Build better products with our product team
Description - Add a 300% zoom preset to ProofHQ Why is this feature important to you - I use 300% most often. 200% isn't large enough and 400% is too largeHow would you like the feature to work - Just like the other presets do.Current Behaviour - 200% isn't large enough and 400% is too large
Would be great to be able to select multiple entities at once in the navigation tree. Use case ... moving 10 campaigns into a different folder.
Had someone make unauthorized changes to one of our Request Forms, but I had no way of knowing who when investigating.
It is imperative that System Admins should be able to delete items in the Recycle Bin instead of waiting 30 days! Especially since there is no automated warnings when you reach or about to reach your storage capacity. Had this happen last year during our NPI cycle for Christmas and the only option was to pay money for more storage because we are unable to delete things in the Recycle Bin.
Description - Make Conditional Formatting available for beyond only the view in Reports; extend it to Grouping, Charts, Milestone, and Gannt. Why is this feature important to you - I can only take advantage of conditional formatting if the report is showing the Details tab; otherwise, where conditions are defined, the data does not show consistently between the details, Summary, and the Chart tabs. How would you like the feature to work - I would like to be able to present a custom text to show in the grouping header or in the chart reports based on a condition set for a data field. Current Behaviour - Custom text defined to show based on a condition in reports only shows in the view for the related column. It does not apply to the same data point in the Grouping, in the Chart view, or Gannt view.
I need to run a user report to show me what layout is associated with each person?
Description - It would be helpful if Line Managers could manage their own Timesheet delegation approval for a period of time.Why is this feature important to you - It would save time for the Line manager and support staff if they could do this simple task themselves. How would you like the feature to work - As with work delegations, allow Line Managers to set another user to approve timesheet for a period of time and not just for timseheets that are already produced by the system. Need this to cover future timesheets for the period also.Current Behaviour - At present the only options are to add an approver to current timesheets, change the direct report for the employee int he user profile, ask for new timesheet profile to be created or ask Admin support staff to manually create future timesheets and then set the approvers.
This is a big FAIL and a miss for Adobe Workfront. Current Behavior: When a licensed person leaves and you have to decommission that person or for some reason you have to delete a person from Workfront, you currently cannot do a mass delete job for that person as a resource manager on ALL templates at once. WHY WHY WHY? You can only do it manually. If you end up decommissioning that person but that person isn't removed from all templates, any time you try to add a template to a request you get an error message. Until you MANUALLY remove that person from EVERY template, you will continue to receive that error. Desired Behavior: There should be an option/question that asks you "do you want to remove this person from all templates?" Yes. Automatically removed. Done. When you deal with over 150+ templates this is a SENSELESS task to do manually.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Tools to validate regex and glob against rules defined for Dispatcher. Use-case: Validating dispatcher globs and patterns can be time-consuming. It would be great, if there was a tool to verify the regex/globs quickly like Glob Tool. Current/Experienced Behavior: We need to deploy and validate Improved/Expected Behavior: Would be able to quickly verify without deployments Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS and AMS Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Use full screen height for displaying member list in group dialog. Use-case: As admin I need to check who is member of a group but although my view port is high enough the list is not displayed completely and AEM forcing me to scroll. Area should use full height of screen. Tools > Security > Groups > select one group and open properties > switch to tab 'Members' Current/Experienced Behavior: Area for member list has fixed height although you have view port available, see screenshot. Improved/Expected Behavior: Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): 2023.11.14227.20231108T162349Z Customer-name/Organization name: Carl Zeiss AG Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add 3rd invalidation processing mode in AEM dispatcher based not on paths but tags. Use-case: Currently dispatcher supports either statfile level based or ttl based page invalidation. Those two approaches can't be reliably combined (with dispatcher 4.3.5) and are too inflexible for big multinational websites. AKAMAI has concept of tag based invalidation where each page supplies list of tags when it's cached and those tags can be used during invalidation. Current/Experienced Behavior: stat file or TTL based page invalidation Improved/Expected Behavior: 3rd mode where a list of tags (arbitrary ascii strings) is supplied from publisher with a cacheable page in a custom header. The tags are stored and indexed along with cached resources (e.g. in a page.html.tags file) in the dispatcher cache. Then when some resource is invalidated an osgi service installed on publisher is invoked by flush agent to supply a tag value. That tag value is passed on with the invalidation http request to the dispatcher (again in a custom header) which in turn invalidates all files that have this tag stored. As with stat files mode this shall indeed be invalidation not complete removal. Examples how to use tags. 1. Product collection - all pages pertaining to product collection supply the tag, all pages are thus invalidated together, regardless of the website structure on crx. 2. Path dependencies - components report crx resources they used as tags (e.g. resource path hash), when the resource is invalidated all pages that used it are invalidated too immadiately (e.g. all carousels, menus, footers immediately react to page name change) limiting need for less agile mechanisms like TTL and providing more flexible alternative to stat files. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Apache dispatcher 4.3.5. Both could and on premise dispatcher could implement this mode. Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Currently, to edit a user permission we do the following steps - 1. Navigate to User Management Console (/security/users.html) 2. Select a particular user and then select properties 3. On the new page, navigate to the Groups tab and edit the groups. (/libs/granite/security/content/v2/usereditor.html/home/users/..) Doing this for multiple users takes time as one has to repeat the 3 steps again and again. If we have a custom console which allows user to search by email and quickly display the page in Step 3's Groups Tab it would speed up the multiple users assignment to groups. Use-case: A custom "Users" console which allows quick assignment of groups without following the above 3 steps. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, the user has to follow the above 3 steps. Improved/Expected Behavior: Removing Step 2 and allowing user to grab view of current groups along with addition of new groups in Step 1 itself will be a great. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS Customer-name/Organization name: TA Digital Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Displaying Permissions flowing from Groups to a User in AEM for view only purpose. Use-case: Currently, the permissions console in AEM is streamlined into Users, Groups and View All. This allows to search for Users and Groups and then see the permissions.The permissions are seen distinctly for users and groups. But often a user is associated with multiple groups and thus has overlapping set of permissions. To see this currently, we have to see the groups user is tagged to and then explore each group permissions individually.If we could have a section within permissions window which allows us to see different permissions received from the groups it would help see the overall access control better. Current/Experienced Behavior: AEM Product Admin has to see permissions for individual and groups separately. Improved/Expected Behavior: A user console where permissions assigned to user and permissions flowing from groups to user are visible. The latter can be non-editable view only as the permissions for groups should be changed from the groups permission console. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Release 2023.7.0 Customer-name/Organization name: TA Digital Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Assigning Product Profiles to IMS User Groups Use-case: We are currently assigning Product Profiles individually to IMS Users. These users are grouped under IMS Groups. These groups have access to different Adobe Cloud Products. Assigning Product Profiles to IMS Groups should be a quicker solution. Current/Experienced Behavior: AEM currently does not support assigning groups to profiles. Users should be added individually instead. Improved/Expected Behavior: Adding User Groups to Product Profiles should be allowed to enable quicker access. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Release 2023.4.12142.20230526T152858Z Customer-name/Organization name: TA Digital Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): @kautuk_sahni
We have clients who have requested pdf versions of the newsletter emails we've sent out - and there's no way to currently do this in Marketo. Right now, I'm having to send the email to myself, save as HTML, then export to pdf from there, and then crop the pages in Acrobat. This is the only way I've found to preserve both the look of the email and the active links. It would be great to have a feature directly in Marketo to export to pdf and keep the integrity of images/links.
When you make a comment on a proof and save it, then later go back and delete it, that comment is not longer visible in the proofing tool...... HOWEVER, In Workfront, on the project, the system created a "Proof comment: Blah, blah, blah..." on the details tab of that document that still shows the comment even after it has been deleted from the proofing tool. This is very confusing to designers looking for feedback. If the comment is deleted on the proof, the system should also delete the post in the job with the comment as well.
It would be very helpful if there were buttons i.e. "<<Prev" and "Next>>" in the task screen that would take you to navigate to the previous or next task to the one you are currently viewing.
Description -Why is this feature important to you - It results in discrepancy between issue (resolvable) and project (resolving) objects. The statuses do not match. How would you like the feature to work - The resolvable object's status match the resolving object status. Current Behavior - The resolvable object's status won't revert from closed to anything else, once changed to closed. If the resolving object status is any status matching the system default cancel or closed, after it is reverted to some status equal to have been opened again, it won't trigger any change to the resolvable object status.
Description - In the Workfront proof viewer, update the "sort by page" option so that it shows comments not only by page # (page 1 before page 2, 3 and so on...as it does now), but also the location on each page, such that comments that are at the top of page 1 appear before those at the bottom of page 1 and so on Why is this feature important to you - Our designers and editors want to be able to use the comment pane to display all the comments for each section of the page that they are revising/reviewing rather than having to jump around based on the order in which the comments were entered on the page by team members How would you like the feature to work - In all other Adobe products that we use, there is an option to sort comments by page that will show comments first by page # and then by the location on the page. We would like the Workfront Proof viewer to have that same functionality Current Behaviour - Currently, the option to sort comments by page will show those on page 1 before comments on page 2, but it will not sort them by the order they appear on the individual pages. When there are multiple comments within the same page (or for documents that are only a single page), the sort by page option shows them in the order in which they were entered (by date/time). This is not useful for our designers and editors as they need to see all comments for a given section of the page together. Our teams have moved away from using the Workfront proofing tools because of this issue. It has been very disappointing to not be able to use this product in the way our employees use other similar Adobe products.
When the new user experience for the Images and Files section in Marketo was introduced, an additional change was made to the way searching for files works. In the previous user experience, the file search works using a contains filter: so long as the string being searched was somewhere in the file name or extension, the file would be returned. The update to the user experience switches this behavior, so now any search in the Image and Files section only searches with a "starts with" criteria. As a result, several common use cases, such as searching for brand keywords in files or finding files by extension (e.g., pdf, js) now are no longer possible. There is also, as far as I can tell, no wildcard search support that would still enable the use of starts with searching. Could we please get this functionality restored in the new user experience?
Description - I would like to be able to create reports that pull projects with particular answers to particular questions in a score card attached to those projects. Why is this feature important to you - Currently it is not possible to pull a report on projects that meet certain criteria within a score card attached to them, unless questions are added to custom form too, which then will be redundant. How would you like the feature to work - I would like to be able to create a report that is showing projects that the answer to a question within a score card attached to them equals a certain value. Current Behaviour - Currently it is not possible to pull a report on projects that meet certain criteria within a score card attached to them, unless questions are added to custom form too, which then will be redundant.
I'd like to display Workfront Reports and Dashboards in SharePoint pages to give them broader visibility and save time for viewers. SharePoint has the ability to display external content by utilizing Embed Codes, however Workfront does not generate Embed Codes for such objects. Making the report visible to external viewers and sharing the public link in external pages does not help with "displaying the report/dashboard" as embedded content. I hope this feature comes soon as it is very easy to develop.
Many of you probably will have realized that excluding IP's on multiple report suites is a time-consuming task and a really annoying thing. Here's my idea to improve that topic: 1- Would be good to be able to upload many IP's from a spreadsheet (by uploading the file, or just copypasting a couple columns -like Adwords Editor method-). Also, there's a 50 IP limit that should be increased at least to 500 IP. 2- When trying to use regex to exclude ranges of IP's, such as 199.1.0.(19-57), isn't possible. You just can exclude the entire range using an * (this should be modified to be able to specify a data range, not the entire position) 3- And the last one, but maybe the most important... You should be able to apply the same IP exclusion on multiple report suites easily. So, an "Apply to Multiple Report suites" option should be available. What do you think about? Have you ever experienced the pleasure of excluding more than 40 different IP's in 20 different report suites, one by one? Leave your comments! ^^
Description - Offer a widget that displays what I recently viewed, i.e., tasks, projects, users, dashboards, reports, etc. Why is this feature important to you - I bounce back and forth between tasks, projects, dashboards, reports, users, etc. It would be more efficient if there was a widget that displayed what I've recently viewed. Currently, I must search for them which can lead to confusion if things are named the same because a template was used. I could favorite things, but that means I have something else to manage and these aren't things I want to keep.How would you like the feature to work - Duplicate the current My Tasks widget which allows us to choose the filters, view (columns), and groupings that are important to us. Don't restrict the types of things that are displayed. As an Admin, I'd like to see everything I've recently viewed not just tasks and projects, but everything, i.e., custom forms, templates, users. Allow us to choose the number of items it displays similar to My Tasks, but with smaller numbers, i.e., 10, 20.Use Case: I had a day full of meetings and need to jog my memory or I'm on PTO next week and when I return I'd like to quickly see what I viewed before I left. Current Behaviour - This functionality doesn't exist. Thanks for your consideration!
We use automated workflows for our proof approvals. We've noticed that when a team member or project sponsor not in the workflow opens the proof a new unattached stage gets added to the workflow. The uninvited user is added to a Workfront stage as a reviewer with disabled notification. WF send these users an email form the system informing them that they have a proof to review. What is especially irritating this is done all behind the scenes and the project owner is unaware that an email was sent to a user. WF doesn't use a standard email copy to notify the added user, it uses the last email that was use by the project owner. What is causing additional anxiety is at times that email may not be appropriate. Please up-vote this so WF can remove the auto Workfront stage generation and associated email notifications.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
