I have to agree with Robert’s sentiment above, the new experience has been very positive for me overall! The performance of the UI and my productivity has significantly increased with this change. There have been many improvements suggested here that would be great to see before GA, though.
One issue I haven’t seen reported yet:
On the Aggregation History page, you can click the value in the Type column (e.g. Account Aggregation to see the stats for that aggregation (Duration, Accounts Scanned, optimization enabled/disabled, etc.). However, if there is an account aggregation in progress, clicking previously completed aggregations shows the stats for the in progress account aggregation mixed in with the selected aggregation
Happy to see the positive sound coming in from @rmccoy-unum and @nsorlien as it proves that some people do prefer the new experience
Note that the positive feedback points they gave are only for certain specifics in this new experience, so there is not necessarily a disagreement on how certain functionality should look like. I would hope that @bwong1 and his team have the time and resources available to look at all these points and ensure that they keep the good bits mentioned, while at the same time addressing the bits that have worsen in comparison to the previous experience.
It is also missing the source of the aggregation - was it system or a manual and who started the manual aggregation. It used to show us their account number if it was a manual. I second that the Accounts scanned and Unchanged accounts are not nearly as helpful as the Accounts created/deleted/modified
Would it be possible for each to customize the left hand side menu?
I mean, after the first 3 or 4 days a source has been configured is very rare to need to see the correlation configuration or the schemas used, what you normally do when you work with IdentityNow is look at accounts, the uncorrelated ones, the entitlements, and sometimes trigger aggregations and test the source; basically everything else should be hidden for normal operations.
I have to give that it does look very nice in a mobile device, but who would use IDN in a mobile device in a daily basis?
Alternatively the options could be order based on usage, I assume SP has numbers on how many times each menu has been clicked, so that could give a clue of what should be visible first.
Wow! The changes to Sources are truly profound, but I’m sorry to say not for the better. Whereas the old GUI was (I would say) more focused around BaU Operations with the common tasks (scheduling / manual aggregation / aggregation success/failure history) easily available and fundamental config hidden away, here everything is equally exposed without any focus. You have forgotten that operations people will be using this 99.999% of the time. The new GUI only makes sense when initially configuring a new source.
I’ll try and be positive…
Bad thing with the old GUI multiple embedded scrolling windows - now single vertical scrollbar - this is a good change
The Actions Button has one thing under it “Delete” - why??? Why not just call it Delete and be done with it.
Probably better to hide “Source Setup”, “Account Management”, and “Entitlement Management” behind the Actions Button" though.
The left-side-navigation menu is very old school so, sort of good that everything is exposed and easy(ish) to find but bad that there is no prioritisation or consideration of how often or how these will be used.
Initial Base Configuration which will be done once when initially set up is front-and-center at the top of the menu and is the first thing admins will see every time they open a source is probably the one thing they will never change.
Please consider how SP is used and by whom. You need to group Account Aggregation, Entitlement Aggregation and Aggregation History together
I like that Access Profiles that are used by the Source are grouped together
I couldn’t agree more, the new UI is very logical - but only for when you are initially setting up a source. From an Operational BAU perspective, this layout does not work as it exposes the initial config too much, making it too easily tampered with.
I appreciate the effort to go with the new (albeit traditional/old-school left-side-bar navigation menu - very much a return to the early 2000’s we-design-aesthetic) - it will make it easier to document operations for infrequent admins to follow - but the ordering and grouping of tasks is an issue that SP needs to address sooner rather than later
I agree. While I believe the new interface design is nice when setting up a source, I think it has some challenges.
While the order makes sense when setting up a new source, the most common operational items are harder to find. Once the source is setup, the most common tasks would be to start/schedule aggregations, look at aggregation history, look at accounts, start/schedule entitlement aggregation and work with entitlements. The user who is doing these activities may not have been involved in the setup and may inadvertently change things by looking around and being prompted to save.
Also, by removing the count of the uncorrelated accounts, I wonder is some customers will lose focus on how important it is to address these accounts. They also lost the immediate visibility into the “red” something is wrong with the aggregations.
Yes, good UI/UX design is based on clean visual experience; but it is also based on usability. I was in a recent discussion about the types of users that are involved in the setup and operation of ISC and the types of support these users might need. I think the conversation is important here.
ISC Architects/Lead Engineers - These are the strong technical resources that setup and configure the system. They introduce new functionality and may troubleshoot issues. These resources may come from the customer internally, may be a SailPoint resource, or may be a partner resource. For these users this interface is clean and easy to document.
ISC Administrators - These are the users that are going to do the day-to-day activities. Often, they are more junior resources or less technical resources. While there is good training from SailPoint on how to setup and configure ISC, these users are left with whatever operational documentation was provided by the implementer or trying to create their own processes.
This new UI/UX doesn’t support the administrators. There is too much exposed directly in front of them and too little focus on the operational activities that have to occur routinely.
Thank you Angelo, spot on. The real issue is that this is being prioritized at all. Did anyone even ask for this? I can point to like 6 different very popular ideas in the ideas portal that are YEARS OLD and require much smaller changes than this source UI change was. Who is making these decisions??
I just noticed that the Test Connection is no longer a button at the top of the Source page, and you now have to know it is under review and test in order to do the test connection while on the source screen. It was not under the Action menu either. This was useful when running or reviewing issues with aggregations because it was one click from any of the screens while configuring/testing/debugging.
It is available in the (…) menu on the main Source List page for directly connected sources if you just need to test the connection without looking at the source details.
This question is a bit of an aside, but came up as we were discussing the new source page.
We’ve had IdentityNow for around 4 years now and we’ve seen lots of reworking of the UI/UX, and what feels like a good bit less of an investment on adding existing API features into the administrative UI.
This is a generalization, but there are lots of ideas on the forum asking for features, but the investment seems to go to shifting around existing functional UI/UX elements.
A couple of great examples that counter my question are the (slightly hidden) jump to identity from search which now works from the modal popup of an identity on search and the jump directly to the account from the accounts tab of a source. These are great.
On the flip-side, a seemingly simple UI/UX addition is inclusion of the source name when adding an entitlement or access profile to a role. https://ideas.sailpoint.com/ideas/GOV-I-3400
