Private sharing (beta) from the web

[perrybrus]

Latest features | Adobe XD CC

"Safely share XD prototypes and Design Specs with reviewers or stakeholders by sending an invite using your web browser the same way you do in the XD desktop application."

What's the difference between private sharing as described by Adobe above and sharing design specs without choosing the "create private link" function? Both methods provide access to design specs with the same page. Can't see any difference really. What is so private? I can password protect the one but not the other - why two sharing methods when the result is the same? One sharing method provides a web link and sends an email for the receiver to click, but the other also provides a link to the same file that I give to the recipient.

In this section we have no less than 3 different expressions:  Public Design Specs - Public Link - New Private Link. Public or Private? For the same result. Confusing. Sometimes I share Design Specs with 1 developer, other times with 12. What's the definition of private in this context? The UI seems a bit misleading?

[Preran]

See the section "Using Private Invites on the Web" in this doc Publish your prototype and/or design spec and share it with stakeholders by providing a public or pr...​ that provides the required clarity around your question. Let us know if you need more info

Thanks,

Preran

[perrybrus]

This only confirms what I'm stating. It's no difference between the functions except from private share generates an email push. I still don't get why Adobe does such a noisy sharing section with no less that THREE expressions on this. Private or not private is the same cause you can add password protection to the shares that are not private links.

I checked the private link function by sharing it with myself on a different LAN, when I opened that email invite I was denied access. So it doesn't work that well obviously. Anyways, totally confusing this whole pattern. In my world you either share it or you don't. Creating these different expressions for what provides really identical outcomes is bloating. If you wanna keep the shares restricted to the people you share it with then add password protection, then the word "private" won't be factual or required at all. Would remove confusion.

[kate1006]

Hi perrybrus, thanks for sharing your feedback with us. We are working on making the workflow and the UX more clear to our users to address such confusion.

The key difference between password protected links and private links is that the invited person would need an Adobe ID to be able to view the private link while anyone with the password can view the password protected links without signing up or signing with Adobe ID.

Requiring reviewers to sign in adds more security and control around who can view your design, and some organizations require such added security.

If your workflow simply requires a password to share, please keep using the sharing method that fits your needs.

Thanks,

Kate

[perrybrus]

"The password can view the password protected links without signing up or signing with Adobe ID."

I'm not sure if that is correct. You don't need an Adobe ID to view Design Specs files no matter if you have password protection or not. The link to the spec files is accessible both ways anyhow. However, if I'm sharing assets like color pallettes etc from the asset manager in my CC the recipient is required to establish an Adobe ID, that is a big no no as most developers don't have any connection to Adobe. They just wanna click a link and view whatever I'm sharing with no conditions or requirements. This is why most developers stays clear of Adobe for asset accessibility and wants Zeplin files instead. It's just a matter of being able to click -> review -> respond. The moment your forced to establish an account somewhere you are basically saying bye bye to 90% of the recipients. This is my definitive experience from working as a designer for 25 years. All sharing services that requires account membership is doomed. Look at WeTransfer. No one would even bother to use them if it wasn't for the free and unconditional access. You receive a link and you download. No fuzz. No membership requirement. Adobe has a very closed door approach to this and it won't help them advance in any shape or form. Wake up!

[kate1006]

Just to clarify, anyone with the password can view the password-protected links without signing up or signing in with Adobe ID.

For example, please try opening this password-protected link with password Test1234 : https://xd.adobe.com/spec/66807830-9ab6-404f-6ffb-6487f58dd66a-10b1/

You don't need an Adobe ID to view this link. You are not forced to create an account and you can access the specs as long as you have a password.

If your developers don't want to sign in with Adobe ID, you can continue creating and sharing password-protected links.

They can get the color specs from the design specs link and download assets from the link as well.

Please refer to this help doc to learn how to mark assets for download via Design Specs link. https://helpx.adobe.com/xd/help/design-specs-for-developers.html#Extractselectedassetsfromdesignspec...

Private links are for organizations that require additional security that they want the employees to share their design assets and specs with people who would need to authenticate via signing in with Adobe ID, which is often integrated with their enterprise ID.

[perrybrus]

You don't understand. What I'm trying to say is that ALL CC assets are hidden behind a required Adobe ID system. No one can access my assets unless they have established an Adobe ID. That's whats keeping the assets on the cloud totally hidden from the iteration group and especially the developers as mentioned. I'm not referring to the design specs cause as I wrote those can be accessed with or without an Adobe ID. When Adobe requires Adobe ID in order to access assets like vector objects (as in 200 icons for a project), color palettes and other elements for a design project, it stops collaborators from assessing vital design elements cause as I wrote they don't care to establish ID's and register for memberships. They just wanna interact swiftly. My referred example is WeTransfer, were anyone can download what is shared by the click of a link with NO membership requirement. See, when developers and stakeholders see this requirement they back off and the whole iteration stops.

Please Adobe, listen to what your market is saying. We are not interested in your identity greed. If at all we wanna establish an Adobe ID we are not gunna provide authentic data anyways, so please stop this personal identification race. It is is so not GDPR. Perhaps it hasn't reached the states yet but here in Europe we really don't care for forced account establishments. Pulling data from random people is very retro. Make it accessible. Open door policy etc. Don't know how else to explain this but NO developer I have ever worked with wants to establish ANY ID account with anyone just to be able to view the content of an asset link. So the assets on the Adobe cloud that is meant to be shared and utilized by everyone in a project MUST be accessible by ANYONE with NO conditions. No butts no ends.