Build better products with our product team
Hi,it would be great to have prerender or selective batch processing option available for AI masks. The way the feature works at the moment is that you can choose between replacing masks or adding AI masks from a sample file when batch processing. I would like to just UPDATE the adjustments of prerendered AI maks. This would save a lot of time when editing galleries.This way you could render AI masks in advance and then just copy and paste the settings/finetune the adjustments for each indiviual AI mask. I.e. prerender all background AI masks, then just copy and paste the settings. At the moment the AI mask always need to be recalculated when batch processing and it is not very efficient.Thank you for considering this.Chistina
Description -Task Share allows to grant View, Contribute or Manage access to Job Roles, Users, Teams, Groups via the Project Task but not via the Template Task.Currently our project settings indicate to grant Manage rights when an user is assigned to a Task; however if the user "volunteers" or is assigned by another user with less rights (i.e. Work instead of Plan license) then the user assigned to the task only receives Contribute instead of Manage rights regardless of the Project task access settings.In our instance, many times the users volunteer to work on a task and end up not having the proper access.All of our projects get a template attached; therefore if we could allow Manage rights to be granted to specific Job Roles for certain tasks in the Template tasks, this will eliminate this problem for us.This problem happens frequently (1-2 times a week), causing delays or incorrect information (i.e. task duration cannot be modified)
It would be great to be able to pull a report that looks at user login frequency by system login, project/program login, etc... not just number of times they logged into the system a month.
Description - We are unable to sort in ascending and descending order in text mode on the Proof Approval Report columns example: Document Name and Approval Creator ColumnsWhy is this feature important to you - It helps to Sort column data as per needed Current Behaviour - unable to sort in ascending and descending order in text mode on the Proof Approval Report columns
Description - When the Project/Task status change Field tracking should start capturing the Data Why is this feature important to you - Helps to filter the unnecessary DataCurrent Behaviour - It is capturing all the records from the first entry
Description - It can be helpful to determine how long a project (or task or issue) has been in a given status. The best example: On Hold. Why is this feature important to you - If we can flag how long a project has been on hold, we can promote cleanup activities.How would you like the feature to work - When configuring report filters, there would be an option to view the total amount of time the object has been in the status it's in right now. We would have the option to show this number by hours or days.Current Behaviour - Per the wonderful Skye Hansen, use a calculated field on all projects or build a journal entry report, both of which have complexities and flaws.
Having a native Workfront connector in Power BI, similar to what Wrike offers, would be highly beneficial. It would simplify the API connection process, eliminate the challenges of pagination and challenges with modifying Power Queries too. We are already using Power BI for reporting, but having such a connector would save time and effort.Reference video: Wrike Power BI Connector
Description - Adobe Experience Cloud Experience Platform Dynamic Data Collection Launch, by Adobe Tags minifies code when a library is built. That feature is super helpful for production environments, where site owners usually want to minimize the impact of loaded libraries. And that is great! Except for when you are actually trying to read the code afterwards. For example, minification turns my horrible, hacky, readable and commented code... into this horrible, hacky, unreadable and uncommented code: While the size advantage justifies the less readable code on production, practically every developer I've ever worked with complained about the minified code on any non-prod environment. If you just want to see what a piece of code does and why it won't work, minification does not help a lot. The usual solution is to remove the .min from the Launch library's file name, but that requires a) knowledge of the feature and b) some manual intervention, browser plugins, or other effort. Even worse, if the library file name would ever change due to changed environments in Launch, an unknown number of people would need to update their already configured stuff too. That's not very cool. In my personal experience, there is a general tendency per environment for either the minified or un-minified version to be preferred. Minified is fine for prod, but un-minified is what you want everywhere else. For that reason, I want to propose an additional toggle in the environment settings that would disable the minification during build, along the lines of this: Disabling this toggle would change the URL in the field below to the un-minified variant and cause all references to other code pieces, like Custom Code Actions, to also not be minified. While it would be enabled by default for all environments, it would give us an easy option to make everyone's life on non-prod a lot easier. Why is this feature important to you - Because I like efficiency How would you like the feature to work - See above Current Behaviour - 😖
We would like to see all fields in Workfront defined and mapped out for reporting and report building purposes. i.e. clearly lay out what data fields are in Workfront.To facilitate report building discussions, to have available for onboarding, and to define field purposes. Similar to how there is a function within Forms, but for the entire Workfront database. There is nothing currently (I created a ticket in EL and this was confirmed).
Description - WorkFront Proofing activity logs be able to download to a txt file or excel file.Why is this feature important to you - Review and additional entry of productivity of the users.How would you like the feature to work - Please give us an option to download the list of logs via txt file or excel file. The list of Proofing activity logs including its comments.Current Behaviour - view only as a report.
Description - Add Sample Size Calculator within Adobe Target interface And/Or add its link while setting up an AB test Why is this feature important to you - Currently Adobe Target users have to either bookmark or search for the link to Sample Size calculator (https://experienceleague.adobe.com/tools/calculator/testcalculator.html?lang=en ), a very crucial tool to estimate the number of days a test should be run. Also, as its not part of the interface, users use different calculators provided by other vendors. As this is not part of the workflow-interface, its easy to miss this step - specially for practitioners who are new to Experience Optimisation or those who do not know that Adobe Target provides its own Sample size calculator. How would you like the feature to work - Adobe Target Product team should add the Sample Size calculator link to Adobe Target top nav. Would be great to have it added to first step of an AB test workflow as well. Current Behaviour - We need to bookmark the Experience League page, or search it or even rely on using sample size calculators provided by other vendors. Regards Rajneesh
Our creative internal and external agencies create GIFs for a lot of marketing activities as its a popular/effective format. At times for one project we create multiple GIFs - so if we create three options, the stakeholder would have to click on three separate links to review them today, We need to have to possibility to send multiple GIFs files to proofing at the same time, for reviwers to see all the different versions in a single proof, today we can upload different versions but that is a lot of manual work and waiting time for different versions to be created.
Description - There should be a way to have project templates added based on selections in Custom Forms used in Request Queues.Why is this feature important to you - It would simplify or in some cases eliminate the need to select a project template upon converting, saving the extra step and therefore saving time.How would you like the feature to work - When building custom forms, allow some logic to tie in project templates to say, options selected in a drop down menu, similar to the display logic function.Example: Apply project template.... XXXX, if Field XxXxX, Option xxxx. is Selected. Also see mock up attached.Current Behaviour - No option to integrate Project Templates into Custom Forms currently
The ability to set predecessors for issues or cross objects like tasks. Being able to set a predecessor between issues for items such as "unplanned work". Would also be nice to create cross object predecessors such as a task being a predecessor for an issue to begin.
Description - It's great that Adobe added data visualizations to our graphs a few years ago, but the way they display isn't very visually impactful... It's a little flag that shows in the X-Axis, leaving the users to still try to identify where exactly that point lies on the graph. Of course, users can hover to have a line show up for the annotation.. but that doesn't really work for PDFs.. and if there are a series of annotations you can only see one at a time... let's say you are reviewing the impact of a multi-site migration rollout, you might want to see each point where sites were migrated and the impact over time of all the sites together... Having the ability to show a permanent visual indicator would allow everyone to see at a glance where the impacts are, and users can still check the annotation details one at a time. Why is this feature important to you - Making the annotations more visible at a glance, and being able to see multiple annotation markers at once allows the data to be ingested by users easier. How would you like the feature to work - This could be an optional checkbox to show or not show the intersections all the time.. as I know that if there are a large number of annotations this could get busy and make the visuals overwhelming.. but for a few annotations this would be a handy visual to have. Right now, in order to have a visual representation, I have to create a custom date/date range, a segment from that custom date, a calculated metric using that segment in an IF statement, and then graph my metric and calculated metric as an area chart: (See https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/adobe-analytics-questions/graphics-edition/td-p/605264) If we could get a more visual annotation out-of-the-box it would save a lot of time, and I think be beneficial to all. Current Behaviour - It's just a flag that when you hover shows a vertical for individual dates, or a mid-point vertical and an extremely pale range line for date ranges: When it comes to ranges, the user has to use their best judgement trying to understand where on the line the range actually starts/stops because the indicator is separate from the actual data... they can see "in general" where the range is, but don't have the detailed specifics of the intersection.
Description - I would like to be able to set up an email alert to notify me when specific users log in. Why is this feature important to you - This could be used to enhance the users experience of the tool. For instance, it would be very useful to know when a new user logs in or when one of our directors/executives access to the tool - allowing us to provide better support (I know we could technically get this information from the logs but a proactive alert would be much simpler)
Description - The condition builder in Fusion supports a very simplistic Boolean logic, allowing simple expressions such as (A && B) || (C && D). This is functional under many circumstances, though forces a lot of duplication of checks on the UI side. The following is an example of a condition that would be problematic: ID = "foo" && (Error 1 = true || Error 2 = true || Error 3 = true || Error 4 = true) In the existing condition builder, it results in something that looks like this: (ID = "foo" && Error 1 = true) || (ID = "foo" && Error 2 = true) || (ID = "foo" && Error 3 = true) || (ID = "foo" && Error 4 = true) If we have to change the value of "foo", this creates a risk whereby a human may miss all instances of "foo". (This risk increases with increasingly complex conditions.) The ask is to improve the condition builder to allow for full Boolean logic. We have a similar version built into our own product, and I'm attaching an example of what that type of UI might look like as a concept to showcase how to think about the proposal. Why is this feature important to you - We are currently having to implement such complex conditions through either (1) duplicating values/checks or (2) a series of Router and Set Variable modules that perform the evaluation using edge filters between modules. Either way, it's a cost/risk introduced due to a UI that is limited in its current form. How would you like the feature to work - Anywhere that conditions are allowed (event watchers, edge filters, etc.), use the same enhanced UI mechanism. Allow a user to create a Boolean expression similar to how a developer would do it -- through nesting and grouping of logical operators. If the backend needs to translate that down to a simpler form for evaluation, that can be transformed internally. Current Behaviour - Described above in the Description.
Description -The Adobe Workfront custom API module (or any other Workfront API module) is often used to query various API endpoints. That module doesn't appear to have any built-in mechanisms for handling a retry when a 429 (API rate limit exceeded) occurs, though this is a fairly standard and common occurrence in high-volume systems.The existing way to handle this in a reasonable fashion is to:Make the API call with the custom API moduleSet an error handler from the moduleOn the error handler path:Sleep for some amount of timeRetry the API call with a second custom API module that's configured the same way as the firstSet a success handler on that "Resumes"Set an error handler on that second moduleOn that error handler path:Do the same as on the first, and continue nesting this for as many attempts as you want/needThis is super unwieldy and means that the module configuration is duplicated or triplicated, meaning future changes need to be done multiple times, which is risky due to human error being a normal thing. Why is this feature important to you -Given how common the use of the Adobe Workfront modules are and how common the 429 error is, it would make sense to have a mechanism built into the module to allow for retries and some kind of backoff sleep time to be just part of the module's advanced configuration. It reduces the cost to build and maintain these Fusion scenarios. How would you like the feature to work -Have at least one numeric entry in the Advanced Config section of the Workfront modules for "Number of retries if too many API requests", default to "1" to allow for compatibility with existing scenarios.Optionally have another numeric entry in the Advanced Config section that allows for setting the sleep time. It would be most ideal if there were options for constant sleep, linear sleep (increasing by "constant" times the retry count), exponential sleep, and/or random sleep between some range of numbers.If the module exceeds the retry count, execute the error handler path as currently supported. Current Behaviour -See the description above. The following image also shows how a chain of 429 retries gets to be unwieldy after even just a few API calls. Imagine having to propagate a series of changes -- this creates 2x the work, all for a simple "retry" handling.
It would be useful, as a system admin, if an existing group could be moved into a subgroup
Description - Workfront API responses do not appear to return any kind of awareness of rate limits/available query capacity, yet will error with a HTTP 429 status code when we exceed that rate limit. Ideally, we should know from a prior query how much capacity remains so that we can tweak any sleep calls to maximize performance. Why is this feature important to you - APIs that return 429s typically inform as to rate limits and available query capacity (example: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers-07.html). This allows the caller to add an appropriate sleep so as to (1) avoid the 429 error entirely and (2) minimize the delays between each call to only that which is required. How would you like the feature to work - Open to many ideas, see above. Current Behaviour - The Workfront API don't appear to return any rate limit details.
Description - Person A is editing a scenario. Person B starts editing that same scenario. Person A saves the scenario with changes. Person B then saves the scenario with changes. Person A's changes are lost. Person B was unaware that Person A was (1) actively editing and (2) had saved. This is a common problem with online tools. Some suggested solutions including (1) tracking user activity and warning other editors that someone else is ALSO looking into the file and/or (2) warning a user that someone else has saved the scenario since the scenario was opened for editing and that changes might be overwritten and/or (3) allowing an editor to "lock" the scenario for a defined amount of time so they are the only ones that can edit. Why is this feature important to you - The "simultaneous overwrite problem" is real and has forced us to have to re-do work. How would you like the feature to work - Ideally, I'd like for a simultaneous edit canvas like Google Docs provides. But I'll accept some type of warning and/or "lock" behavior similar to what Microsoft Sharepoint provides. Current Behaviour - See Description above.
Description - All objCode/search queries support $$FIRST and $$LIMIT parameters for pagination. However, these fail to account properly for lastUpdateDate_Sort=asc where an object may be updated DURING the execution of a scenario, hence the order of entries can be changed in between each separate page query. Example: Project 1 - lastUpdateDate=1Project 2 - lastUpdateDate=2Project 3 - lastUpdateDate=3Project 4 - lastUpdateDate=4 Make a query for $$FIRST=0 $$LIMIT=2 and we get: Project 1 - lastUpdateDate=1Project 2 - lastUpdateDate=2 Then, asynchronously, let's assume that Project 2 gets updated: Project 2 - lastUpdateDate=5 Now increment the $$FIRST counter based on the prior $$LIMIT and make a query for $$FIRST=2 $$LIMIT=2 and we get: Project 4 - lastUpdateDate=4Project 2 - lastUpdateDate=5 This means Project 3 has effectively been "dropped" from the pagination. It means we have no guaranteed way to ensure that long-running processes with paginated queries will hit all of the needed objects. A better pagination mechanism is needed to allow for walking through the individual pages of data from a search, such as using a "cursor" that ensures the next page is retrieved without allowing such a sort drop to occur. You can read more about this problem and suggested solutions at https://jsonapi.org/profiles/ethanresnick/cursor-pagination. Why is this feature important to you - We have scenarios that loop through dozens and dozens of pages of responses and need to ensure that update and delete operations that are occurring through the normal course of Workfront being used don't cause "skips" in processing. How would you like the feature to work - The objCode/search response should return a cursor entry that replaces the $$FIRST and $$LIMIT parameters and allows for "walking" through the various pages of data in this consistent manner. Current Behaviour - See the Description above.
Description - Our Adobe PS team indicated that a best practice is to create two different teams -- Production and Development -- and copy scenarios between the two teams. Each time we do such a copy, however, we end up needing to update a variety of items, including constants. These constants CAN be stored in variables in the scenario itself, but it forces us to constantly update the scenario for these minor value differences between the two teams. What is requested is to have a list of "global variables" (think Team-linked environment variables) that can be references using a constant reference, independent of the scenario. The idea would be something like this: Production Environment Variable: Standard Template ID = 1234567890Development Environment Variable: Standard Template ID = 0987654321 In the Scenario:{{TeamEnvironment.`Standard Template ID`} Why is this feature important to you - We've had a number of copy-related quality issues pop up as we've been migrating scenarios from Dev to Prod but humans forget to update these values appropriately. How would you like the feature to work - As is described in the Description field. Current Behaviour - As is described in the Description field.
Description -Why is this feature important to you - There are multiple groups who would like to receive the notification upon data feed job completion.How would you like the feature to work - Allow "email when complete" field to except multiple emails for the data feed file completion notification.Current Behaviour - Currently, it only allows one email.
Description - I created a new view in Setup > Schedules that includes a column for each day of the week. These are columns Workfront provides. However, there is no punctuation, so the time durations run into each other. See the screen shot attached.Why is this feature important to you - Increase legibility and understanding of the fields.How would you like the feature to work - Add a hyphen between the start and end times and a comma and space between two time ranges.Current Behaviour - There is no punctuation.
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.
