SharePoint Designer Reviews

We actually don't use Designer much in the latest version of SharePoint, since we can use any other designer in the new SharePoint architecture. Previously, however, we used SharePoint Designer 2013 widely for data mining, exploring the content, and editing. Those are the main features that you would need to use SharePoint Designer for.

SharePoint Designer is not releasing a new version. Version 2013 was the latest version. Now in 2019, we are still using the biggest version. It doesn't work properly anymore. Sometimes we experience issues, but there is no new version. 

There are many things that could be improved in SharePoint Designer. The user interface definitely is a very old design, but as a developer, I would concentrate more on the functionality. With the newer interfaces, just basic functionality is provided to explore the content. The editing method should be changed, as inline editing is not recommended. Now we create apps, which can change the user interface and the functionality as well.

There are some features that need to be worked out with the current version. There are several issues, but I can't think of them right now. There are lots of things that we to in newer versions. We use other tools for that, but that functionality was not possible with SharePoint Designer.

Some functionality is missing in the newer version, but in the previous version, it was good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I've been working with SharePoint version 2013. I would rate it as 7.5 out of ten.

The basic functionality the solution makes it easy to share documents or information with the team. 

SharePoint is not a great product. It can be much better in many ways. 

The collaboration tools for editing do not work right and malfunction often.

It has a lot of bugs. It's also not very convenient. The UX/UI is not very user-friendly and not designed to be similar to other applications from Microsoft. 

The management functionality should be much easier. 

The dialogue with end users needs improvement. If you are a manager of SharePoint, sometimes it's hard to know what exactly the user would like to have. There should be more intelligent services or features available, which would make it easier for end users. 

There are many bugs in the solution, so I don't think it's extremely stable.

Although I'm not in charge of scaling the solution, I've heard it's not very easy to expand the capacity.

I've never contacted Microsoft directly, as our enterprise has its own internal support.

I didn't do the initial implementation, but I set up the team functionality, and that part of the setup was not easy.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution three out of ten.

My primary uses for this solution are attaching workflows and customizing pages.

Our deployment is mostly on-premises.

The most valuable feature is the capability to directly access the SharePoint data structure. It is a tool that is similar to a registry editor, but specific to SharePoint.

I would like to see the complete mapping of our data types, including previews, which were switched off at some point.

It would be helpful to have the SharePoint Designer capabilities built directly into SharePoint itself, into the management page, so as to create an online version of it directly in SharePoint.

There have been issues at times, but in general, it is stable.

This is a problem that does not occur at all. SharePoint Designer puts its configuration data into a firm structure, which is parallelized by default and thread protected. It does not matter which means you use in to access the data, whether it is through direct API calls or in SharePoint Designer. It is protected against all structures within the form. You cannot override data. It is inherently parallelized by SharePoint, itself.

There are approximately ten users working within our support company, but the company using this solution has about five hundred end-users.

I have contacted technical support in the past, and it took a few hours, but Microsoft called back and solved the problems. I found them to be pretty fast.

Prior to this solution, I was using PowerShell to perform the same tasks.

The initial setup of this solution is easy. There are just a few clicks, you enter the path and the licensing information, and then continue to click Next until it is finished. It is not like Oracle, where you have to know fifty parameters before installing.

This solution started as Microsoft FrontPage and was renamed at some time.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this tool is to make sure that you understand it. This tool can damage a lot if you don't know what you are doing. If you are only editing your own sites then there is not much damage you can do. However, if you have elevated access then you have to be careful. It is similar in this regard to a registry editor, where if you edit keys outside of your own personal scope then it can cause problems. You can do a lot of damage to your machine.

The biggest lesson that I learned when using this solution has to do with planning. When it comes to using this solution, it is much better to plan what you are doing in advance. Just clicking around trying to get things done is inefficient, and you will spend a lot more time than necessary.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as our internet and extranet platform and for our software.

The workflow is the solution's most valuable feature.

We work mostly with documentation and we'd like to have  it be more of a web-based. Right now, our product, our system is only set up for PDF and we're looking for a better web-based solution for our documentation.

The solution requires more web-based publishing. It would benefit from adding in more collaboration features as well.

The solution is stable.

The scalability is a little bit complex. We do have a lot of issues with scalability. It's not everything we hoped for.

We go through our own IT department, so we don't deal with technical support directly.

I'm not aware of our organization using a different solution. We've always used SharePoint Designer.

For our organization, it was quite complex. We have different departments in our group that require different access, which added a layer of complexity for us. The deployment took about a year.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

A lot of planning is necessary before deciding on a final solution or a final architecture. Planning is very important prior to implementation.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I use this solution for site development.

The most valuable feature is the development.

This solution could definitely be made easier to use.

This solution runs alright.

The technical support for this solution is fair. It's ok.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

This solution is free of charge.

This product basically has all of the features that I need, but there is no such thing as a perfect solution.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The feature I find most valuable, is the workflow of the product. I have used it in the past to design different teller sellers, automating the business process using the workflows.

I think the product will soon not be supported anymore due to the new way of using those components in Microsoft flow and power apps. I have heard that Microsoft is not going to lease SharePoint Designer anymore.

I am not sure how stable the solution will be once Microsoft stops supporting it.

On a scale from one to ten, I rate this solution a seven. I like the user experience level and there were some small issues, but I can't remember what they were. It was a long time ago. If Microsoft will keep on supporting the program, they should fix those small issues.  

We primarily use the solution for modifying SharePoint.

The most valuable part of the solution is its ability to allow for a high degree of customization.

Many aspects of the solution need improvement. It does not make use of modern deployment. You should also be able to separate your concerns between the code and the environment. It should become a development environment rather than a customization tool.

Recently, the stability of the solution has been okay. The later versions have been better.

The solution is not scalable at all.

In terms of advice I would give to others considering implementing the solution, I would say they should adopt the SharePoint Framework and do it with Visual Studio.

I'd rate the solution three out of ten.

The previous version of the solution was good as we had different views of both the design and the code. The new version doesn't have the option to view data but it has other, better features though.

I would like to see some improvements when assigning a task. For instance, when you create a task or a subtask, there should be a better workflow. At this stage, we can't CC any names in the sent box. We can only use a "to" address. So when I want to send an email, I have to write a custom code through .NET and then send the mail. It takes up a lot of my time. Then I also found that there was a requirement from one of my customers that they want this option in the taskbar too. For instance, when the email gets sent, they want a CC option as well. 

I will rate this program a five out of ten. The reason for this is that I would like to be able to use SharePoint Designer without having to buy other third party programs. At this stage, I still have to use other designing webpages because SharePoint Designer doesn't offer all the features I need. You can create beautiful pages, add the list and add a document library, but the solution doesn't offer any complicated designing features. One can only do a few simple designs. Everything has to be coded through either Visual Studio or some other solution. So I hope to see an improvement in the new version of this program. Perhaps they can add different templates where one can add banners, tabs, and lists. And even drag and drop features where one can add permissions. That would be great. 

The most valuable feature is the capability of creating HTML pages, with CSS code. For example, most of the time I mirror in the web area, which means that I need to create an HTML file. Inside this HTML file I will write my web VBI.

Other valuable features are the ability able to update the master file, and creating the workflow.

Sometimes when I create my HTML page it is very slow and I don't know why. It's just stuck. I think that the performance needs to be enhanced.

If you compare the workflow with other engines like Olympus and K2, it is very complicated to create a workflow.

In the next release, I would like ready-made workflows that I can re-use and a way to apply a design for the master base that is less complicated.

This solution is stable.

I have not contacted technical support. With twelve years of experience, I can resolve the issues.

The deployment is used for both private and public clouds.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The solution's best feature is designing workflow processing. It's easy to change and collate workflows.

The solution has limitations when it comes to exploration.

The web services aspect of the solution is very weak.

If the requirements are moderate, the solution is okay, but for more complex requirements, I need to use the solution in combination with other solutions. It doesn't offer everything I need.

The stability is okay but limited.

The scalability is okay but limited.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We're using the SharePoint 2000 version.

The solution makes the work of estimating the requirements pretty difficult. Mainly, it is a very useful tool I can use for small to medium requirements.

If you're new to the solution, be aware that Sharepoint can be challenging, so you need to be ready to learn the solution in order to fully use it. Sharepoint involves coding; it's not like other solutions that offer zero coding. Organizations considering implementing it should be made aware of this.

If you are considering implementing it, I'd take the time to compare it to what you already have and any other options you are considering so that you are able to choose the solution that will work best for you. There are a lot of features now that are actually offered by competitors.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. If you were talking about the 2016 version, I'd give it a seven out of ten, but the 2013 version I would rate a six.

We primarily use the it as a creative solution for document management.

The document filing system is the solution's most valuable feature. We have used SharePoint as an option for a document managed system, like Documentum and IBM Filenet.

I believe Microsoft does not support Sharepoint on-premises. They only support Sharepoint on the Cloud. They should provide for both options and let the client choose their preference.

The solution should have a better workflow with the craft, and also offer some configurations to help drive workflow.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

There are other solutions on the market. Some are more usable than Sharepoint.

The workflow is the solution's most valuable feature.

The solution is a bit complex. They should work to simplify it. 

The initial setup is complex.

We're using the 2013 version of the solution.

The solution has a lot of complexity. That might work for some people, depending on the use case, but for others, that may be a turn-off.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher, but there are other solutions that are able to better cover my needs.

I use it mainly for workflows or for minor changes in SharePoint master pages.

I have setup many simple and complex workflows, very useful for daily automation (invoices, travel, leave approval) . It is also useful to make small branding customizations.

The most valuable aspects of the solution are the user-friendly interface and easy creation of workflow. 

Unfortunately Microsoft announced a few years ago that the last update for SharePoint Designer was released on August 2, 2016 and that Microsoft Flow will be the workflow designer and engine going forward.

I would add Nintex or all of the Nintex workflow to the solution if I could. I would add them to SharePoint Designer so that I would need to use only one workflow designer. Right now, I'm using SharePoint Designer and Nintex, and it would be better to centralize it.

The solution is stable.

SharePoint Designer is a very small tool, and very clever. You install it on your computer to access SharePoint's entire platform. In that sense, it's not a technology that's scalable or that needs to be scalable.

I've never had to contact technical support.

The initial setup is very easy. Deployment takes five minutes; it's basically just installing the software. 

I deployed the solution myself.

We use the on-premises deployment solution.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for SharePoint Designer is for implementation for clients.

What I like most about this solution, is that we can use it as a secondary customization platform. We do customization and make a web SharePoint live for our clients. 

From what I read online, it depends on what you use the program for. I think the customization and migration need to improve. Upgrading should be simpler without too many things you need to change or repair. 

SharePoint Designer should be more practical and become an extension of Visual Studio. Because Visual Studio is a universal development platform. So I don't want to have to switch my user ID every time. So it should be more flexible and more of a mobile app version and integration with other solutions.  

The program is perfectly stable. I really like Microsoft products because they are very advanced. I like SharePoint because it's big and the pricing is fair. 

The scalability of SharePoint is good and the program is fast. 

There is zero technical support. I have to use Google to fix the issues myself.

I used a smaller content management platform which I customized. Visual Studio and SharePoint Designer work well together and could be extensions to each other.

I struggle with the installation. We are not a small company and there are three equal sides. You need to get them right, otherwise, SharePoint won't install properly. A single installation takes a couple of hours. You need time to do separate functionality. 

The program wasn't easy to deploy either, because when I integrate solutions, I have to do so many things before I can deploy SharePoint. So the process is a little tedious due to the security features of the program, but once you get it, it becomes easier. But its always a challenge for someone who is unfamiliar with this program. 

I've never paid for SharePoint Designer. What I paid for is the SharePoint license, the cava, and then the client accesses the line fee. 

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this a five because it could be more flexible.