Build better products with our product team
I've created a number of custom views for lead lists, and it'd be great if I could share these views with my team. There should be an option to make your views shareable to the rest of your team, but not editable by anyone other than the view owner. Sharing views would be epecially great for those who are new to Marketo!
Version numbers were added to the URL of every assets in Design Studio. Version numbers are designed to counter act a caching system so that there is always an up-to-date version every time the desired asset is refreshed or changed. This is fine, if there is a caching system that forces you to do so, which Marketo does not. If a cache is enabled that forces you to add a version hook at the end, removing or changing the version number to an older version should change it back to that previous version, again, this is not the case in Marketo as all previous versions of the PDF or image are updated when replaced making version control pointless. This needs to be removed or, at the very least, an option to remove it (and no, copying the url and deleting it manually after pasting is not a solution). Also, FIX THE DESIGN STUDIO SEARCH!!!
Description - With the new license structure every time a user goes over their approval limit an email notification is sent to all system admins. Ideally these notifications can be managed like other notifications. Why is this feature important to you - It creates unnecessary confusion / urgency / internal correspondence every time a notification comes through. And it's only relevant to the Admin who is responsible for user / license management. How would you like the feature to work - The ability to turn on / off the notification for individual system admins and limit only to the person/persons responsible for user/license management. OR that there isn't an email every time this happens and it's managed under Setup (e.g. keeps a log of overages / # of approvals for users that go over) for admins to reference/manage. Current Behaviour - Every system admin receives an email notification for every user that goes over their approval limit.
Description - It seems really odd to me that the functionality available in the CC plug-in does not mirror what is in the platform. If a proof owner is adding a new version of a proof from the CC suite, to the same approval chain. The approvers are not remembered on the new version unless they are fixed from the templated proof workflow. Meaning if the approvers are changed as the template is applied, any future versions will not automatically add the same users to the next round of approval but only when uploaded from the CC suite, if you follow the same logic in Workfront the approvers are retained. Why is this feature important to you - I have clients that do not want to use the plug-in as it makes it more difficult as they cannot use the plug-in for all versions of proofs so its easier for user to be in Workfront for all proofing activities How would you like the feature to work - Match the behaviour in Workfront automated approvals so they same is true when using automated proof approvals the CC plugins.Current Behaviour -
Description My use case:I need to segment and select values for only some of our internal marketing ID's (let's say my "wanted" list involves ID's "A", "B" and "C" and my filter is therefore: "equals any of A, B, C"). The filter however will also include ID's that are not in my wanted list (for example "D"), meaning in a built view in my workspace I will see values for A, B, C and D. Cause: This happens because in our implementation, for some cases the same hit triggers several ID's together (in business terms - we are showing several marketing objects simultaneously). For example one hit would have the ID "A" and simultaneously also "D". (I.e. a list evar then has both values)Result: This means my segment returns ID's and values for both, "A, D" and any table I build in an Analytics workspace will have the unwanted values appear as well. Alternatively phrased - a list evar can not be segmented in such a way. Note. There is a solution - I can manually filter them out, but this is manual work and if any of our stakeholder tries to replicate, this creates confusion and questions.Want. I want to be able to build a segment that would understand list variables and not include values that are not in my "wanted" list. Why is this feature important to youTry explaining to a non-analyst Adobe Analytics user, why a custom built segment is not segmenting and values are being shown that should be excluded. Indeed, there is a manual approach, but it has it's own downsides. In the examples that I provide, to illustrate the point, I am using one request examples and as such might not make sense in aggregated perspective. So keep in mind that a large site with a lot of different marketing placements appearing in many different combinations (A with B, A with C, C with X) and thus when you only want data for a particular ID, the current solution will create a lot of data noise. How would you like the feature to workOn example of a single request. When I build a segment that checks against a list evar in a single occurrence, and the list evar contains ID's "A", "X" and "Z", and I want to return only values (let's say we talk view counts) for "A" in my table/view - the segment should be able to understand the list variable and selectively return values (view counts) for "A" only and not include values for "X" and whatever else. TLDR: Built segments should understand the elements on the list evar and return wanted values only. Current BehaviourAny segment built to filter list variables, doesn't understand to return values only for the elements in built segments.
Currently, users who have the new Commenting Beta enabled can’t see comments made by users without the Commenting Beta enabled when accessing comments from an email notification. They can only see these comments after refreshing the page by accessing a different tab and returning to Updates. Per Adobe support, this is functioning as intended. However, it is not an ideal user experience. We would like users to be able to see all comments, regardless of whether they have the Commenting Beta enabled or not. Further, our team was told that once the new Commenting feature is enabled for everyone, updates made prior to the feature enablement will no longer be visible. It is essential for our users to have access to all previous comments/updates, as we rely on the updates stream for record keeping. Losing access to these comments/updates would cause us to lose critical information associated with projects and issues. We would like all previous comments/updates to remain visible in the Comments stream after the new feature is enabled, regardless of whether the comment was made with the Commenting Beta feature enabled or not.
When working with creative/graphic teams, over & over I hear the request to have coloring or shading options to project plan tasks. I have heard this request so many times, that I am now submitting it to Workfront. ex: Parent Tasks can be a different color/shade. ex: Critical path tasks can be a different color/shade. For some users, having the coloring options would really help with adoption.
Add some presets to the date searches such as This Year, Last Year, Q1, Q2, etc. Why is this feature important to you - Saves time using one of the most powerful tools in WF.How would you like the feature to work - When I am using the company wide search filters allow me to choose preset dates instead of typing them in. Current Behaviour - In order to search for projects from the previous year I have to type in the dates. A couple of presets would streamline this process. Referring to project/document searching in WorkFront.
Description - When clicking the star in the top right to display favorites, I'd love the ability to drag around the order of items that appear here.Why is this feature important to you - I like to keep the projects I'm following well organizedHow would you like the feature to work - I'd like to be able to drag around the order of items saved to my favoritesCurrent Behaviour - Items are fixed in the order they were added to favorites
DescriptionIn a project template, I want to assign certain tasks to users based on their relationship to the project, as opposed to their Job Role. E.g., I want to assign the task "Project Setup" to whichever user is the Project Owner. Or, assign "Set Project Priority" to whichever user is the Program Owner in which the project resides. Or, assign "Provide Follow Up Feedback" to whomever was the Converted Request Originator. In all these examples, there often isn't a placeholder role that can be assigned to the template task because the users referenced by these terms don't typically share the same set of job roles. Why is this feature important to youThis feature would reduce the burden of project administration and user error, since there is currently no mechanism to make these types of assignments in bulk. How would you like the feature to workWhen a template is applied to a project, Workfront would replace these placeholder roles in the template tasks with whichever user is referenced (Project Owner, Project Sponsor, Program Owner, Portfolio Owner, Converted Request Originator, Project Owner Manager, Converted Request Originator Manager, etc.) Current Behaviour No such capability exists currently. An admin would have to add every one of these roles to every user profile, and the PM would still need go through the multi-step process of making bulk assignments.We do have a Fusion scenario in place to do this, but such a feature would be useful to all Workfront customers and reduce our dependence on Fusion scenarios to make assignments that should be possible without requiring an automation platform.
Description - For enterprise companies that have thousands of users accessing Adobe Data Warehouse: There is no visibility into where users send their files from an admin perspective, without initiating a report request from Adobe. (No self-service governance)There is no way of knowing if the reports being sent are done so using secure methods. Nor is there a way of displaying SFTP options ONLY.There is no control for where files can be transferred.Why is this feature important to you - With no alert system, control, or visibility into who is sending what information and where, we leave ourselves extremely vulnerable to malicious intent or interception from external hackers. The Adobe products pride themselves in encouraging self-service models but they lack appropriate governance capabilities to ensure everyone can operate with a safety net. How would you like the feature to work - At a minimum, we would like admins to have the ability to control what locations are available to ADW users AND the ability to allow SFTP methods only, regardless of the location's ability to receive both FTP and SFTP. Current Behaviour - Everyone can send whatever data is available in Adobe Data Warehouse (based on the data they have access to) to whatever location they want without interception from the company on whether or not the contents and location are safe. This extreme flexibility is not scalable safely for large companies.
Hi Adobe Team, I was wondering if we could 'block' dates on the due date calendar so it will prevent a high volume of requests when our capacity is exceeded. For example, when submitting a request, the user wouldn't be able to choose a date if it had been marked as unavailable by an Admin user. This would be fantastic as it would help prevent overwhelming my creative team, encourage project managers to plan their requests in advance and save Admin users time by not requiring them to ask for extra time. Thank you very much for considering my suggestion! 🙂
Hi all, I am requesting that Workfront add a new notification setting that would send a notification to the Team that's assigned to a task or issue after the task/issue's Approval Process has been completed. Currently, there are only settings for individual assignee's (not teams)on the task/issue to get notified when the task/issue approval process has been completed. Extending this functionality to teams would be very useful for us.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Apply Metadata Profile properties to assets when they are moved into a folder, that is associated with that property. Use-cases: 1. User uploads an asset to a folder "upload" for pre-screening. From here, the assets are moved to their final destination to complete the meta data. 2. User accidentally uploads asset to the wrong folder and successively corrects by moving into the proper folder. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, metadata Profiles are applied only when assets are uploaded to a folder. They are not applied, when an already uploaded asset is moved from another folder into the marked folder. Improved/Expected Behavior: Issue: The above is somewhat unintuitive: User apply metadata profiles to ensure, that all assets in that folder have the same set of defaults. There is no reason not to apply the profile on move. I.e. we end up with a mix of assets in a folder. Some assets have the profile applied some have not. Expected Behavior: Apply Metadata Profile properties to assets when they are moved into a folder, that is associated with that property. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS 2023.9.13665.20230927T063259Z Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Demande de résumé des améliorations des fonctionnalités (RFE) : Be able to reach Inbox in one click or one shortcut Cas d’utilisation : Inbox used when workflow takes time Comportement actuel/expérimenté : Today inbox is bellow notification, it's not easy way to reach it Comportement amélioré/attendu : gain of time to access to this inbox Informations sur l’environnement (version d’AEM / service pack, et autres informations spécifiques si applicables) : AEM CLOUD Nom du client/de l’organisation : RIASSE NATHALIE / LOUIS VUITTON Copie d’écran (si applicable) : Package de code (si applicable) :
Demande de résumé des améliorations des fonctionnalités (RFE) : Be able to multiselect inbox message to clean them Cas d’utilisation : to have notification of inbox not always +100 Comportement actuel/expérimenté : select one by one to suppress Comportement amélioré/attendu : select all or multiselect to suppress Informations sur l’environnement (version d’AEM / service pack, et autres informations spécifiques si applicables) : AEM CLOUD Nom du client/de l’organisation : RIASSE NATHALIE / LOUIS VUITTON Copie d’écran (si applicable) : Package de code (si applicable) :
Demande de résumé des améliorations des fonctionnalités (RFE) : We have developped on UI specific buttons and columns, to switch new UI, we need these customised buttons & columns Cas d’utilisation : benefit new UI Comportement actuel/expérimenté : custom buttons & columns Comportement amélioré/attendu : new UI of AEM support customised button and columns Informations sur l’environnement (version d’AEM / service pack, et autres informations spécifiques si applicables) : AEM CLOUD Nom du client/de l’organisation : RIASSE NATHALIE / LOUIS VUITTON Copie d’écran (si applicable) : Package de code (si applicable) :
The search function in the Design Studio seems to have gone backwards in terms of functionality. Searching by keywords no longer produces results, rather you must know the exact name of the file you are searching for, which is not feasible. Since we can no longer toggle back to the "old" experience, this is going to create a significant decrease in user-friendliness.
I wish there was an easier way to delete custom objects without having to manually remove any campaigns or smartlists that they are associated with. This is especially tedious for custom objects that are referenced many, many times. We will be creating new custom objects to replace some older objects as we move to a new CRM.
We have the need to control the inherited permissions via our internal integration tool (ACM by IBM). The Workfront API does not have any supported method of adjusting the Inherited Permissions. This is something that was brought to the Product Team earlier this year and there is no plan at this time to add this to the API, we need this prioritized to add another level of control to Workfront objects.
Description - I would like to see if there is a way to add a generic option for "any external user" as a user into the "log in as" option for system adminWhy is this feature important to you - Often times we are creating reports for external clients, or have external partners that need to see something and things often look different externally so it would be GREAT if we would easily with a few clicks go into the mode of "seeing everything as a generic external user" instead of using work aroundsHow would you like the feature to work - I envision it as almost a default option in the "Log in as" section where you could just click a button or select an option to "any external user" to see what anyone with generic "reviewer" permssions might see Current Behaviour - Otherwise, we often have to go into GMAIL or use a personal off line non-company email to see what emails and notifications look like so that we can create instructions and screenshots for our external partners more accurately. I suppose we could also create fake external users and "log in as them" but I was hoping for 1 more easily available generic "anyone outside this company with no special license, just a random user" button as a built-in default
We have attached a custom form that users have to fill out when generating proofs in Workfront. The data in that custom form is stored in ProofHQ. It would be useful if the data from those forms could be referenced and reported on from Workfront. Currently, that data is inaccessible for reporting purposes in Proof.
Currently we do not have an easy way to find who has been assigned to a project within proofs by their name and associated role without backing out of the proof. We would like a way to see the assigned person’s name and their associated role under workflow. This will eliminate the need to back out and into the actual project to find the name and role(s). Currently, if within a proof you hover over a name assignment under workflow, it will show the email address only. Why is this important? Because if there are around 20 or more tasks on a project, it becomes challenging to find the user associated to the task that requires proof approval. Example: A copywriter is needed to approve the proof. Task 24 on the project has a task listed as Copywriter review. In order to determine the copywriter to add to the proof at this stage, you have to back out of proof via clicking the project link. Then find that associated task to then pull in the name.
The default expense types are not ones that all teams use and can be confusing when you are not able to hide delete or edit them. Not all teams use Advertising, Consulting, General, Materials, and Travel or may call them other items. These fields should be ones that at minimum can be hidden.
We cannot for the life of us figure out why WF does not allow us to edit or at least hide the default expense types. We don't use most of them, preferring other names specific to our business.
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.
