Product ideas | Community
Skip to main content

Filter by idea status

10000 Ideas

LeeRomeroNew Participant

Provide more visual differentiation options for annotationsNew

Description - Why is this feature important to you - Annotations can be very valuable.  We have many report suites in use - generally each one aligns to a particular application in use here.  I prefer to make annotations available across suites so that I can understand if events that are expected to impact one application also have an unexpected impact in other applications.  However, we are using the color variation options for annotations to denote different types of events (application deployment, significant system issues, marketing / communication campaigns, etc).   I would like to have additional options for visually differentiating annotations - possibly something like different patterns used within the small "widget" shown for an annotation - similar to the "Pattern Fill" options that you can use in PowerPoint slides on objects.  I think just a small number of patterns would be sufficient (also, it would need to be small because it would be hard to differentiate the small widget if there were a lot of patterns that would inevitably look too similar).   How would you like the feature to work - When I add or edit an annotation, I would like an option near where I choose a color that would allow me to select a pattern or some other effect that would differentiate the annotations I see.   Current Behaviour - I can only choose a color.

CJara1New Participant

MVT Tests: Several Feature RequestsNew

Description - 1) Within MVTs, have ability to limit links for offers to one (like text offers); 2) Within MVTS, have ability to change hero background images; 3) Adobe Sample Size calculator is available (https://experienceleague.adobe.com/tools/calculator/testcalculator.html), but need availability of an MVT results calculations site or sheet that give the ability to increase the number of experiences to at least 16 variant and show the following: Conversion rate, Confidence and p-values (that self-correct according to the number of variants in the MVT)--when using A/B test VECs.   Why is this feature important to you - Was advised by Adobe Customer Support that #1 is best handled with an A/B test activity rather than an MVT test activity however a customer results calculator, I'm told, is a custom feature and no known calculation sheet on Adobe Target Reference site seems suitable. Availability of these features would allow more MVTs on our most-heavily-trafficked pages.    How would you like the feature to work -1) Ability to limit links for offers to one (like text offers); 2) Ability to change hero background images; 3) Availability of an MVT results calculations site or sheet that give the ability to increase the number of experiences to at least 16 variant and show the following: Conversion rate, Confidence and p-values (that self-correct according to the number of variants in the MVT). MVT calculator examples found online: https://cxl.com/ab-test-calculator/  https://www.adwordsrobot.com/en/tools/a-b-split-test-mvt-test-calculator Adobe Traffic calculator: https://experienceleague.adobe.com/tools/calculator/testcalculator.html   Current Behaviour - None of these features are available within MVT test VEC

sahera39513823New Participant

Workfront Integrated Proof Approvals UI/UXApproved

System Setup: Integrated Proofs Description: There are technically two approval systems working simultaneously. A Workfront approval and a ProofHQ (Workfront Proof) approver. This looks like a unified system to the user, but does not function the same. The approval system has not been integrated. Additional Details The Workfront Approval system uses the Approval Area in document details, and the "Ask for approval" checkbox in the updates area (for any given document). The issue is, that the initial approval your user gives, sticks with that proof for the lifecycle of that proof. Our org. uses versions, and requires fresh approvals for each document version, so we re unable to use that approval system. Instead we use the ProofHQ approver system, the one that is set up when you go to documents > add a new proof.Again, in the system, they are virtually identical, and frequently co-located. There are subtle differences, but It has taken extensive training to ensure that we are using the "correct" approval system for our organization. For example, "We use Approvers not Approvals" and in the my work > approvals area; any proof that appears with big colored button UI, should be rejected and re uploaded correctly. Proposed solutions: - A quick fix would be to simply make certain UI features a different color. The Approval box in the document details areaThe Ask for approval checkbox in the updates area - A more involved fix would be to allow system admins to decide which approval system they will be using, either globally or for the proofs. Users Affected: Any org that uses Proofs, and multiple proof versions, and the Proof HQ workflow, and requires a fresh approval for each version.