Product ideas | Community
Skip to main content

10000 Ideas

TomBa12New Participant

Allow views to be targeted in form based activitiesNew

Description -Currently to target a triggerView() call, widely used in SPAs you have to use the VEC. This can be very cumbersome and the VEC is not always supported by user's website setups, making it difficult or impossible to build activities with triggerView. Ideally we would be able to select view names in the Location dropdown of a form based activity so that we can target views without having to manually reach them in the VEC. This would also be useful for tests which span multiple locations and cover both mboxes and views. Why is this feature important to you - A large part of my website is a React SPA, in order to build tests for some components I have to go through my entire SPA which can take upwards of ten minutes to trigger the view I want to target. I only use target as a code delivery tool rather than using the VEC, so form based activities are much more suitable, but can't be used at the moment with views. Also, the VEC is fairly unreliable and often breaks my site so that I can't progress to the view in the first place, making it impossible to test certain components which massively increases frustration and decreases usability.How would you like the feature to work - In form based activities when you add a location, simply add user's view names to the Location dropdown as well as mboxes. Then a user can target both or either of mboxes and views in a single form based activity while avoiding the VEC.Current Behaviour - Users have to use the visual editor to target views, which is clunky, unreliable, and adds frustration as the user is required to manually trigger the view through the VEC window even if they are not making an edit in the visual editor. Form based activities can only target mboxes.

PeggySettel
PeggySettelNew Participant

Allow Machine to Machine OAuth App credentials to establish Fusion Workfront Module ConnectionsNew

Description - Currently, you need a username and password with System Administration access to Workfront in order to create a connection to Workfront. Would like to use an OAuth machine to machine app credentials. Why is this feature important to you - Most IT security offices we work with are reluctant or refuse to create a service account with username and password that isn't tied to an individual person as it's a security risk.  How would you like the feature to work - Able to use either the Workfront OAuth Application (Workfront -> Setup) client ID/secret to create a connection, or create a Project (in developer.adobe.com) using Workfront API to generate client ID/secret, and use that in Workfront Modules to create a connection as outlined in this article https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/workfront-fusion/using/references/apps-and-their-modules/adobe-connectors/workfront-modules. Current Behaviour - When trying to do the following steps to use the advanced settings in the Fusion Workfront Module , we get an error and were told by Adobe Support that it's 'working as expected'1. Can create a OAuth App in Workfront (machine to machine - https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/workfront/using/administration-and-setup/configure-integrations/manage-custom-oauth2-apps)2. Can NOT use the Client ID and Secret to make a new Connection in a Fusion Workfront Module (https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/workfront-fusion/using/references/apps-and-their-modules/adobe-connectors/workfront-modules). ERROR after you enter the information into the connection details and click "Continue", after the Oauth window pops up, and after you enter the Workfront instance that reads "https://app.workfrontfusion.com/oauth/cb/workfront-workfront is not allowed"

JacobDi1New Participant

Enable Custom Placement of Document-Level Approval Field in WorkfrontNew

Description:Our organization relies heavily on Workfront for document collaboration and approval workflows. One consistent limitation we've encountered is the inability to reposition the system-defined document-level approval field within the document panel. While custom forms can be layered above this field, the approval section itself remains fixed in place, which restricts layout flexibility and user experience optimization.Why is this feature important to you:I’ve observed that the fixed placement of the approval field often leads to confusion—especially when custom forms are used to capture additional metadata or context. This limitation impacts usability, and reduces the ability to tailor Workfront to our internal workflows. Allowing repositioning would improve clarity, streamline processes, and enhance alignment with team-specific needs.How would you like the feature to work:We propose that the document-level approval field be made configurable within layout templates—similar to how custom form fields can be arranged. Administrators should be able to drag and drop the approval field to a preferred location within the document view, allowing for better integration with custom forms and other workflow elements.Current Behavior:The document-level approval field is currently fixed in its placement and cannot be moved. It always appears in the same location within the document panel, regardless of layout template or custom form configuration. This limits flexibility and can lead to a disjointed user experience when additional fields are added above it.

markTwoNew Participant

Front or back loading planned hoursNew

Description - It would be ideal if you were to specify, at project template level, that planned hours can be front or rear loaded (in addition to being spread evenly across the task duration) when assigned to a user. Why is this feature important to you - This would help our project managers to schedule resource more accurately, it will allow them to schedule tasks on the same day, get get the most for the available resource on a granular level. The assignees would also benefit, they can concentrate on one task at a time, moving onto the next once the fist has finished. How would you like the feature to work - If a task has a two day duration and 8 planned hours and is assigned to a user who has a capacity of 7 hours per day, WF would allocate 7 hours in day 1 and 1 hour in day two. The task would be set to start at 9am and finish at 5pm which is inline with our default schedule. If the assignee has 2 hours available on day 1 and 7 available in day 2, the task would be spread accordingly, 2 and 6 hours. If an assignee has less than the required amount of capacity across the 2 day duration, an error message should be displayed when trying to assign the task or they are not available to assign when selecting. (similar to the plane icon when they are on leave during the task duration.  If the assignee has a different schedule, eg they start at 11am, the task will schedule to start at that time rather than 9am, the same would be done if the assignee has a task finishing at 3pm on day 1. Current Behaviour - Currently the above is a manually process and has to be adjusted on each task as WF distributes the planned hours evenly across the duration days. 

ec2ec2_2New Participant

AEM Asset Metadata Export - ability to save/reuse properties to be exportedInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Ability to save/reuse properties to be exported in Metadata Export Use-case: Issue 1 There is no reporting function in the DAM. I mean there is a reporting capability, but it suffers from the same issue that the metadata export suffers from; namely, you have to enter the metadata fields you want to report on, one by one. Laboriously. And once you have done this once, there is no ability to save the report/metadata export so the next time you want to do either you have to go in and re-create the whole extract/report again.   When you add properties to be exported, it is not a multi select screen so the task is painful when you need to export a big list.   Issue 2 You can get around Issue 1 by selecting the All option to get all metadata fields… (See screenshot Issue 2) But for some reason despite us only having about 90 metadata fields, the ALL options produces a CSV of anywhere from 200-3000 metadata fields, depending on how many assetpaths it returns. This renders the Export ALL option completely useless because the CSV file generated for any large number of assets is so big that Excel cannot open it. Current/Experienced Behavior: See use Case Improved/Expected Behavior: Ability to multi select properties in one go (not multifield - Add Property) and ability to reuse this selection when I needed re-create this export again in the future. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS Customer-name/Organization name: Coles Screenshot (if applicable): Issue 1  Press Add     Issue 2   Code package (if applicable):  

lutzUNew Participant

AEMaaCS | Launches | Make them available on PREVIEW service for review/approvalInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enhance the launches so that they can be published to PREVIEW service so that they can be reviewed/approved by people who do not have access to AEM. Use-case: As an editor I use launches to prepare future updates of a page separately from the current page. This prepared version needs to be reviewed and approved by people in my organization who do not have access to AEM. For them I would like to publish the launch page to PREVIEW in order to share the URL with them. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently I have no chance to publish the launch page to PREVIEW. Just view-as-published is available which does not help as the reviewers do not have AEM access. Therefore the advantage that I can prepare a page without blocking the current page is gone as I have no chance to get it on PREVIEW in order to let them check from approvers. At the end I need to promote it to do so and with this I'm back on the current page and could not working separately anymore.  See documentation for Launches: https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-manager-cloud-service/content/sites/authoring/launches/overview Improved/Expected Behavior: Make the option available to publish a launch page to the PREVIEW. With that I would have the chance to share a preview URL with reviewers and approvers in my organization who do not have access to AEM. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable):   Customer-name/Organization name: Carl Zeiss AG Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

MenisaMeNew Participant

Publish Button in "Open in Assets" view in new CF EditorNew

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Publish Button in "Open in Assets" view in new CF Editor Use-case: To enhance user convenience, "Publish Button" should be available once the user click "Open in Assets" view. Current/Experienced Behavior: There's no publish button option for the user after clicking "Open in Assets". User needs to manually navigate under full Assets UI. User should still have an option to publish the asset without publishing the CF which the asset is reference to. Improved/Expected Behavior: When the user clicks "Open in Assets," the system should provide an option to publish the asset directly within the "Open in Assets" view. This eliminates the need for the user to manually navigate to the full Assets UI. Additionally, the system should ensure that the user can publish the asset independently without publishing the Content Fragment (CF) that references the asset. This allows for greater flexibility and avoids unintended changes to the associated CF: A "Publish" button should be available in the "Open in Assets" view. The "Publish" action should apply only to the selected asset and not affect the referencing Content Fragment (CF). The user experience should be streamlined, reducing unnecessary navigation steps. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable):   Customer-name/Organization name: Accenture, Inc. Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

dmurata-1Employee

Do not remove child nodes by Manage Publication of Experience Fragment(XF)Investigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Fix ManagePublication behavior to preserve child nodes in ExperienceFragment instead of deleting them Use-case: Use "Manage Publication" on particular parent folder on XF Structure. BEFORE ManagePublication (Publish Environment): /content/experience-fragments/customer/ └── en/ ├── company/ │ ├── company-overview-xf/ │ │ └── master/ │ ├── about-us-xf/ │ │ └── master/ │ └── contact-info-xf/ │ └── master/ ├── products/ │ ├── product-catalog-xf/ │ │ └── master/ │ ├── product-detail-xf/ │ │ └── master/ │ └── product-comparison-xf/ │ └── master/ └── ir/ ├── financial-report-xf/ │ └── master/ ├── investor-presentation-xf/ │ └── master/ └── earnings-release-xf/ └── master/   AFTER ManagePublication of /content/experience-fragments/customer/en (Publish Environment - ISSUE): /content/experience-fragments/customer/ └── en/ └── [EMPTY - All child folders and XF content deleted from Publish] Current/Experienced Behavior: When using ManagePublication on ExperienceFragment folder (/content/experience-fragments/customer/en), all child folders (company, products, ir) and their XF content are completely removed from Publish environment. All English XF content disappears from live site Impact : Broken user experience, missing localized content, language-specific content loss (Some Japan customers faced incident due to this functionality.) Improved/Expected Behavior: Prevent deletion of child nodes in ExperienceFragment - this is a bug, not a feature request Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Manufacturing Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):