Build better products with our product team
When using the 'updates' function or tab, it would be useful for our teams to be able to utilize this space in a fashion similar to email. IE- to add colored text to responses, in order to differentiate between users. Also, it would be helpful to allow certain updates to be 'pinned' to the top of the page so they don't get lost. OR to categorize them as "bulletins or job notes" of some kind to set them apart from the back and forth threads.
Description - Would love to be able to see user active statuses within Workfront to see who is active in WF, away or offline similar to Teams chat.Why is this feature important to you - This will allow us to see who we may need to follow up with outside of Workfront and/or escalate to another person on their team/manager.How would you like the feature to work - Colored circular icon next to each users name as it appears throughout the system - login, project owner, updates, task assignments, etc.Current Behaviour - N/A
When a project is being assigned sometimes there are multiple team members for one specific role working on it, workload balancer only lets you assign to one role and the rest is manual work, it would be a game changer if this minor edit is made
Description - In the current single advanced proofing workflow, once a user is added to a stage, they can no longer be included in a later stage of the approval process. This creates the need to manually issue a second workflow if an individual user acts an an initial and a final approver. Some smaller teams I have worked with rely on one or two people to both do initial approvals and feedback while then also being the "final" approver, once all team member have given then comments and approvals.Why is this feature important to you -The need to manually create a new workflow for a "final" approval creates drag in the SLA's of certain proofing Workflows, or requires Fusion to act as a intelligent trigger to make the new workflow. For small marketing teams, Fusion is usually cost prohibitive.How would you like the feature to work - I would like an individual user to be able to be applied to each stage in an advanced proofing workflow. This will allow small teams in which managers act as both initial reviewer/approvers as well as a final last-mile approver to the overall workflow.Current Behaviour - Right now, once a user is entered as an user on any stage, they no longer appear in a user picklist when creating additional stages.
Description -Ability to filter DataFlow based on Target dataSet is missing in the AEP UI Why is this feature important to you -When there are 10s of more dataFlow going into a perticular dataSet, we only have an option to filter by source Application. Many times we want to see how many dataFlow are going into single dataSet. How would you like the feature to work -We want ability to filter dataFlow by target DataSet Current Behaviour -We can only filter dataFlow by source Application
Description - The process of planning an iteration on the Backlog tab of the New Experience is not intuitive and causes a lot of problems when trying to respect a teams capacity when planning an iteration. Why is this feature important to you - Users must be able to easily see if stories selected exceed the total iteration capacity during the planning of an iteration in order to respect the teams capacity. This will also make it much easier for user to properly plan iterations without having to go back and forth through pages in Workfront. How would you like the feature to work - When a user wishes to plan/create a new iteration from the Backlog tab, the user can click on the "Plan Iteration" button and a new section appears above the list of stories. The user can enter the necessary iteration information (name, start date, end date, focus, capacity, and goal). The user can also see in the same section the total capacity available for the iteration (capacity x focus). The user can then go through the list of stories and check/uncheck work. If the user selects stories that exceed the total available capacity for the iteration, the stories that exceed are highlighted in red in the backlog. Bring back the previous Workfront behavior as shown in the video on the following Experience League page - Plan and create an iteration | Adobe Workfront. Current Behaviour - When a user wishes to plan/create a new iteration from the Backlog tab, the user must first select work items, then click the "Plan Iteration" button. The "Plan Iteration" dialog box appears where the user can see if they have selected too many/little stories for the iteration (based on team capacity = total points). If the user has selected too many/little stories for the iteration, they must close the "Plan Iteration" dialog box in order to deselect/select stories.
issue: The system shall provide functionality to sort project updates by date, displaying the latest updates at the top. This feature will be another option to the current grouping by topic/conversation, which hinders the ability to quickly locate recent comments. The new sorting mechanism will ensure that users can easily find the most recent updates within the project interface.justification: The current method of grouping updates by topic/conversation makes it difficult to track the latest comments, leading to an over-reliance on emails for status updates. Implementing date-based sorting will streamline the process of finding recent updates, thereby improving efficiency and reducing dependency on external communication channels.What is Not an acceptable Enhancement:Only sorting updates by topic/conversation via the search bar, without the option to sort by date and date range.
Description - From one of my users, can we get the ability to delete a proof version in the "All Versions" page of a proof document? It makes more sense than having it only in the proof summary area, where you need to go through multiple clicks to get where you want. Why is this feature important to you - more efficient way to delete versions How would you like the feature to work - noted above, delete from the All versions location (picture 1)Current Behaviour - noted above, it shows in the proof summary location for version deletion (picture 2)
Previously, the template name was included with the Template Task ID selection for reporting. This allowed us to select the appropriate template task when we had multiple template tasks with the same name. We are aware of the workaround of using the Task Name and Template ID filters together; however, this is not ideal as our PMs sometimes change the task name after a project is created.
Design Studio is clunky and outdated in my opinion. Images and files are incredibly difficult to reorganize because I am unable to move more than on item at a time. Get an error message every time.Would love for a more seamless experience when navigating or making adjustments to existing folders.
Description - Allow Workfront administrators to activate/deactivate the "Show all users" button in the Workload Balancer at the project level.Why is this feature important to you - This will ensure the proper management of confidential information (user capacity) throughout the organisation.This will allow the Project Owner to only see the capacity of resources working on the project without How would you like the feature to work - Give Administrators the ability to deactivate the "Show all users" button in the Workload Balancer at the project level restricting the users' ability to the capacity of all the users within their company.Current Behaviour - Users' can view and click the "Show all users" button, allowing them to view the capacity of all the users within their company.
Description:Our organization manages user permissions centrally through groups in Azure Active Directory (Azure AD). These groups are synchronized with Adobe Experience Cloud, allowing us to efficiently allocate product and profile permissions based on group membership. However, currently, administrative roles such as Product Administrator, Profile Administrator, Support Administrator, and System Administrator can only be assigned to individual users, not to groups. This creates a challenge for organizations that rely on group-based permission management and automation.Why is this feature important to you:Managing permissions at the group level ensures consistency, security, and scalability, especially in large organizations. Assigning admin roles to groups means that when a user is added to or removed from a group in Azure AD, their corresponding admin permissions in Adobe are automatically updated. This reduces manual intervention, minimizes human error, and helps maintain compliance with internal access management policies. Without this capability, we are forced to manually update admin roles for each user, which is inefficient and error-prone.How would you like the feature to work:We would like to be able to assign all administrative roles (Product Admin, Profile Admin, Support Admin, System Admin, etc.) to groups, not just individuals, within the Adobe Admin Console. When a user is added to or removed from a group in Azure AD, and that group is synced with Adobe, the user should automatically inherit or lose the corresponding admin rights based on their group membership. This approach should mirror how product/profile permissions are currently managed via groups.Current Behaviour:At present, administrative roles in Adobe Experience Cloud can only be assigned directly to individual users. Group-based assignment of these roles is not supported, which complicates permission management for organizations using directory group synchronization.
Description - there is a capability to add a column or status to the Kanban boards. We need that same capability to add columns to the Board view of a project/tasks since Adobe is moving away from Kanaban boards exisiting in Workfront.Why is this feature important to you - Kanban boards are allegedly not going to exist in Workfornt in the near future so the same functionalities the Kanban boards offer would be helpful to also have in the Boards view in a project.How would you like the feature to work - Quickly add a column and equate it to a status with custom text/headingsCurrent Behaviour - Doesn't exist. Feature exists only on Kanban boards under Teams, not within Boards under projects that we were instructed to begin using from here on out.
Does your organization run programs with multiple projects? Are your project managers responsible for managing large volumes of projects at the same time? Are you looking for an efficiency win? I think most organization will say yes and could really benefit from this idea. Idea: Implement the ability to quickly and easily assign users to roles at not only the project level, but also on the program level which would then cascade to all associated projects. Add a Workload Balancer at the Program level with ability to do Bulk Assignments relative to the cumulative roles identified in the associated projects. How could this work? Expose the Workload Balancer on a Program which would allow ability to assign/override any user on any given project for a selected role. If a Project Manager assigned a user at the Project Level, this would then subsequently override the Program Level assignment; there could even be an indicator carried up to the program level that indicates multiple users or the values as well for a quick display if desired. Current Experience Challenge: Project Managers must either manually assign users task by task, or potentially through bulk edit through sifting throught tasks, or by going to the Workload Balancer for every project. We commonly are running 10-15 projects or more and this requires a very significant amount of time every week to simply assign the same user.
We use the Workfront proofing tool to proof web pages that are created in AEM Sites. Ideally, we would use the URL function within the Workfront proofing tool, to generate the preview of the site and allow the reviewer to review and markup the proof. However, since only designers have AEM Sites access, the reviewer isn't able to view the proof when added as a URL to the proofing tool.Alternatively, the designer is uploading a pdf version of the web page as a document, to the proofing tool. But because it is not a text-based document, the reviewer does not have necessary proofing tools to mark-up text.Is there a way to leverage the URL function of the proofing tool, when reviewing AEM Sites pages prior to the page being published, even though reviewers don't have AEM Sites access? Or can the proofing tool identify text on these pdf versions of web pages (which would enable the text editing proofing options).
Right now i don't see any documentation on how you can create your own custom workflow activity. So people are going in and writing java script code to have that functionality implemented.It will be great to have some kind of documentation to follow on how to create the custom activity the right way and what should be the best practices to create any activity.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Multiple domain support for Manage Publication Preview Use-case: My customer APG would like to be able to preview the website in AEM that contains links to multiple domains. The Publication Preview functionality is not following the externalizer configuration to be used properly (screenshot of externalizer domains used below). Current/Experienced Behavior: It is possible to set multiple domains in the externalizer configuration, but only 1 domain is respected in the Publication Preview functionality, resulting in errors in the links when previewing the website (see 'part 2' screenshot below). The impact of multiple domains not being support in the Publication Preview functionality is that it is impossible for APG to properly preview their websites and use this feature properly to identify potential issues. Improved/Expected Behavior: An out of the box solution to support multiple domains for links in the Publication Preview would enable APG to preview their websites properly in AEM. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS feature release 2025.2.0, maintenance release 19823 Customer-name/Organization name: APG Groep N.V. Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Seed addresses used for internal testing in campaign) are currently included in Adobe analytics reports by default. It can skew engagement metrics.Why is this feature important to you - including seed data inflates KPIs and provides misleading view of actual engagement. Accurate reporting is critical for evaluating true campaign performance, optimizing segmentation and driving meaningful decisions.How would you like the feature to work - Automatically filtering them out from AA reports or giving an option to exclude seed addresses.Current Behaviour - Currently seed addresses are treated like real customers and no out-of-the-box method to filter them out which leads to inaccurate campaign campaign evaluation.
Description - I would like to have the ability to search, sort, and filter the Fusion datastore view. Why is this feature important to you - It's very tedious to find records by visually looking at the datastore. It's also difficult to organize the Fusion datastores without the ability to sort the columns. How would you like the feature to work - I would like the ability to sort by ascending or descending order, filter each column and search the datastore for specific records. Current Behavior - The Fusion datastore is not sortable, filterable, or searchable. The only way to find a record is to manually search each page individually or to use Fusion to search.
Description - As a Fusion Developer, I would like to have the ability to search, sort, and filter the Fusion datastore view.Why is this feature important to you - It's very tedious to find records by visually looking at the datastore. It's also difficult to organize the Fusion datastores without the ability to sort the columns.How would you like the feature to work - I would like the ability to sort by ascending or descending order, filter each column and search the datastore for specific records.Current Behavior - The Fusion datastore is not sortable, filterable, or searchable. The only way to find a record is to manually search each page individually or to use Fusion to search.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Cloud Manager Deployment: Enabling Rollback from Previous Build Snapshots Use-case: The customer is trying to roll back the deployment after a successful production deployment. Currently, the only way to roll back is to re-deploy the code in Cloud Manager, which takes 2 to 3 hours. Given that they are supporting 24 websites (with more to come in the future), they need to reduce the build time for any rollback operations. The best way to achieve this is to enable re-deployment using an earlier stable built image. Current/Experienced Behavior: The production deployment is completed. After the deployment, the customer discovered blocker issues on one of the 24 websites. They decided to roll back the deployment. They reverted the change that caused the issue and pushed the revised changes to Cloud Manager. They restarted the Stage/Prod build, which took 2 to 3 hours. The customer is trying to minimize this 2 to 3-hour downtime as much as possible. Improved/Expected Behavior: The production deployment is complete. After the deployment, the customer discovered blocker issues on one of the 24 websites. They wanted to roll back the deployment. They should be able to restart the Stage/Prod deployment using an earlier stable built image. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud (2024.4.16145.20240430T082417Z) Customer-name/Organization name: LG Electronics, Global HQ Korea 24 subsidiaries (UK,DE,PE,TR,JP,FR,SG,CO,SA,SA_EN,CA_FR,CA_EN,KZ,ID,IT,CL,TH,PT,IN,HK,HK_EN,BR ,MX ,PA) Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - When a user's license reduces their sharing permission, this reduced access is not reflected in any of the shared objects today. This leads to issues where someone who is not supposed to make certain changes is still allowed to do so.The system should automatically check on any change being saved to see if their permission has changed. If so, their new sharing rights should override the existing sharing permission. It should also update the sharing rights on the object being saved so that it reflects the new permissions. Why is this feature important to you - To avoid users who had higher privileges, but is no longer privileged, to be able to make changes they should not be allowed to anymore. Currently, it is the responsibility of the object owners to update their sharing, but this is burdensome and error prone since owners may not know they are over-sharing now. How would you like the feature to work - The system should detect a change in permission at save time and prevent changes that are no longer allowed as well as update the sharing rights on the objects being modified. Current Behaviour - No permission checks are done on save, even though their rights have been reduced.
Description - Why is this feature important to you - We've recently discovered that delegated tasks show on Home regardless of the filtering we have set. Most of us have "Not Ready" and "Completed" unchecked -- there's generally no reason for me to see tasks that are not ready for me to work on or tasks that I've already completed. But the "Delegated" filter works separately from the other task filters How would you like the feature to work - I would like the filtering of delegated tasks to work the same as filtering on tasks assigned to me. I don't know why anyone who has "Not Ready" or "Competed" unchecked for their own work would want to see those items for someone else's work that has been delegated to them. Current Behaviour - per current functionality, the following is expected to show on the Home Work List when "Delegated" has been selected: - Delegated tasks that are both ready to start and not ready to start- Delegated tasks that are marked complete will continue to show for 2 weeks after the completion date, after which they will fall off
Because our timesheets are populated with tasks which have got Planned Start or End date within the timesheet range, even thought you mark task as complete for yourself - it still appears on the timesheets due to dates. It would be really useful if hitting 'Done With My Part' on tasks was taking the task away from your timesheets. Currently it's a pain as you don't really need a task t be on your timesheet if you are not working on it anymore. It's really annoying if you've got long list of project/tasks you work on,
Simple ideas to enhance administrative review of scenarios: Add a "Description" field that can be populated by the developer to explain the scenario, similar to reporting!Expose this description on the scenarios screen to allow a quick read of the different scenariosAdd extra systemic data such as "created by", "last modified by", "last modified date", "last run date" history etc in the list of scenarios for quick visual
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.
