feature: Public (non-logged-in) Comments

[prononext]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

I am eagerly seeking a solution that streamlines my design process and enhances communication efficiency. Penpot has caught my attention since its inception and I am continually impressed by its potential. However, I have yet to fully adopt it into my workflow due to a missing feature. Despite this setback, I remain optimistic and continue to closely monitor the progress of Penpot, as I am confident that it has the potential to significantly improve my workflow once the necessary functions are in place.

Describe the solution you'd like.

"The success of a design process heavily relies on effective communication with customers. While the current "Viewmode" function provides a nice solution for internal team communication, it does not offer the necessary tools for customer engagement. To bridge this gap, I propose the following new feature:

• [ ] 1. Allow Non-Penpot Users (not-logged-in) to leave a Comment on the publicly shared View accessed via the link generated in the "Viewmode".

• [ ] 2. Require anonymous users to set at least their name so the designer knows who made the comment.

• [ ] 3. Include a settings section to define the fields needed to leave public comments, such as "Name, Email, Company, Department", etc.

It is important to note that the public link shared in Viewmode does not pose any security or spam risks as it is highly encrypted and cannot be easily guessed.

By implementing these features, we can create a more meaningful and productive conversation with our customers and enhance the overall effectiveness of our design process. The customer communication is where the success lies, and these new features will take it to the next level."

By implementing this feature, we can create a more meaningful and productive conversation with our customers and enhance the overall effectiveness of our design process. The customer communication is where the success lies, and this new feature will take it to the next level."

[myfunnyandy]

Hi @prononext, thanks for the detailed proposal. I truly understand the pain of involving clients on the conversations (been there, donde that) and a frictionless way to comment is an obvious potential way to address the problem.

However, there is a lot to consider in terms of content moderation, spam prevention and other vulnerabilities so we've taken the decision not to allow anonymous editions of any kind at Penpot, at least for the time being.

[prononext]

Hi @myfunnyandy,

Thank you for your response to the feature request.

I understand the concerns you raised about content moderation and spam prevention, and I agree that they are essential considerations in implementing this feature. However, I believe that the benefits of client comments outweigh the potential risks, and with the right measures in place, those risks can be effectively mitigated.

Firstly, it is important to note that allowing non-Penpot users to leave comments on publicly shared views does not pose any significant security risks, as the link generated in the "Viewmode" is encrypted and cannot be easily guessed. Secondly, implementing a requirement for anonymous users to set at least their name, as I proposed, would ensure that designers know who made the comment and can track the comments made by different users.

Finally, a settings checkbox to enable or disable the public-comment function would be a solution for all the users who have no interest in it or see a overly big security risk. Inserting a permission checkbox to the user profile for "can delete public comments" would also be a solution if there are unwanted comments, a authorized user could delete them.

Overall, by implementing this feature, designers will be able to create a more productive conversation with their customers, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the design process. I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision and give this feature serious consideration for implementation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Please please open this feature request again!

[myfunnyandy]

@prononext as it is being discussed at the Community,, the problem is not that we don't want to do it but that we don't want to go for a quick solution. So I guess it makes sense to reopen the issue while being honest in that we don't expect it to happen soon (this could change as we are continuously reprioritizing).

[prononext]

yes thats understandable. If it is a longtherm idea which needs thinking.... good that we have a issue open already to give it the best planning possible👍