Discussions Redesign Coming to Canvas LMS on July 20, 2024!

[SamGarza1]

We've been working tirelessly to enhance the Canvas experience, and we're delighted to announce that the long-anticipated Discussions Redesign will be enforced on July 20, 2024!

In our continuous effort to provide you with the best tools for collaboration and communication, we recognized that the discussion feature is at the heart of many online learning experiences. To ensure that your discussions are more engaging, user-friendly, and efficient, we have revamped this crucial aspect of Canvas LMS. And with inline/split view being enabled in Discussions Redesign on October 25, which allows users to switch between an inline or split viewing experience, we feel confident that we've addressed user concerns and made the discussion redesign a better experience. 

We believe these changes will improve the way you collaborate and interact within the Canvas platform. Whether you're an educator looking to facilitate engaging class discussions or a student eager to participate actively, this update will make your Canvas experience more enjoyable and productive.

What does this mean for users though? The discussion redesign includes an updated UI and new features. When the redesign is enforced all existing discussions will show in the new UI and will have new functionality available to them. No migration necessary. 

More information on features and functionality can be found in the feature group, this blog, and the change log. We want to ensure a smooth transition, so stay tuned for more information and resources as we approach the enforcement date.

The enforcement dates for the Discussions Redesign are:

Beta: June 17, 2024

Production: July 20, 2024

This doesn’t mean we’re done working on discussions though. Upcoming features that will be added to the redesign before it's enforced include:

Edit History (Available in production November 8): When a user edits a submitted discussion reply, instructors can view the different versions.

Updated Create/Edit: General UI updates to match the look and feel of other areas of Canvas and to ensure accessibility. 

Checkpoints: Allows instructors to set two due dates for discussions; providing greater clarity to students on when initial responses and replies are due. 

We're committed to evolving Canvas to meet the needs of our vibrant and growing community. Your feedback has been instrumental in shaping this redesign, and we can't wait to see the positive impact it will have. If you have any suggestions on resources or information that would like to see to make you feel more confident in this change, please let me know in the comments below. 

[Charles_Barbour]

Am I reading this correctly? All instructors will be forced to use the new discussions redesign as of July of next year? Despite the fact that the redesign is not complete?

If that’s correct, essentially there will only be one semester of overlap between the old system and the (mostly) complete (but still being developed) redesign.

Instructors are going to love that and I’m sure it will be fine!

It’s not at all like New Quizzes all over again…

[vanzandt]

Hi Sam, what are your target dates for those remaining items to be incorporated into the Feature Preview? By January?  We want to know that there will be adequate time for you all to address bugs, and requested/required adjustments before it is enforced.  

[mwolfenstein]

I need to concur with @Charles_Barbour. I'm more optimistic about the state of the discussions redesign than quizzes.next/New Quizzes in terms of current state and targeted enforcement from announcements of the past. However, this project has from the user perspective basically been dead since late 2021 with it confirmed as inactive at the start of 2022. We've had very poor communication regarding when the option for threaded view would actually be live, and now with that option out for a week we're being told that the redesign will be enforced in 9 months. Again, I'm optimistic about the current state compared to the process in relation to quizzes.next/New Quizzes, but this is a very aggressive timeline for a tool that I'm guessing the vast majority of us have not adopted yet. I would also like to point out a few key features that I believe are necessary for this to be a truly successful product:

• Deep linked notifications, especially for @ tags. Notifications really need to take you to the specific comment where you've been tagged or where someone has replied to you. I haven't heard of any intention to implement this. It would also be tremendously helpful if replies and @ tags created a to do item in Canvas, because students don't necessarily check email  for notifications (or for things in general).
• Discussion assignments and files: This has not been addressed at all. Many faculty in disciplines like the arts use discussions for activities like critique where students are asked to post an image file. Unlike other assignments, those files fill up the user's storage. This is an ongoing issue with discussions as assignments that needs to be addressed.
• Communication on plagiarism/AI checking: This has been one of the most requested features in discussions for a very very long time. I understand if integration with checkers isn't coming any time soon since I'm sure it's a big lift, but communication about this needs to happen with the community.

To that last point, communication really is the big thing here. This announcement has probably caught the whole community by surprise. Due to the debacle which has been the quizzes.next/New Quizzes roll out, the user community does not have a high level of trust with Instructure when it comes to new enforcement of anchor features like quizzes and discussions which are especially essential for distance education courses. Please consider that context as this project moves forward. I'm hoping for a great experience with the Discussions/Announcements Redesign, and it's something we've been waiting for a long time. I hope it will be managed smoothly in a manner that provides plenty of time for the community to adapt to the new UX and adopt it happily.

Best,
-Moses

[TrinaAltman]

I agree with Charles_Barbour and mwolfenstein. In addition, Instructure has made the statement "we feel confident that we've addressed user concerns and made the discussion redesign a better experience". I do hope that is the case, but why not give it a little time to see if users actually agree? There was a ton of negative feedback on the earlier design and it seemed like many who tried it quickly reverted back to the classic discussion due to the problems/dissatisfaction they had with the redesign version. More time would help increase adoption before enforcement and give Instructure the ability to gather feedback (and make fixes) to make sure the overall sense is users DO feel it would serve them better than the classic discussion. (The upcoming Checkpoints could go a long way there - when will those be available?).

This does feel like a bit of a surprise after the project was shelved for so long. I know some improvements have been made more recently, but most schools are in the middle of a term where instructors may be unlikely to change which discussion board they are already using. So I'd guess that many won't use it in real classes until January, and then we can start getting a better sense of adoption and reception.

Thank you,

Trina

[chriscas]

Hi @SamGarza1,

Thanks for the update on this!  I intend to make two replies on this topic in general, and will start with (I think) the easiest one first.

Your post includes a nice little nugget "Edit History (Available in production November 8): When a user edits a submitted discussion reply, instructors can view the different versions."  I think that's a great change, one that's been needed for a long time!  With that being said, the change is not listed in the deploy notes for November 8.  In fact, for November 8 the Canvas Releases page currently reads "No feature updates available; the next scheduled release will be 2023-11-22. For Feature Preview changes related to this deploy, see the Admin Analytics change log and the Discussion/Announcement Redesign change log."  This is not the first time in the recent past where changes have been mentioned in a product blog but not the associated release or deploy notes.  The community here is great, but it's very large and complex, so many people only follow certain areas (like release notes).  When things are not included there as well, many of these changes go unnoticed, which is not a good thing.  Could you perhaps work with the right team to make sure that change gets put into the appropriate deploy notes section?

-Chris

[SamGarza1]

Hi @Charles_Barbour and @vanzandt , thank you for taking the time to read the blog and ask questions. I apologize for any confusion the post may have caused but the Discussion Redesign is complete. We chose July as the enforcement date to ensure enough time was given to institutions to prepare and to cause as little disruption during the school year as possible; we highly encourage schools to test and enable the feature preview early if it makes sense. 

Our team has done extensive QA and accessibility testing on the redesign and are making it a priority to address any issues that come up before the enforcement. This is also true for any feature that will be made available in the redesign before the enforcement.

Checkpoints is currently on our roadmap for Q1.

[SamGarza1]

Hi @chriscas, 

I'm glad to hear that you're excited about Edit History. Your concern about the visibility of releases to the redesign is one I've started hearing more of. Because it's under a feature preview, changes only go into the change log for the feature group. I am working with our release team to make changes and ensure greater visibility going forward. 

[SamGarza1]

Hi @mwolfenstein, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns; I appreciate your honesty and cautious optimism. I hope over the next nine months with additional testing and more consistent communication you'll feel confident in this change. 

For @ mentions I have good news. In the redesign notifications that are sent because of an @ mention do link back to the specific post even when it's a threaded response. 

For graded discussions, student media doesn't count toward their file limit. If there is a need for this in ungraded discussions, I'd love to hear a bit more about the use case.

I hear about the need for plagiarism/AI checking quite often and am looking into different ways to make those features possible. Due to the complexity though, it will not be added to the redesign before it's enforced. 

I'm adding this to the blog as well, but if you have any suggestions on resources or information that would make you feel more confident in this change, please let me know. 

[mwolfenstein]

@SamGarza1 First off I really appreciate the quick reply! This is exactly what I'm hoping for when it comes to communication between Instructure and us as users, and that definitely adds to my optimism.

That's extremely exciting about the deep linking on notifications! I honestly didn't expect it to happen at this stage of the rollout since I believe that wasn't the case when the feature was first released and then the redesign went dark for a while. I'm really glad to hear that's a functionality in the current state of the redesign since that makes a very big difference for adoption.

I must have missed something in terms of file attachments on graded discussions. Is that a change in the redesign and that isn't the case in classic discussions? If so, that would make a lot of sense. If not, then I know I had that issue come up within the last year so I'm wondering if I somehow just missed this in one of the updates.

Personally, I respect that the detection software issue is a pretty big deal. My biggest concern is getting some consistent communication about where that request stands and ideally what the shape of any roadblocks is (in a general sense) so that I can let my users know that Instructure is listening, but that they may need to temper their expectations. Thanks again for the speedy reply!

[dbrace]

@mwolfenstein, my institution has only been a Canvas customer since February 2018.  I remember specifically hearing during training phrasing similar to:

"Attachments in ungraded discussions count against a user's quota because an ungraded discussion is considered optional but attachments in a graded discussion do not count against a user's quota because a graded discussion is considered required.  If you need to have a discussion that does not count towards the gradebook (it will still appear there though) but you are expecting attachments for it, create a discussion that is worth 0 points."

I refer you to https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Canvas-Resource-Documents/Canvas-File-Quotas/ta-p/387061 for official language on it and search for (without quotes) "discussion" on the webpage.

[chriscas]

I would like to chime in on the discussion attachment/embed issue that @mwolfenstein and @dbrace have been having.  As a Canvas Admin for over 10 years, I can confirm my understanding has always matched what @dbrace said...  Graded discussion attachments do not count towards the user quota but for ungraded discussions, any attachments count against the user quota.

I don't think I've ever heard the exact reasoning that @dbrace posted form anyone at Instructure myself, but I can see where that line of thinking comes from.  Unfortunately, the logic there is not really universal...  Take, for example, a course where there is a separate participation grade entered for overall use of discussions throughout the course.  The discussions themselves are ungraded, but they may not be totally optional.  Similarly, perhaps students get a choice of which discussions to participate in, so grading has to be done a bit more manually and maybe not for each discussion...

I personally feel like any attachments to discussions in a course/group should not count towards the user quota.  We want to keep a good archive of out courses for about 7 years, so we've had to increase the user quote a few different times to allow students to post to ungraded discussions without removing old content from their user files area.  It's been one of those longstanding nagging issues that doesn't quite boil up to the top of our wish list of things to address, but it would sure be appreciated if this could change in the near future!

-Chris

[dbrace]

@chriscas, the line of thinking that I described may be considered "old school" but it was the description that I received as an admin undergoing training in Spring 2018 and made it a little easier to understand (and explain) one of the key differences (technologically speaking and maybe the logic) behind graded vs. ungraded.

I do agree that any attachment in a discussion should not count but I also understand that storage is not free/cheap (or at least not historically).  Explaining this difference has been important for us because of the increased use of Canvas course shells at my institution for student life clubs and why I do an orientation for advisors and student leaders of them.

[Charles_Barbour]

@SamGarza1 I hope you can understand why I feel these two statements can't both be true:

• "I apologize for any confusion the post may have caused but the Discussion Redesign is complete."

and

• "This doesn’t mean we’re done working on discussions though. Upcoming features that will be added to the redesign before it's enforced include:
  • Edit History (Available in production November 8): When a user edits a submitted discussion reply, instructors can view the different versions.
  • Updated Create/Edit: General UI updates to match the look and feel of other areas of Canvas and to ensure accessibility.
  • Checkpoints: Allows instructors to set two due dates for discussions; providing greater clarity to students on when initial responses and replies are due."

If the Create/Edit GUI is being changed (particularly to address accessibility issues), how can the redesign possibly be complete?

To me, "complete" means 100% done and 100% sure nothing else needs to be changed. (New things may be added.)

Right now it sounds like it's about 98% done. (Around my house we call that "Barbour-done".)

[hesspe]

I'm happy to get the news that the new version of discussions is being enforced relatively soon. (Though given the timing of the announcement, any sooner would probably have been too soon.) Even if there are undiscovered bugs in the initial release, the best way to get those found and fixed is to get them in use.  I've used lots of Version 1 software over the years, and it's never flawless.  (Anyone else remember the first version of OSX?).   We've had the Discussions Redesign enabled and optional since last spring and as far as I know, no one has tried it.  Instructors are very cautious - understandably and correctly - about staking an important element of their pedagogy on pre-release software.  That's holds, even given the severe limitations of current version of Discussions.  Based on the testing I've done, I'm satisfied that the transition to the redesign will be relatively smooth.  Unlike New Quizzes, the discussions redesign doesn't violate every habit that that people have developed over years of using the original tool, and, again unlike NQ, the discussions redesign adds many neat features without taking away familiar, useful ones and replacing them with unfamiliar and often esoteric ones (Levenshtein Distance?)  

[venitk]

@SamGarza1, was there an accessibility -- or some other -- reason why the "button" on the left no longer functions to mark posts as read/unread? That was a handy feature in old discussions, with half as many clicks (and less mouse movement) than the function in the new discussions where you have to click the three dots to mark a post as read. 

I'm wondering if this feature has already been decided against, before I go through the trouble of submitting an idea for change, or whatever the current process is. Thanks!

[rake_9]

On the question of files counting or not counting for graded discussions, my recollection is that files that are attached to a graded discussion do not, in fact count toward the student's files quota.  However, files that are embedded in the post do count against the student quota because the student has to upload them before they can embed them.  This makes things frustrating for the arts-oriented courses where the file needs to be more easily visible.

[dbrace]

There is documentation missing for the instructor perspective of a reported reply

The two documents that do exist for reporting replies for "Discussions Redesign" are:

• for instructors: https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Instructor-Guide/How-do-I-allow-users-to-report-a-reply-in-a-disc...
• for students: https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Student-Guide/How-do-I-report-a-reply-in-a-discussion-in-Discussi...

However, the document for instructors does not explain:

1. notifications (there is a document at https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Canvas-Resource-Documents/Canvas-Notifications/ta-p/387041 about notifications in general and it shows that a notification exists for it)
2. what the instructor does after a reply has been reported

Please create documentation for instructors on these two aspects of reported replies.

[Sylvia_Ami]

The comment by @mwolfenstein regarding storage limits, made me reach back in the cob webs of my brain. Is this still the case?

• When a student is replying in a discussion, and they use the 📎 paper clip icon to attach a file, it DOES NOT? count towards the student's storage limit as long as the discussion is graded.
• When a student is replying in a discussion and uses the RCE to insert/upload an image or file, then the item goes to the student's user files and it DOES? count towards the user's storage limit.

I haven't tested this for a while so I don't know if this is still the case.

[TrinaAltman]

I don't think we've tested this again recently, but the last I knew I believe it was indeed the case that attachments do not count but using the RCE does account against the student's quota even in graded discussions. We reported this to our CSM who took it to the RCE Product Manager. Last fall (October 2022), our CSM said Product was looking into how to not have those items count towards user quota. (And at that time, I don't believe the Discussion Redesign tool even had an Attach button, so the only option for students was to use the RCE.)

Then the RCE Product Manager left and this stalled. In April 2023, he said the new Project Manager was scoping it out and thought it was a bug. We followed up this summer and our CSM hadn't heard anything back. We haven't checked again since, but if he had received any updates, I know he would have let us know. So I'm not sure where it's at at this point, but it's probably worth asking about again. 

Trina

[JamesSekcienski]

We recently ran into a similar issue with Quizzes and discovered that even though a quiz is graded, all images/files uploaded in the RCE count against a user's storage quota.  This isn't ideal, but it looks like that is expected according to the Canvas Files Quota Documentation.  Fortunately, changing the question types to use a file upload instead of embedding images in the RCE seems to work without affecting the storage quota.

Based on the documentation, @Sylvia_Ami you are correct in what you stated about files with discussion boards.

[Sylvia_Ami]

Thank you for confirming the discussion storage issue @JamesSekcienski . And that's good to know about the best option to use when uploading files or images in a quiz question (on the student side).

[degensp28]

This post talks about enforcement for the new discussions tool, but makes no mention of the current tool. Since there is no mention of sunsetting the current tool, I am assuming that means the plan is to have both on. Can we receive an explicit statement about when the current discussions will be turned off?

[chriscas]

Hi @degensp28,

This is more like Assignment Enhancements than New Quizzes (think more of an upgrade than a total replacement).  There isn't a side-by-side option to use both in a course at the same time, but on the bright side there isn't really any "migration" to go from the original to the new design).  So I believe what this post is saying is that in July, all discussions will essentially get the enhancements/changes the redesign brings with it and the original interface/design will be gone.

Hope this helps!

-Chris

[mwolfenstein]

Thanks @Sylvia_Ami and @JamesSekcienski. Per the Canvas File Quotas documentation:

Rich Content Editor: Newly recorded or uploaded media via the Upload/Record Media link does not affect Canvas file quotas. However, media files uploaded via any other method (such as the Upload Files link) count toward the user quota. Images and other files uploaded to the Rich Content Editor count toward user quotas.

I was starting to think that I was crazy, but now I realize that the problem involved me referencing attachments, but the real problem involves adding images to posts using the RCE. This is one of the most common issues that comes to my department from students and from faculty on behalf of students. I see three possible solutions to address this issue:

• Find a way for images not to count against file storage. This would be the first choice since it wouldn't require users to learn anything new and would resolve the problem. I have no idea how problematic this might be on the development side in relation to the existing Canvas architecture.
• Add an image handler where you can resize image files to the image upload process in the RCE. This would arguably be the second best option. Users would have to learn a new step, but images could be resized to a web appropriate size that takes up a minimal amount of space against user file quotas. This would be a brand new feature, but I suspect it could be plugged in rather than having to deal with existing architecture for file handling.
• Work to implement image preview in the RCE for image files that are stored on external sites (e.g. Google Drive, MS OneDrive, etc.). This is the least good solution since it would require users to go to an external tool to upload their images as a step in the process, but it would at least obviate the problem of user file quotas getting exceeded in Canvas where storage is far more limited than it is on many other external sites.

One way or another, I think that it's pretty essential to have an option where images added to a discussion don't count against the user quota.

[JamesSekcienski]

@mwolfenstein 

I completely agree that images uploaded to the RCE in discussions shouldn't count against the user's storage.  In addition, images uploaded to the RCE in any graded submission also should not count against a user's storage (i.e. text entry assignment submissions, written response quiz questions).

Unfortunately, I think you are correct that it would be a complex project for them to make the exception for images in some use cases of the RCE and not others.

I do like the idea of having an image handler that allows you to resize an image before it gets upload to your files.  That sounds like a useful feature in general and could help with course design too.

It would also be nice if there was an easy way to know where a user's files are in use in Canvas.  Since images uploaded via the RCE are part of the user's regular files, it isn't clear if they are used in a graded submission or discussion post.  Thus, if you try to delete files to free-up space, you could be deleting files that were needed as part of a student submission or post.

Another option to consider is allowing the user storage to be individually adjusted like courses, so if there are certain users that need more storage space you could increase it for those select users rather than increasing it for all users.

[Charles_Barbour]

It would be nice if we could make it easier on faculty, students, and administrators.

3 possible ideas:

1. Instructure could increase the storage limits. (When was the last time the limits were increased?)
2. Don't count ANY course related uploads towards a user's limits. Its very confusing.
3. Remove per user storage limits. (In 2023 why is this still even a thing?) Work with schools to help them manage their storage if they're an outlier or have users abusing the system.

If we increased the per course file size limit from 2GB to unlimited, I doubt faculty and students would suddenly start uploading more stuff just because they have more space.

[SamGarza1]

Hi @Charles_Barbour @JamesSekcienski @mwolfenstein @Sylvia_Ami @TrinaAltman @rake_9 

From the discussion above, it sounds like there isn't clarity on how file quotas work in discussions. I've raised this issue internally to see what documentation updates can be made and what work could be prioritized to make it a better experience. 

I did want to link this documentation, Canvas File Quotas, that goes over how file quotas currently work. 

[JamesSekcienski]

@SamGarza1 

Thank you for sharing that link.  While we appreciate wanting to make sure documentation is clear, that isn't the main concern.  The issue is that the file quotas inconsistently handle files that are a part of course work.  Even though files that are embedded via the RCE are part of a class discussion, quiz, and/or text entry submission, they are not treated the same as a file that is uploaded/attached for a graded submission.  Similarly, uploads to an ungraded discussion board are also handled differently than a graded discussion board, so an instructor is forced to make a discussion board graded if they want to avoid potential issues with file storage quotas.

When files are uploaded/attached as part of a file upload submission or graded discussion board, they appear in a User's file storage.  These files are placed in a protected submissions folder where the option to delete the file isn't shown and these files don't count against the user's file storage quota.

However, if a file or image is embedded using the RCE, it just shows in the user's regular file area and counts against their file storage quota.  Even if the file/image was added as part of something that is a submission, that is not reflected in how it is stored in the user's files nor is it protected against accidental deletion. 

Thus, if a user reaches their file storage quota limit, one approach that may be suggested to resolve the issue is to clean-up old/unused files.  However, since you can't tell if the files were embedded in the RCE in a course as part of a submission, a user could end up deleting files that should be retained as a part of their submission history.  Then, if you want to avoid recommending the deletion of files in case they are needed, you could consider increasing the file storage quota.  However, while you can increase the quota for individual courses, you are unable to increase the file storage quota for individual users or only users associated with a particular course.  When we are trying to limit the quota in general to avoid users storing videos and unnecessarily large files in Canvas, it isn't ideal to increase the file storage quota for all users.

[chriscas]

I 100% agree with @JamesSekcienski on the topic of file storage...  The inconsistency is very confusing and probably shouldn't exist in an ideal world.  I think anything being submitted in a course environment, whether as an attachment or through that RCE and whether for a graded assignment or not, should be excluded from quotas.

With that being said, I know the RCE is a unique component of Canvas and understand why things embedded with the RCE have traditionally worked the way they have.  I do really think it's an issue that Instructure should try to tackle sooner rather than later though.

@Charles_Barbour, we've actually been seeing reductions in storage amounts from many of our vendors in the last few years.  I guess I would say I'd personally be against removing quotas in Canvas.  While storage may be inexpensive, it's certainly not free.  With other file storage services reducing their own storage limits, if Canvas went the opposite way it may encourage users to start using Canvas as their preferred file storage service.  That's not what Canvas is primarily as, and could cause all kinds of downstream issues later.  We already ran into this with a prior LMS years ago, and I'd say I've appreciated the quotas system Canvas has implemented.  As far as I know, if your institution wanted to, you could set the three quotas to a very high number to essentially make your quotas unlimited, but there may be cost implications to doing that.

-Chris

[Charles_Barbour]

@SamGarza1  This became an itch I had to scratch...
"From the discussion above, it sounds like there isn't clarity on how file quotas work in discussions."

That's in the running for the biggest understatement of the week!

I think there are 4 attachment scenarios:  Graded, graded reply, ungraded, ungraded reply.

Each of those can be applied at 4 levels:  Course, Instructor, Student, and Groups.

That yields 16 possible scenarios. I had to make a spreadsheet to get it straight in my head. Canvas Quota Confusion

Of the 16 possible scenarios, 4 of them are unclear to me.

On the Canvas File Quota page:

1. Should Instructor be replaced with Teacher?
2. I would really recommend making it more clear whether the User Quotas section you're looking at applies to an Instructor Teacher or a Student. User Quotas - Teacher and User Quotas - Student maybe?
3. For Discussions under Course Quotas, does the statement "Attachments added to discussion replies do not count against course quotas." apply to graded replies, ungraded replies, or both?
4. For Student Quotas > User Quotas, the Discussion section says: "Attachments for discussion replies are not counted against a student's user quota...". But the table shows that attachments to not graded discussions are counted. Are attachments added to replies to a not graded discussion counted or not? Because counting them against the user quota for the initial discussion, but not subsequent replies would be odd. (My assumption is that the statement should apply only to graded discussions.)
5. There's no information about whether attachments added to replies (graded or ungraded) are counted against group quotas.
6. Wouldn't it be enormously confusing for users to delete files from their file storage, but not see their quota utilization drop? When they are looking at these files or go to delete them, is there any indication that deleting the file will not free up any space?
7. Based on the table (unless I'm missing something which is at least 72% likely), attachments added to not graded discussions are counted against the course and teacher/student/group quotas. How can the attachment count against multiple quotas simultaneously? (I doubt this actually happens, but... that is what the table shows.)
   
8. Unless I'm missing something else (which is now at least 94% likely), attachments added to graded discussion replies are not counted against any quota.

[Charles_Barbour]

@chriscas Oh, I agree completely that "unlimited" is never really unlimited. At best it's "unlimited until the math no longer works in our favor".

We've had Google, Box, and most recently Panopto all either want to massive increase our costs or move away from an unlimited storage model.

That being said, giving users a 50MB limit? For 4 years of college? In the year of our Lord 2023? I had more webmail storage in 2008.

Are profile pictures such a big deal that they need to be broken out separately and counted against a user's quota? U of M has what, ~60K students? Assume all of them uploaded a picture which is scaled down to or capped at a max of 1MB. That's 60GB. The storage used by profile pictures amounts to a rounding error for most platforms.

Aside from increasing the per-user quota some, I think the biggest/easiest change would be to begin counting all course related uploads towards the course quota instead of the user's quota. Sometimes course, sometimes user, but only on Tuesday is bananapants crazy.

If we increased the per course file size limit from 2GB to unlimited, I doubt faculty and students would suddenly start uploading more stuff just because they have more space.

And with respect to removing course quotas, I think the Pareto principal probably would apply. It might be easier to raise the limit and deal with the outliers.

And yes, I 100% don't want people to start using Canvas like they use Google or Box. Then when they leave the university they'd want some sort of export of their files or "Canvas take-out" and then violence would look like the answer.

And violence is never the answer. Though one time I did walk into a server closet with a sledgehammer, crowbar, and a drill. I walked out with parts in a bucket. (But that server had it coming...)

[schw0814]

@SamGarza1 While having two due dates is great, the ability to add more checkpoints for discussion posts would be helpful. Some faculty require more than two replies from students in a discussion forum. The flexibility to add as many checkpoints as necessary for a discussion forum would help students stay on track of their course requirements regardless of how many posts are required.

[DavidSchlater]

Can anyone confirm the split screen view button works for them? Or what one should see when it is pressed? I'm looking at Beta and that button does not seem to have an impact or make any change to the discussion below it. I'm sure I'm missing something simple.

[JamesSekcienski]

@DavidSchlater 

It is working for me when I tried it out.  You will only notice the difference between the two if someone makes a reply to a reply.

When the Inline View is active (*when you see the 'View Split Screen' button), it will load sub-replies within the regular flow of the discussion board.

When the Split Screen View is active (*when you see the 'View Inline' button), it will load an individual reply and the sub-replies in its own side view to the right when you click to view the sub-replies.

[rake_9]

@DavidSchlater I believe you have to interact with a post that has replies before the split screen shows up.  At least, that was what I was seeing yesterday.

[dbrace]

In case anyone is interested, curious, or confused, I put together four/4 screenshots showing an example of a 'redesigned' discussion using:

1. standard/inline view
2. split view

standard/line view

1 of 2

2 of 2

split view

1 of 2

2 of 2

In short, the key to using either view, is that you need to click on the (in this case) "1 Reply" link (the number will change accordingly based on the specific situation) in order to see the reply/replies using either standard/inline view or split view.

[DavidSchlater]

Thanks, everyone! I get it now. I do wonder if I was so confused by clicking a button and not seeing any change to my discussion -  wondering if it was working - if teachers will have the same confusion. However, in just switching back and forth between views and clicking on replies in a test discussion on Beta with about 6 posts I have seen the "Something Broke" screen twice. I have reported each. 

[SamGarza1]

Hey @DavidSchlater thanks for the feedback on this! Our team has prioritized the issue of switching back and forth between views and will have a fix out soon. 

[SamGarza1]

Hi @schw0814! For checkpoints (multiple due dates) we're limiting to only two due dates, one for an initial response and one for replies. For the replies, instructors will be able to require multiple and have that displayed to students. 

For the use case in your post, are you having replies due on multiple dates?

[degensp28]

@SamGarza1 

Is there a timeline on when documentation for the Discussions Redesign will be completed? At this time the Instructor Guides have 1/3 of the documentation for Discussion Redesign as they do for Discussions (https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Instructor-Guide/tkb-p/Instructor#DiscussionsRedesign), the Student Guides have 2/3 the documentation (https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Student-Guide/tkb-p/student#DiscussionsRedesign), and there is not a video for either (https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Video-Guide/tkb-p/videos).

[TrishaMeyer1]

When will the multiple due dates option be available? The Roadmap says 2023 Q4, but I don't see that option yet in my Canvas instance.

Thank you!

[dkpst5]

Had a case opened today from a student: I see some Discussions Redesign doesn't work for some discussion types on mobile yet. I have an example of one labeled as a "partially anonymous discussion".

Any timeline on the mobile app supporting Discussions Redesign fully?

[SamGarza1]

Hi @degensp28, all documentation is currently up to date. The documentation for the redesign only covers explicit differences. For functionality that has stayed the same, the existing documentation can be used. Once we've unified the experience for all users the legacy documentation will be updated with new images if needed. 

[SamGarza1]

Hi @TrishaMeyer1 thanks for pointing that out. That was an error on the roadmap and has been fixed. Checkpoints is currently slated for Q1.

[degensp28]

@SamGarza1 
"all documentation is currently up to date. The documentation for the redesign only covers explicit differences. For functionality that has stayed the same, the existing documentation can be used. Once we've unified the experience for all users the legacy documentation will be updated with new images if needed."

There is nothing to indicate this for users looking for assistance, and the videos are not updated.

The fact that images need to be updated means that there is already an explicit difference that necessitates separate documentation for anyone using the redesign. If you truly believe the existing documentation is up to snuff, then having the link appear under both headings would be an appropriate solution.

[JessicaDeanSVC]

I'm curious if this enforcement only applies to Discussions or to Announcements as well? In all the feature preview work, it has always been referred to as the Discussion/Announcements redesign, but here it is JUST talking about Discussions. 

To help prepare my faculty for the shift, I need to be able to share everything that is changing, and if Announcements will be a part of that as well.

[SamGarza1]

Hi @dkpst5, 

Our mobile team is finishing that work now and it should be out by the end of the month. Please let me know if you run into any other issues. 

[SamGarza1]

Hey @JessicaDeanSVC, 

Great question! This does include announcements however the changes to announcements only include some minor UI changes to provide design consistency and improve accessibility.

[Jeff_F]

Hello everyone, @SamGarza1  - 

I need a link to a guide that is up to date with images and instructions for the newest redesign look.

I see this here but it is not current:

https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Discussions-Announcements/Canvas-Release-Discussions-Announcement... 

We need this so we can share with faculty who volunteer to pilot the redesign in the Spring terms.  Sure we can create our own but I reason we should be able to use a Canvas created resource.  ;o)

THANKS! ~ Jeff

[SamGarza1]

Hi @Jeff_F , 

Thanks for asking this in the community! The page you linked is primarily there to serve as an overview. You can find more detailed guides for instructors and students in the overall community guides and they should all be up to date. 

Our team is also working on overview and comparison videos and will have those available in the next 1-2 weeks.