Make web editor available to Mobile Workers

[RichardHowe]

I can't see the rationale behind making the web editor only available to Creators and higher. Anyone with a Creator licence already has access to ArcGIS Pro where they can edit their data with the full suite of desktop tools. The real beneficiaries of Web Editor will be Mobile Workers who have been out in the field and are potentially limited by Field Maps editing tools, and wish to tidy up their data when they are back in the office.

The Creator licence type is there for those who wish to create actual content i.e. hosted feature layers, webmaps, dashboards etc. not for those who simply wish to edit existing data.

Please reconsider the restrictive licencing of what, on the the face of it, seems like a really useful addition!

[RichardHowe]

@LarryYoung I am very much envisaging our mobile workers utilising Web editor back in the office, post-survey, to make edits to the data they have initially captured. I have no/little interest in them using it in the field. Time in the field is money and capturing data quickly is far more important than having it 100% correct.

I think @GISAdminSHN has pretty eloquently outlines my feelings as well. It is a huge point of frustration to our mobile workers (as well as my GIS team) that they can't make what should be simple tweaks (geometry edits and batch attribute alterations included) without either the clunky/limiting options offered by Field Maps or the current edit button in the new map viewer. 

It is a waste of everyone's time that they have to describe changes to the GIS team for us to make (including taking screenshots in paint to indicate geometry edits) when they could just quickly and easily do it themselves.

I can't see what future developments you could possibly be handing the keys over by making this app available to field workers. My previous point stands that anybody who generally wants to create data or really edit in anger would use ArcGIS Pro. But if it is such a limiting factor tor then it wouldn't be so onerous to have two levels of editing options available dependent on licences. Rather than ruling out a useful app for hundreds/thousands of users.

I also note this idea is by far an away the most upvoted in this subforum which indicates that I'm not alone in seeing this as an oversight 

[AnthonyJonesRSK]

Whole heartedly agree with this, it seems a bit odd to create an editing tool and then block access to it for those that have the editing capability. It's a similar decision to that which @JonathanMcD alludes too where the new custom print templates have been locked to a Professional licence even though they would be useful for all users as as I brought up here. It suggests that Esri aren't really in touch with their users needs.

@LarryYoung, you mention that "The basic thinking is we will offer much more with Web Editor than we have before for editing on the web which translates into a higher license requirement." I think the key phrase there is "will offer much more". Do you have a road map for the web editor that may indicate what some of this extra functionality may be? As others have suggested anyone with a creator licence can edit their data in Pro and it seems that this would be most creator's first point of call given the significantly more advanced functionality available there. Of course I understand there may be creators without the ability to run Pro due to the required specs (or who want to edit on mobile?) but it seems like they would be a small number of your user base and therefore it would be odd to create a tool specifically for them. Always appreciated the introduction of these kind of new tools but the licence restrictions can sometime undermine the good work you and your team put into these developments.

Thanks

Anthony

[JonathanMcD]

@AnthonyJonesRSK 

"The basic thinking is we will offer much more with Web Editor than we have before for editing on the web which translates into a higher license requirement." I think the key phrase there is "will offer much more". 

Agreed. I find it odd that, as an Enterprise customer, all you now have is Creator and Viewer - the items you'd consider being part of an enterprise solution are locked away behind a paywall.

I can't even contemplate going to my bosses with cap in hand and asking for more money, for more licences, just to get what should be deemed as basic functionality.

AGOL is a great tool for an organisation - but it seems to be getting prised away from an all-in-one enterprise solution when paired with portal. 

Are ESRI going down the route of you buy AGOL and you buy Portal and each is priced accordingly? 

[LarryYoung]

Hi All,

Again, appreciate the comments and feedback.  The mobile worker collecting data in the field and then coming back to the office to clean it up is not a workflow we had considered with Web Editor, so we will take that under consideration.  What i've heard mentioned in that context is simple geometry updates, along with bulk attribute updates.  Those capabilities should be possible with Map Viewer or the Editor widget in Experience Builder in the next release or two.  We are in the process of designing bulk attribute updates now.

As for the road map of Web Editor, think in terms of Pro editing capabilities as we will move in that direction with all the editing tools for extend/trim, replace geometry, copy parallel, vertex editing dialog, etc.  Also a lot of work planned around shared edge editing and topology, and more capabilities for parcel management and utility networks.  Additionally we have plans to support creating and saving application configurations with Web Editor to allow the creation of more streamlined applications for specific workflows.  Web Editor will be the premier editing application on the web.

thanks, larry

[RichardHowe]

@LarryYoung Understood. What I don't want to happen (and have grave concenrs that it will) is for all the development to go into the web editor app at the expense of being able to enhance the offerings in the map viewer. So as long as better geometry editing and attribute updating come to the map viewer at exactly the same time as (or before)  the web editor app then I won't have an issue.

The experience builder options are of little concern to me, as customizing an experience builder for every individual project is too time consuming to be of value to our workflows. My excitement for this product was that there was an out-of-the-box single-click solution to editing every existing webmap for fieldworkers.

I still stand by the fact that it's utterly inconsistent that somebody with editing capabilities elsewhere on the same platform (map viewer, field maps and experince builder) should be locked out of this option though, and I find it difficult to believe that take up of a web editor will increase drastically amongst GIS professionals who have Pro at their disposal.

[GISAdminSHN]

@LarryYoung that sounds awesome! Completely understand your perspective and clarifications, and it makes sense why the current direction was chosen if you were not even considering that workflow! Two suggestions for that, 1) Get someone on that decision-making team as soon as possible that can advocate for your customers in the 1-200 employee range as they will typically have the types of employees that are more frequently changing hats, I guarantee they would have clearly identified this workflow, and 2) Please strongly consider putting the future enhanced Angry Web Editor on it's own branch. Your clever web team already has the code developed to present UI app launcher buttons based on user type level, modify it so Mobile Workers and Collaborators get the current button and use the existing code for the new hotness that will only be safe to use for Creators and above! 🔥

The current Web Editor is a breath of fresh air, a beautiful no-config, lightweight editor that presents the basic searching/filtering/editing tools to the end user and shows a lot of respect for the valuable time of your ArcGIS admin customers. Conceptually the strongest points are that it doesn't require any additional content management and the training is about as simple as telling your staff that the Web Editor button is a thing that now exists! The current weakest point is that it does not synergize with the existing user type privilege ecosystem. Mobile Workers and Collaborators already have the privileges to use the maps and solutions shared with them, and to edit and use editing tools provided in apps and solutions. Since there are no novel abilities in Web Editor (yet) and all abilities of Web Editor can currently be utilized by those users in deployed apps, it makes perfect sense to extend this solution to them as well. Easy win and I promise to buy at least 5 collaborator licenses the moment I see this resolved! 😄

[AmySteiger]

Agree with the comments here, my main workflow would not be for editing in the field.

For us it would be to have non-GIS users collecting information on site in FieldMaps such as ecology data, vegetation polygons, species sightings etc. and then coming back to the office to update, review and amend their data in the office before giving it to the GIS team.

At the moment we waste time fixing topology errors in vegetation from field data capture (slivers and overlaps, gaps and all those lovely things) and - as someone else pointed out - taking digital field capture workflows and then still spending time translating markups, sketches and snips with drawings on top of it. Web editor for mobile workers would help give these users more ownership of their data (usually they want to do it themselves anyway, but can't always work out desktop GIS)

I'm a bit confused why someone with full desktop GIS would use the web editor when they can just open and edit the services in ArcPro with all the functionality. 

[GarethBaker1]

To be honest I was slightly surprised when I read the launch blog and it said that Creator level was needed. I had (wrongly) assumed that it was going to be available to the Collaborator (formerly Editor) level but the blurb for that user type now specifically refers to "simple editing" to distinguish it from the new Web Editor.

Might be interesting to compare what is available in the Web Editor with the functionality available in SWEET, which is an ESRI UK product.

As ever there are so many different ways of doing things within the ESRI technology stack!

[QueenBee]

OMG, came here to post exactly the same thing.

"Here's a much needed piece of functionality, but those who need it most can't have it"

[ClayDonaldsonSWCA]

What I have trouble understanding is why web app builder editor widget, which has many of these functions already (merge, split, freehand draw, etc) and can be used by mobile workers is now being offered as a new "advanced editing" stand alone app. All these functions I consider "basic geometry editing" yet they are not offered with current editing tools. How does ESRI draw the line of what is basic vs advanced?

I really don't like the justification that different users need different editing tools. If mobile workers are able to correct their data with better tools, we wouldn't need to have another user come in and alter their data.

Why not a compromise of an addon license?  Why should I pay an additional expensive licensing fee for functionality a field user may only need occasionally?

Really hope ESRI reconsiders, because we will have to develop custom tools or pay for 3rd party services if not.