Have an option to allow users to edit other people markups in Studio Sessions

Colby Gallagher - TfNSW - DE Manager

Please add the ability to allow some users to edit/delete other peoples comments. This can be controlled through permissions.

At our organisation when reviewing drawings there is a review manager that consolidates comments before sending them back. This process occurs regardless of if we are using Bluebeam or another tool.

Our current workaround is to remove the documents from the Session, make the edits and then re-upload to the session. However this causes issues as all the comments are then locked (even from the users that made them). It also means those changes aren't tracked in the Session audit history so its not clear what was changed.

Luke Shiras

I'd like this simply because sometimes the mark up has a typo or references the wrong thing.

Ken Phelps

This has come up a lot over the years. I believe the restriction isn't a design or programming issue, but more of a legal one. If I'm a subcontractor invited into a session by a GC, with this setting, they could potentially change my comments. This would be possible to anyone invited into a session that is owned by someone else.

Would require some trust on all parties. For internal use, I think the idea is fantastic.

Alan A.

Hi @Colby Gallagher - TfNSW - DE Manager,

Thank you so much for reaching out to us about allowing users to edit other people's Markup in Studio Sessions, and we've taken note of your request. Could you share anymore detail about why your review manager would delete a comment or Markup?

Please let us know if there’s anything else we can do or if you have any other questions. We look forward to potentially collaborating on future projects. 

Colby Gallagher - TfNSW - DE Manager

Hi @Alan A.,

The general process for a review is as follows:

1. Contractor submits drawings and reports to us for review (we are the client)
2. The Review Lead creates a Studio Session, prepares all the documents with the required custom columns, statuses, and invites all the reviewers (up to 50 reviewers depending on the project)
3. The reviewers then have 2 weeks to go through and make comments. Comments are made by adding markups (usually callouts or cloud+).
4. After the 2 week review period, the Review Lead reviews everyones comments. Review lead might need to edit comments for the below reasons:
   1. Any time 2 reviewers have made duplicate comments one is deleted (or they are consolidated into one comment).
   2. If a reviewer has put incorrect data into the custom columns or has missed putting data in the custom columns the Review Lead needs to add it.
   3. If a reviewer has made a comment that does not comply with project deed then it would be removed.
   4. If a reviewers comment is unclear or needs more information to be understood, it would be edited by the Review Lead.
   5. Probably more reasons I can't think of right now.
5. The Review Lead would then invite the contractor in the Studio Session to reply to comments.

We as the Client want our feedback to be clear, concise and provide value to the project. We also don't want to provide conflicting information. So the job of the Review Lead is very important in ensuring that all of our comments are collated well.

Carina

I have found that an example where this WOULD be beneficial is if A&D teams are using a session during a client meeting presentation. One person may be "hosting," while another could be documenting more detail of the comments from the client. I could see this (limited) solution work for correcting notes by select individuals as the meeting is happening.

However, I have become hesitant over the years to have this implemented into a CA (or even redlining) process. For redlining, we use an additional Markup Status called "rejected" for items that are no longer needed. But, at least we still have the log to refer back to.

Jeffrey Manabat

We have the same problem… our lead reviewer consolidates and verify comments from engineers. any conflicting comments or comments that is not needed must be remove. The lead reviewer finalized comments before document controller sends it to the originator. If the review lead cannot remover or delete comments that is not needed it is causing a bottle neck / delay. Please make this happen. The session report should capture any removal deletion of comments so there is a security in place.

Oliver Kiley

There are a NUMBER of use cases where being able to edit other people's edits/markups would be tremendously useful. Others have spoken to the need for comment consolidation + cleanup, but I'll mention another key reason:

We often use Bluebeam as a sketching tool - it's very powerful for this. If users were allowed to edit each other's drawings/sketches it would an INCREDIBLE tool for collaborative design during live sessions, concurrent editing sessions.

I'd REALLY like to see at least an option on a file-by-file basis to allow for editing each other's markups. Thank you!

SheeterD

100% agree with this request. There needs to more flexibility in session permissions. I can understand the legal rationale for the current defaults but it lacks flexibility and actually hinders collaboration for the use cases described in other posts. In particular, allowing a meeting facilitator to edit/consolidate comments from anyone on the team live during a meeting would be helpful. Also agree with allowing edits of each other's drawings/sketches to enhance the collaborative design process.

Robert Ornelas

Another use case for this request: I would like to change the "Check/Unchecked" status of another user's comment. Currently, I need to right-click, "Set Status…Complete". Using the "Check" status would save clicks and time. Why are we able to change the "Status" but not the "Check"?

Micah Lindstrom

This would be helpful to my internal team, too. Our PDFs are essentially living documents with changes tracked in red ("redlines") over several weeks or months, after which those changes are incorporated back into the original source and a new updated PDF is published.

Even if person A updates the equipment and PDF with change A, we often have person B come along with further necessary changes B, and occasionally even have person C with more necessary changes C. It is absolutely helpful to track that final change "C" is an amalgamation of changes from persons A, B, and C, but it is not helpful for latter persons to have to cover up previous updates with e.g. a blank white rectangle.

And when using the "cover up" method, the final reviewer who is incorporating changes back into the original source is forced to wade through conflicting markup history from three different people on the same page. By supporting markup edits, the final reviewer would only have to review a single markup history collaboratively created by three people.