Build better products with our product team
Description -While conducting our first real-life implementation case for data collection via the AEP Web SDK and the Edge Network, we wanted to rely on the out-of-the-box customer consent preferences:https://experienceleague.adobe.com/docs/experience-platform/edge/consent/supporting-consent.html?lang=en However, while experimenting with the different options available, we were facing major limitations with regards to the flexibility of handling the consent - in particular with the current consent object: consent: [{ standard: "Adobe", version: "2.0", value: { collect: { val: "y" }, metadata: { time: "2021-03-17T15:48:42-07:00" } } }] Mainly, I'm referring to these two limitations stated in the official documentation:#1 No granular consent handling:"Currently, the SDK supports only a single all or nothing purpose." #2 No overwriting of the collected consent:"After a user has opted out, the SDK will not allow you to set the users collect consent to y." Why is this feature important to you -RE#1: Modern consent management solutions such as OneTrust offer great flexibility and granularity for the user to decide which type of cookies and tracking solutions he/she is opting-in or not (e.g., first- vs. third-party). However, this can't be reflected with the current AEP consent object as it only takes binary inputs. This can result in fewer opt-in rates and/or data coverage because few users decide to go "all-in" and respectively the consent object has to be set to "n" which prevents any tracking to happen. Since data is key to the measurement of all kinds of marketing activities, the amount of data points captured is key, less coverage means less meaningful insights which ultimately can make client-side tracking solutions redundant. RE#2: As the user can opt-out this value of "n" will be irreversible written onto the AMCV, meaning in reality, for this particular user we will never ever be able to track any kind of data (unless they empty the browser's cache, switch devices etc.). This is even more severe as it drastically limits the potentially tracked users and can even have a disastrous impact when for instance, the value has been set to "n" by mistake. How would you like the feature to work -RE#1: Instead of just offering "y" or "n", give the flexibility to set different tracking categories within the consent object which correspond to different cookies/technologies (e.g., functional, first-party, third-party): consent: [{ standard: "Adobe", version: "2.0", value: { collect: { functional: "y", tracking: "y", marketing: "y" }, metadata: { time: "2021-03-17T15:48:42-07:00" } } }] RE #2: Just add the capability to either reset and/or update the value that has been previously submitted as the consent object would tremendously help in overcoming the initially described limitation. Current Behaviour -As explained above.
Description - The new "Boards" column in reporting displays a "Show" button that must be clicked to show the data. Why I gotta click Show? Seriously, if a have a list of 200 tasks, why do I have to click "Show" 200 times? I'm curious about the thought process regarding this "feature".Why is this feature important to you - I don't want to have to click show over and over to find what I'm looking for.How would you like the feature to work? - Just show the data!!Current Behaviour - User must click "Show" to see the data.
Can someone please remove the covid message from the main LOGIN Page. Why is this feature important to you - - it is overHow would you like the feature to work - just have it removed it really makes it look like Adobe is not "CURRENT"ThanksAngie
Description - wouldn't it be great to have workfront actively inform you if a resource is over allocated at the task level? Why is this feature important to you - resource leveling works great, but is on a seprate screen, and when using shared resources the resource's hours changes as other PM's book projects. it would be great to see at the task level that a resource assigned to that task is over allocated so you can adjust on the fly. How would you like the feature to work - at the task level, pull in the current user(s) hours for the duration of the task's assigned to them with the same behavior as resource manager, highlighting that a user is over or under allocated. Current Behavior - Currently there is no way to know a user is over allocated unless you actively check the resource manager. if a task is late there is no telling how that task pushed is going to effect the resources timeline without actively going to another window to check.
The " ALL" selection causing issues in custom form We had custom forms created for out design department when we signed on with Workfront. These forms are very detailed with information we request from our equipment sales department and this is why they are asked to select certain check boxes. Unfortunately this "All" box has created a nightmare for our design team which has lead to countless hours of unproductive time trying to verify what exactly should have been checked instead of this “All” box.The individual selection boxes were created for a reason several years back. The "All" box could possibly be used as an option in the future but at the moment, our department truly needs it removed.
I am trying to move images from sandbox to prod. I want to make sure the structure in prod makes sense.Ideas / complaints , and some seriously whacked out workarounds are posted all over this forum from people needing an easy way to download one or many images from their design studio. How is this still not something in Marketo when I can see ideas posted from 10 years ago?Is this a dead platform as I have seen some users suggest? Anyway, please implement functionality so we can easily download images. Here are two use cases.1. In the design studio, I want to be able to select an image and download it2. In design studio, I want to be able to select multiple images, and download them all in one click.
Description - Give ability for system admins to set estimated hours for issues at the system level instead of just the project levelWhy is this feature important to you - Project managers have to edit queue details for each project to set the automatic estimated hoursHow would you like the feature to work - Add a system-wide setting for admins to adjust automatic estimed hours for issues from 8 hours to desired amountCurrent Behaviour - System default is 8 hours for new issues with no way to edit at the system level
Description - Be able to control time allocation for Issues (like Tasks) so that issue time allocation is reflective of the estimated workload, not just the amount of bandwidth the assignee has available Why is this feature important to you - Issue time allocation not being represented accurately in Workload Balancer makes it impossible for us to resource properly to issues. How would you like the feature to work - Add Duration Type to Issues, so that like Tasks, we can change to Simple and control time allocation based on the time required. Current Behaviour - Currently the time allocations for Issues are completely dependent on the assignee's workload. If the assignee has more than 8 hours of work already, the assignee will be allocated less time for the issue than is actually estimated to complete.
Currently, it is my understanding that Iterations experience a burndown sync periodically (built into the system), or any time a manual sync in triggered. This results in Iterations that close without displaying accurate data on the burndown unless a member of the team manually syncs the burndown immediately prior to the Iteration closing. For large, international teams, this can be next to impossible. This functionality gap can leave incorrect data once an Iteration closes - for example it may show 45/50 equally weighted stories complete, making the Iteration 90% complete, however there are only 45 stories listed in the Iteration and completion should be 100% (45/45). Adding a sync immediately upon closing an Iteration, or continuing automatic syncs after closure could remedy this problem. This is important because it will allow agile teams to accurate monitor and report on their performance.
Description: An option for customers to select the RAID level used for data storage in their specific Adobe Campaign instance would put them in a place to set the appropriate security level for whatever level their company driven securities set as minimum standard.Why is the feature important for you: To adhere to our company internal IT Security Policies. Expected behaviour: A selection option within Admin Console or via support teams to set the desired RAID level. Current behaviour: Data storage configs are pre-set for all customers without any option to individualise on instance level.
Description - can you please create an email that culminates all proofs i need to review that are outstanding to make it easier on my team? also just a landing page of all the proofs they need to review. Why is this feature important to you - frustrations from team on how to navigate easily and find all their proofs amongst 20 projects they are a part of. Also, can you make it easier to move between the different proofs like in frameIO even if they are between different projects? lots of clicking into and out of proofs happening.How would you like the feature to work - email that lists it all outCurrent Behaviour - work list option to view proofs, dashboard custom created for approvers but not UX friendly and can't be only a reviewer, they want to always go to one place where it's easy for them to understand what's they need to review
Self service flow step does not send Munchkin ID in its header. This prevents identifying the instance and providing the correct logic in return.Request you to please send Munchkin ID in the header, so we are able to identify the instance and provide appropriate logic. Thanks,Arvind
Description -Set the Month of Year dimension to be configured to each report suite's calendar type. Why is this feature important to you -We use the 4-5-4 for our report suites and this dimension is based on calendar year for the order. Other metrics like day of week adjust based on the calendar format set for the report suite. How would you like the feature to work -Set your date range to last year (according to NRF 4-5-4 Calendar). Rows for Month of year would be 1. February2. March3. April4. May5. June6. July7. August8. September9. October10. November11. December12. January Current Behavior -Set your date range to last year (according to NRF 4-5-4 Calendar). Rows for month of year would be 1. January2. February3. March4. April5. May6. June7. July8. August9. September10. October11. November12. December Link to my previous post with comments from Adobe team mentioning their thoughts on this recommendation (see comments): https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/adobe-analytics-questions/request-update-month-of-year-dimension-order-based-on-report/m-p/635868
Description - We want to be able to use the Text Markup tool on more file types.Why is this feature important to you - We use the Text Markup frequently on multiple proofs and want to use it on more file types.How would you like the feature to work - Exactly like it currently does, but on more file types (.png, .jpg, .txt, etc).Current Behaviour - This tool only seems to work on .docx and .pdf documents currently.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary :Currently, Card view in AEM Assets is staggered. Metadata displayed on the card as well as the asset's format can push assets below it down, and the rows are not even. The staggered view is hard on the eyes, when trying to pick the right asset. When we scroll down to view more images, the pages redraws and assets keep moving around. This has been very frustrating to our users and this is the most common enhancement request from our users. Our request is to make the Card view grid-like, where all rectangles in a row are aligned. Use-case:Search results and browsing assetsCurrent/Experienced Behavior:Currently, Card view in AEM Assets is staggered.Improved/Expected Behavior:Card view is grid-like, where all rectangles in a row are aligned.Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable):AEM Assets 6.5.6Customer-name/Organization name:Wakefern Food CorpScreenshot (if applicable):............................Code package (if applicable): ............................
Description - Our Creative teams have Projects that require multiple versions of a creative to be rendered with slight differences in size, composition, and messaging within the artwork itself. The general theme still rolls up to the project itself, but the variances require individual Approvals by the legal team to ensure the offerings, messaging, and overall creative association is allowed from a legal standpoint. The issue we are running into is trying to create a joint proof for all of these similar (But slightly different) creatives, is that we can only approve or reject all at once. If only one or two of the creatives get rejected, we have to start the whole proof of all creative assets over again with a version 2.Why is this feature important to you - It will save time and effort on our creative team that is currently spread thin from a resource allocation standpoint.How would you like the feature to work - I would like to be able to submit individual approvals on the combined proof. The combined proof creates a zip file that acts as the actual reviewed file. With Individual Approvals enabled, an approval on each separate file would create a nonzipped version of the file to be saved in the documents folder (OR a specified "Approved" Folder if possible). Anything not approved would have to be changed and iterated in the Proof Version 2. EX: a combined Proof of 5 files has three approved and 2 Rejected. The 3 approved files are saved as individual files in an "Approved Folder" in the documents section. The two rejected will be required to be uploaded as a version 2 combined proof. Current Behavior - The combined proof is created as a zip file for the actual review file, but you must approve or reject all files at the same time. No individual approval is possible.
Product - Customer Journey Analytics (CJA) Description - Date and Time Filter in Segmentation (Reporting Segmentation)Why is this feature important to you - To segment data from date & time dimensionHow would you like the feature to work - seamlessly Current Behaviour - Currently we are unable to filter a date range in with a segment given a date/time is in dimension ex - transaction date. To make matters more complicated this transaction date is present in profile dataset. For such cases it would nice to have segmentation for date range like we have in the data view to filter such as "before" or after a particular date. I have attached screen shots currently in data view and segments as a reference RegardsShrikar
There is an abundance of issue/task/project data available in the 'Updates Collections'. Currently, the data in these collections can only be displayed, as is. The Updates Collection data can not be manipulated with expressions (eg: specifying an expression to retrieve only a specific update type), as with other Collections. This was confirmed with Technical Support. It would be very helpful to be able to use expressions with the Updates collection, to aid in reporting. Thanks
Currently, using calculated fields, you can calculate the total duration of an object - project, task, issue - approval. However, if the approval has multiple stages, it is not possible to see the duration of each stage, to determine bottlenecks or roadblocks. You can only calculate total duration.
When one opens a New Request, the Recent Paths loads at the top. I would like to be able to turn that feature off as it seems to be confusing some of our users from time to time. Especially if they are not regular users. They tend to not look further down the drop down list.
At present, Administrators cannot control the ability for a user to see some of the Financial Data object fields. We want the ability, as Administrators, to hide cost-related fields from a users, while still surfacing revenue-related fields. For example, we won't want project managers being able to see Planned and Actual Cost field data at the task and project levels for other users. They could easily find out how much they are getting paid. That is sensitive information. However, we do want project managers to be able to see Planned and Actual Revenue data at the task and project levels so they can account for this while managing project health and trying to stay aligned with what was sold. It's an all or nothing solution right now, in that you have to remove visibility of the Financial Data object in Access Levels if you don't want cost-related field data to be visible. The problem with this is that it also removes visibility to all other field data located in the Financial Data object (e.g. Planned and Actual Revenue).
Description - To be able to have an upload field related to a topic in a custom form, it would be helpful to have an upload field as a custom field type. Why is this feature important to you - We have several briefing forms, which require to be able to upload documents related to different fields included in the form. How would you like the feature to work - Being able to add an upload field at any position in a custom field. Perfect would be, to be able to define a target folder individually for each upload field. Current Behaviour - We only have a single upload field at above or after a custom form. If the requestor has to upload different documents, he/she has to remember, all those to do it after / before filling the form completely.
Description - I would love to have access to a new field type to select a period of time (from - to)Why is this feature important to you - To be able define a periodHow would you like the feature to work - classical "Date Range Picker": 1st click: calendar popup, 2nd click: set start date, 3rd click: set end date, 4th click: applyCurrent Behaviour - Currently two date fields have to be added where we do not have any kind of verification if the date selected in the second field is after the first one. RegardsLars
test ideaaa
For greater modularity/reusability, please allow a special "this program" picklist option in the "Change Program Member Data" flow step so it can be used in central/global executable campaigns
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.
