Build better products with our product team
Description - Provide the option to show description of items defined under Priority on the custom forms. Why is this feature important to you - The users who fill the custom forms need to have some guidance on which priority to select. How would you like the feature to work - It would be helpful if that "?" that shows next to custom fields to show next to system default fields as well, such as Priority, and have the option to customize it to provide direction about how to use the field to users. Current Behaviour - There seems to be no way to direct users on how to use the system default fields in their process, such as priority, when they are filling out the information on the forms.
Description - the Analytics extension's action to set event variables is quite limited, assuming you know the events to set, requiring writing custom code. It would be amazing if an to-be-evaluated Analytics event can be added as a result of a Data Element evaluation. Example: I have a lookup table the generates a string "eventX,eventY" for me that has to be set on the extension. In order to do so, I must write custom code which is tedious and error prone, since I must append these to s.events, append them to s.linkTrackVars and s.linkTrackEvents. Assuming in most cases events are counters and have a value of 1, why not have a possibility to add one or more dynamic events through an input field in the setVariables action, additionally to the standard functionality? Why is this feature important to you - for many clients I have worked around this issue with custom code that is potentially error prone whereas the built-in event-add functionality is quite convenient if you know which events you are supposed to always fire. However, often I want to add additional events which are only determined by the context of the passed data. Having something that saves time and reduces room for errors would be amazing. How would you like the feature to work - have an additional text field where a Data Element can be used. This can either be a single event or a list of events which will implicitly set all required fields on the AppMeasurement library. The same way the standard functionality works. Current Behaviour - I can only set predefined events, no flexibility to set other events ad hoc based on the evaluation of a Data Element. Hope I am not alone on this. CheersBjörn
Description - Add ability to Navigate to any field on the convertedOpTask in calcuolated fieldsWhy is this feature important to you - Can create View Only custom forms that link from a Project to a converted issue to the original projectHow would you like the feature to work - Add ability through API to link to the object and thereby access its related objects. Current Behaviour - Works in reporting but not on Custom Fields
Description - Allow for Groupings to be sorted in custom ways reports. Why is this feature important to you - It is important to present the report in a way that makes sense to the users; sometimes the way data is grouped is not even alphabetic reliant; there may be some business logic to show a group of data before another one in a report. How would you like the feature to work - I would like to have the option to select the order of the groups in the Groupings section of the report when creating it. Current Behaviour - There seems to be no way to select in what order the groupings apply in a report.
Improvement Description - A new feature allowing attachments to in-app comments and updates was included with the 24.1 release; this feature was initially designed to be in-app only. Our users would like to see the image attachments carried through to the related external emails associated with these updates.Problem - Restricting the attachments to only in-app creates a confusing user experience. For example, suppose a message was to ask someone to respond quickly to a referenced attachment. In that case, the email they receive does not contain the mentioned attachment, and the recipient must log into Workfront, navigate to the in-app message, and click on the attachment to view it. This seems like a lot of effort to view something that is expected to already be attached to the email they receive.
We would like the ability to tag an update (on any object) as "High Importance". This would help bring notice to the recipients that the update needs a higher level of priority. Additionally, we would like the text "High Importance" (or something similar) to appear in the Subject Line of the email notification so it stands out in the recipients email In Box. For reference I found a few similar requests:2020 - Ability to mark updates as critical announcements - Adobe Experience League Community - 5286852019 - Ability to mark project/task updates as high prior... - Adobe Experience League Community - 5290972018 - Mark certain updates as IMPORANT or STICKY - Adobe Experience League Community - 526324
Currently you can only add certain fields to reports with ID against them instead of Name, which results in a string of text. Whilst you can fix this in text mode in most situations, this doesn't always work for groupings based on the ID field where you want Name instead. Any manual fix also breaks the accompanied chart: https://support.workfront.com/hc/en-us/articles/217982367-How-to-change-ID-to-Name-value-in-Reports-via-TextMode
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.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
