Build better products with our product team
Description - Since the search functionality updates in May 2025, we find the "basic search" feature in Workfront confusing and not useful. It has some serious limitations basically causing it to not display accurate results which leads to confusion. Why is this feature important to you - at this point I've directed my users to pin the "advanced" search page and use that instead, which feels clunky and confusing compared to just being able to use the search bar as one would expect. How would you like the feature to work -When I type in the search bar, recent items are suggested to me (working today well)If I don't immediately see what I'm looking for, I'll click "search" and then I would expect it to flow into the "advanced search" page from there where I could drill down as needed.Basically, go back to before May 😉 feel free to enhance search with AI so it makes smarter suggestions, but having both basic and advanced search feels unneeded from my chair.Current Behaviour -Basic search doesn't display the results I'm looking for..When I enter a keywordWhen I enter the exact name of somethingEven if it is something I've interacted with
When I go to Workfront "Recents", the clock icon in the toolbar at the top right, I want the dropdown list in the "DOCUMENTS" section to open the actual proof instead of going to the "DOCUMENT > Overview" page. I see no benefit to opening the "Overview" page.I use "Recents" to reopen my current WIP proofs. The proof should be one click away not 2 clicks away. It is not a good user experience to first open to the "Overview" page. It would be better to open the actual WF proof.
Please add Google Gemini to the collection of Gsuite Fusion connectors! My organization uses Gemini and we cannot use ChatGPT.
Description - For Adobe Analytics Data Warehouse exporting, I would like to suggest for an export option to a Microsoft Fabric Lakehouse as this is Microsoft's newest data platform. Our business use case involves analyzing the Adobe Analytics data alongside our existing 1st party data in Microsoft Fabric, and then using some outputs in our reporting.Why is this feature important to you - Microsoft Fabric gives us the most processing power for analyzing 1st party data. By being able to export Adobe Analytics data to a Fabric lakehouse, we can utilize that processing power to combine web behavior data with 1st part data for reporting and ad hoc analysis.How would you like the feature to work - Export option to Microsoft Fabric LakehouseCurrent Behaviour - Right now we can export to an Azure source then setup a data process that can take it from Azure and upload to Microsoft Fabric. Those are extra steps that slow down our ability to further ETL and analyze this data in a timely manner.
Description - right now, WebSDK only supports sending data to Experience Event schemas/datasets. This is reflected in the WebSDK data elements, where only Experience Event schemas are shown. Usecase: build up a Profile when the user fills out e.g., a newsletter form. It's a CDP and this should be a standard feature and it cannot be that one must set up some server-side API connection to make this work somehow. This approach is way(!) too complicated and should be possible to be done in the Tag Manager like sending page view or other events. I found threads from years ago where Adobe said it would come and is on the roadmap. So, ...? Why is this feature important to you - I cannot be that you must be or ask a programmer to send any kind of Profile-related information to the CDP, whereas you can easily send interactions through the WebSDK. How would you like the feature to work - allow the user to create Profile-schema XDM data elements and also give the user the choice to send this information to the Profile dataset e.g., through a dedicated "Update Profile" event type or similar. Current Behaviour - All WebSDK sendEvent calls end up in the Experience Event dataset. If a custom code sendEvent is used and Profile attributes added to the XDM, they are dropped since they are not in the Experience Event schema. Side note: to achieve the Profile update through Launch and not needing to ask a CMS dev, I had to come up with a solution that puts any Profile-related data into the "data" section and use Launch SSF to pick up this data and send it to the AEP HTTP API. Obviously it is less than ideal that you must to either have the SSF SKU or implement it on your own webserver through customiz APIs implementations.
Description - I'm currently migrating a team from Asana to Workfront. And an important stakeholder asked if there was a Dark Mode. I thought it was such a good idea, I wanted to drop it here!Why is this feature important to you - For folks who work on computers day and night, they like to take some of that blue light strain off with the dark mode.How would you like the feature to work - Similar to Teams, or Asana, Maybe it's a user setting, or an Admin setting in a Layout Template where you can choose which desktop interface you want, light or dark mode.Current Behaviour - Light all day every day! (My EYES!)
Description -Why is this feature important to you -i want to hide the shared components to some users which work in different bunsiness unitsHow would you like the feature to work -Current Behaviour -can share to all - but everyone will see all of the segments/calculated metrics that admin shares. putting in user group will give users the ability to share to all users.
Description:We are requesting an enhancement to Workfront form field validation to better handle ligature-based special characters (such as ff, æ, fl and others). Currently, these characters can be entered into form fields without restriction, which creates downstream processing issues when the data is consumed by integrated systems or exported for further use. Current Behavior:Workfront does not validate or restrict entry of ligature-based special characters in form fields.These characters remain undetected until they cause issues in downstream processes (e.g., PDF conversions, integrations, or reporting).Requested Behavior:Workfront should include real-time validation logic that can automatically detect ligature-based special characters at the point of entry.Users should be prevented from proceeding to the next step until such characters are removed or replaced.Ideally, the system should display a clear error message indicating which field contains invalid characters.Business Impact:Prevents data corruption and failures in downstream workflows such as PDF conversion, reporting, or integration with other Adobe and third-party tools.Reduces manual intervention required to troubleshoot and clean invalid data.Improves data quality and reliability within Workfront forms, ensuring smoother automation and scalability.
Description - Enable a module that can call another scenario directlyWhy is this feature important to you - This would enable a more modular design of our workflow by having common functionality in one scenario that can be called by other scenarios without having to duplicate the functionality across all of the scenarios.How would you like the feature to work - A simple module that provides the input of the scenario name to call and the inputs to pass.Current Behaviour - Have to code custom webhooks to call scenarios
Currently, Marketo forms are limited to single-page layouts. If we want to create a multi-step form (where users can complete one section, then click “Next” to proceed to another), it requires custom code or third-party tools.A native multi-step form feature would be really useful because:It improves user experience by reducing form fatigue. Instead of seeing a long list of fields at once, users can progress step by step.It often increases completion rates, since breaking questions into smaller chunks feels easier to complete.It makes it possible to collect more data without overwhelming prospects.It keeps the form design consistent and aligned with Marketo’s existing functionality, instead of relying on workarounds.I’d love to hear if others have faced the same challenge and whether this would be a valuable addition for you as well.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Versions must be created in AEM upon using Manage Publication. Use-case: Manage Publication is commonly used feature within AEM and versions not being created with Manage Publication can cause issues while restoring content. Current/Experienced Behavior: Versions are not created in AEM upon Manage Publication and versioning works only if Quick Publish option is used. Improved/Expected Behavior: Versions must be created in AEM upon using Manage Publication. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as Cloud Service latest release Customer-name/Organization name: Abbott Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
The new Workfront Planning module is great but we are starting to see that Workspaces will pile up if there isn't a mechanism to organize/filterThis feature would help users maintain and organize their spaces by either folder or filter structures and also allow for archive. Currently there is only Workspaces I own and Workspaces I'm on.
Description - Like Jira, and other work tracking systems, Workfront is missing the ability to link projects and requests with an association (like related, parent, etc.) Why is this feature important to you - Our current process of taking requests in a workload and then grooming it. Then once groomed I need to open 1 or more new requests in 1 or multiple different request queues (Web Publishing, Analytics, AB tests, etc.). I want the ability to add these links to reports so I don't have to have a custom field to manually keep up to date with the associated field. How would you like the feature to work - I want a new section in the request details for Links. It would have a link with the ticket title. If a request depends on a project then only show the project. I would be able to categorize the link as related or give a parent/child relationship. The ticket type (request/project) would be shown. I could delete, modify, add links from this section. Current Behaviour - I have to copy the link of the dependent request and paste it into the updates for the original. This gets cumbersome and hard to read.
Description - When editing a custom form, the moment I scroll down into the form, the name of the form goes away. Would like it to remain!Why is this feature important to you - I have to scroll up constantly to validate I'm in the right form if I'm making changes across forms or working on multiple. How would you like the feature to work - It would be nice if the name header could stick so we can constantly see the name of the form just to be sure we're in the right form!Current Behavior - the title of the form scrolls up with the page.
Description - It would be beneficial to have the ability to delete profile-enabled schemas, specifically in lower environments Why is this feature important to you - Dev's that are 'learning' how to use AEP/RTCDP may incorrectly enabled schemas for profile, thus causing any type of schema clean-up efforts, unable to be completed. How would you like the feature to work - The simple ability to remove enabled toggle, once tied dataset is removed from schema. Current Behaviour - Unable to be currently done, verified this with adobe support that the ability was taken away due to issues.
Regulators and external stakeholders may impose requirements regarding the monitoring of functionality and data usage by internal employees. This includes tracking who accesses which data and what actions are performed with it. The objective is to enable the automatic detection of anomalies through monitoring tools.To achieve a form of automated monitoring and alerting, detailed logging must be implemented, and these logs must be accessible. Since this is currently not the case, I would like to propose implementing such logging. As an example, consider the level of detail captured in Adobe Analytics.
Hi there, I'd like to raise a feature request on AA/CJA segments & components. DescriptionI’d like to suggest a few improvements related to traceability and governance of key components in AA and CJA, specifically for segments, derived fields, and Data Views. Why is this feature important to youThese features would greatly enhance collaboration across teams, improve auditability, and enable safer and more transparent management of assets within Analytics. In environments with multiple users and frequent changes, it's essential to track who made what changes and when, and to be able to recover previous versions if needed. How would you like the feature to workSegment change history: Ability to view a log of changes for each segment, with the option to restore previous versions. Ideally, this could be enabled selectively for specific segments to avoid unnecessary data load.Author and last modifier for derived fields: Each derived field should display who created it and who last modified it, along with timestamps.Timestamp and user tracking in Data Views: Every component added to a Data View (dimensions, metrics, filters, etc.) should record the user who added it and the time it was added.Current Behaviour Currently, there is no version history for segments, nor clear traceability of who created or modified derived fields or Data View components. This makes collaborative management and troubleshooting more difficult in complex environments.
Description : When large values are shown as long strings of digits it slows comprehension and increases the chance of misreading. Replacing long zeros with readable units like 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 and 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 for counts and 𝗠𝗕 𝗚𝗕 𝗧𝗕 for data size will make licence pages clearer and faster to use. Why is this feature important to you :𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 ✅Teams must validate entitlements at a glance during renewals audits and governance checks. Human eyes scan better with semantic units like 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 and 𝗚𝗕 𝗧𝗕 rather than counting zeros. This reduces review time supports accurate decisions and improves confidence across stakeholders 📊 How would you like the feature to work :Display large counts using compact units 𝗸 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 with hover or tap to reveal the exact numberShow data size using 𝗠𝗕 𝗚𝗕 𝗧𝗕 and allow switching to bytes when neededProvide a small toggle on the page to choose 𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝘀 or 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘀Maintain consistent formatting across tables cards and summaries for a cohesive experience Current Behaviour :Today many licence fields show values like 1000000000 or 1048576 which are hard to parse quickly and prone to misread especially under time pressure. The absence of unit formatting and toggles creates friction and slows audits and planning.
Description - Option to Customize Template when Converting Issue from a Template (and when creating a Project from a Template)Why is this feature important to you - This allows for flexibility on having more generic templates and minimizing the number of Templates to maintainHow would you like the feature to work - Just like it happens when a Template is attached after Project creationCurrent Behaviour - Customization only happens after project creation, but not during Project Creation from Template or Issue conversion
Field Mapping between CRM (Salesforce) and Marketo currently remains in perpetuity, disabling the Marketo Admin's ability to remove (or merge) a field if it has ever been mapped to a Salesforce field. A client of mine was just informed on a support call that this field mapping cannot be deleted from Field Mapping, and once a Salesforce field has been mapped it must remain. Salesforce admins consistently over-permission fields to the Marketo Sync User, which creates incredible amounts of technical debt and sync backlog issues for Admins. Our current solution is to get our Salesforce admins to remove Field Level Security (FLS) permissions from within Salesforce, which addresses only part of the problem. However, we have no means in Marketo of removing the field association within Marketo Admin so that we can remove the technical debt (the field that was errantly created) on our side. Please allow Marketo Admins, either via Support or via a UI mechanism, to be able to delete or remap fields in the UI outside of the initial sync. This is a limitation for admins that needs to be addressed.
Some time ago, Adobe recommended using the “share with a friend” option, but this feature is no longer available:https://nation.marketo.com/t5/product-blogs/deprecation-of-forward-to-a-friend/ba-p/358045#:~:text=As%20of%20September%2029%2C%202025%2C%20the%20Forward%20to,been%20or%20will%20be%20sent%20using%20the%20token. We need a way to share emails with internal personnel for review before sending them out. Since we are working with the new email designer, we must avoid adding employees as additional contacts in Marketo, as these would count against our license.
Description:Introduce an option in Adobe Analytics Workspace filters (e.g., dropdown segments, panel filters) to enforce single selection only so users cannot apply more than one filter value at the same time. Why is this feature important to you:When users multi‑select from a dropdown filter or segment, some reports produce incorrect or misleading values. As an example, we use segments to isolate our Web and App experiences. However if a user selects both of these from a dropdown, they will get inaccurate values in the data set. Similarly, during gradual rollouts, mixing two experiences into one selection can lead the stakeholder to make decisions based on inaccurate values. A single‑selection restriction would ensure data integrity, especially in decision‑critical scenarios such as product rollouts. How would you like the feature to workAdd a setting to the filter/dropdown component in Workspace (e.g., a checkbox “Limit selection to one value”). When enabled, the filter behaves like a radio button list so selecting a new value automatically deselects the previous one. This should work for dimensions, segments, and metrics where dropdowns are used.Current BehaviourWorkspace filters and dropdown segments allow multiple selections by default. The “Require selection” option only forces one or more selections, not exactly one. There is no native way to prevent multi‑select, forcing workarounds like separate panels or project links.
We’ve seen a sharp spike in unsubscribe rates in recent months. Unsubscribe logs show users being marked as unsubscribed across multiple emails (see image), with entries spaced just 5 minutes apart—this does not reflect actual user behavior. This issue began in June 2025, coinciding with the rollout of one-click unsubscribe by major email providers. It now inflates unsubscribe metrics, distorts performance data, and raises serious concerns about potential domain reputation impact. Other Marketo customers are reporting the same problem. This is more than noise in analytics—it’s a systemic issue that demands urgent investigation and resolution.
Description - Datastreams are required to set access type to Mixed Authentication to allow unauthenticated requests from AEP web or mobile SDK https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-platform/datastreams/configure. My understanding is edge network validates ECID, environment id, org id and other non-cryptographic-secrets to ensure request is not bogus, but does not care where the request is coming from. Can we have the option for authenticated access type to protect our datastream from spoofing attacks? Why is this feature important to you -Our organization has security requirement for this. Data passed from mobile SDK to datastream contains sensitive customer data, that if unprotected can expose notifications intended for our customers to unauthorized third parties, and possibly fraud activities. In my country, there are federal cybersecurity guidelines and laws that govern how we handle customer data. How would you like the feature to work -Have the option to configure authenticated communication between AEP mobile SDK and edge network for data collection. Either mTLS or OAuth 2.0 Client Credentials flow works for us. Current Behaviour -To use AEP mobile SDK, datastreams are required to set access type to Mixed Authentication to allow unauthenticated requests https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-platform/datastreams/configure
Description -Why is this feature important to you - When working with multiple user groups that have different roles, this feature will allow admins to restrict the custom form visibility based on sections that are relevant to a specific user group and not everyone. This will also help in restricting visibility of confidential information instead of creating new custom form for different user groups. How would you like the feature to work - The feature should have the ability to adjust the visibility of a custom form section to only a specific group and not be visible to other users who have access to the custom form. For eg. A custom form has two sections, section A and section B and the custom for is shared with group A and B. With this feature, section A should not be visible for group B and section B should no be visible for group A. Current Behaviour - There is no option to share a section and adjust the visibility for users on the custom form.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
