new version by addressing the issues raised here and elsewhere.

We're more than happy to have this kind of engagement. We want to be pushed, and that requires a process of finding out what's working naturally for you, and where the pain points are, and what kind of new features might resolve issues by preventing them from even happening in the first place. We're also continually challenging ourselves to up our game as well, in ways that aren't always visible from the outside but which are happening here every day nonetheless.

While your product is security focused, your users need to feel as if the tool supports them, not the other way around, and as it flows now in 1P8, there is a lot of the the tool imposing a mental model on the users inappropriately.

Speaking only for myself, it does feel like there's a balance to be struck here. We of course agree that the tool should support the person, not the other way around. We talk a lot about "human-centric security", and recognize that one of the traditional reasons people don't adopt security apps is because they're cumbersome or unintuitive! So resolving that dissonance is something that's always on our minds.

That said, I think part of the way we get there is by establishing a solid design (done) and fleshing it out (ongoing) that commits to a particular vision of how the app should work. That by necessity involves an implicit mental model, because without that there would seem to be no rhyme or reason to anything - but it should of course be an intuitive one. Apple products are one prominent example of how this can be done well. We similarly seek to meet that standard of "ah, of course it works this way." And that's an ongoing effort.

OK, to the specifics!

Duplicate item (this issue).

Mike has filed this issue for you, so that's a step forward. With that said, it's the first request we've gotten for it, so I can't speak to the likelihood of its implementation.

Reordering fields

This is going to happen. The relevant team is at work on it and we'll be delighted to announce here when it's done. 👍

Copy / paste field title

I think this is related to a recent regression we had with copy / paste functionality. It should be resolved in the latest Beta, which is out today! Does that resolve the discrepancy for you?

changing field type

This is something we're evaluating. I don't have much to share on it at the moment, but can personally understand why this would be useful. I agree - this would be totally in line with "least friction" philosophy; the question is probably "what does it take to make this happen?", and how to balance that with the (many, many, many) other feature requests and priorities that customers ask us to address? In any case, I'll be happy to share more on this when we're able to.

We appreciate your thoughtful engagement here, and hope that you'll be impressed as we keep pushing forward. While we may not agree every time on the best way to approach a particular feature or need, we very much want the same thing when it comes to meeting the standard of excellence you expect of us. We'll do our best to make that happen.