Build better products with our product team
I connected to support to make sure we dont have this ability yet. hence an idea here. Scenario: I have a department that manages multiple groups. I have a main GROUP created for my department, where I can pull all my projects and tasks reports for quick review. But, I am unable to view those for my subgroups. Please note--I can add this field at project custom form to add into report. But, I would recommend to have this field (taxonomy) added under Project Setting section, where we add our portfolio, programs, Project managers, sponsors etc. I am system admin, and i dont see this option to add by myself.
I want a better experience when locking a document (reportability, notifications, reminders, configuration around allowed actions re: documents)
We have several users who assign document approval tasks to individual approvers, approvers who often aren't familiar with Workfront. When those approvers are notified via email that a document requires their approval the notification link will take them to the task they are assigned, but when the document lives at the project level those approvers get lost trying to navigate WF and sometimes won't even have access to the higher level project itself.We propose finding a solution that allows approvers assigned to a task to have quick/easy access to project level documents (either through the initial notification itself, or via the task they are assigned) without giving them full access to the rest of the project, and without requiring a complicated click path.Current impact report on this Issue over the past year:23 Groups affected~3,000 users affected~16,000 projects affected266 hours annually of impact (approves clicking around lost, or seeking help/additional access as a result of this issue)
Hello, This feature is/will be important for all type of works and it will make Adobe more powerful in terms of Innovation. Thank You.-Ayush Shah
I am trying to identify contacts that do not belong to a SFDC Campaign who have filled in a certain form. The only option I have is to select if they are 'In' a Campaign or 'Not in' and list all the campaigns they should be in. Both options do not work for me. I need to be able to select 'No in any' as a value from the Person menu or 'Any' from the Campaign menu.
Let's add the Summary view as the default section within a task and issue object.The summary view is customized as part of the Home & Summary activity and compiles background and current information in to one screen. This includes information like the description, relevant documents, updates, and custom fields.Using this as the default when opening an object enables a user to quickly orient themselves to the context and jump into work as opposed to needing to click between multiple tabs after receiving a notice via email, slack, or notification.
Can a number be added to the subtask tab that shows the number of open subtask (basically the way the issues tabs functions)? This would save time to show why parent tasks are open or to quickly differentiate tasks with and without subtasks.
Description: Currently it is possible to change the visitor lifetime profile for new target profiles. However for existing profiles the new visitor lifetime profile length will only be applicable when the initial profile expired. An example: the current lifetime of a target profile is 14 days. We want to shorten this period to 2 days. All new users will automatically have an expiration of 2 days of inactivity. For existing users, it will remain 14 days unless the user is inactive for 14 days, then it will be 2 days.Why is this feature important to you: for companies that rely a lot on returning customers (for example B2B) this mismatch between new users and returning users isn't ideal since different profile scripts will behave differently across different profiles (new and returning).How would you like the feature to work: when the visitor profile length is changed, it would be good to have the option to apply it immediately to all profiles regardless if they existed before or not.Current Behaviour: it only applies to new profiles
With our organisation my team is managing/curating a large number of Workspaces that are shared throughout our business.Over time we are finding we need to make changes/updates to our Workspace projects. We are finding that it is difficult to keep track of:what changes have been madewhen changes were madewhy changes have been madewho made changesIt would be fantastic if Workspace supported some kind of version history for projects which included things such as:an incremental version number, and record of the user amendingan ability to add a comment/notes when saving a new versionan ability to roll back to/view previous versions of a workspace
The updates to version control in the New Experience is causing a lot of confusion and the updates have defeated the purpose of having true version control with one document link to the latest version. This should not be an 'innovation lab' request, but I was told to submit it. The appending of the version number to the URL is not true version control. If the initial uploader passes along the full document URL, it remains that initial first version and that is what anyone else will download, even if a newer version of the document has been uploaded. My team realized this after two major issues happened as we pass doc links along through tasks in comments and if the first version URL is what is being passed along, the next team member or client can be downloading an old version. This is a major problem and again, defeats the purpose of version control. This needs to be updated to be similar to the Classic version where a user could download an older version in the 'Versions' list to get a specific version URL, and it not be appended to the browser URL.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Upgrade the Tags (Taxonomy) component with OOTB features that should of been addressed in 6.5. The 6.5 experience greatly reduced my ability to work efficiently. It removed functionality available in Classic UI rather than improve upon the Classic UI functionality and features. Pay attention to the Tags as much as you do to DAM, AI/ML. See current experience for details. Use-case: Taxonomy tag manager Current/Experienced Behavior: Degraded experience for tag management and findability in 6.5 OOTB features. Tag functionality was ignored in 6.5. The Touch UI experience is clunky, requires multiple clicks to do anything, unable to search for tags unless applying page properties. The Touch UI experience removed the ability to view tags in a tree or list, unable to easily scan the list of references applied to a tag, unable to sort, view tag status (published, deactivated, unpublished) modified by whom and when. I work 90% of my time in Tags in AEM. The 6.5 upgrade greatly degraded the functionality and usability of tags. Tags are not alphabetical OOTB, it takes multiple clicks to see the status of a tag (published, deactivated, unpublished), unable to view a clean list of references or export a list of references where tag was applied, unable to view tags in a tree or list, unable to search tags in omnisearch unless in page properties applying tags. I have to manage them in Excel and then upload. I have to conduct a querybuilder to create an export to create custom views of the tags. It's a huge headache and incredibly manual. Improved/Expected Behavior: Why were Tags ignored in the 6.5 upgrade, is there a planned upgrade to bring back the functionality that was available in Classic UI for Tags? Highly suggested: Omnisearch ability within tags - I need to be able to search the tags and only the tags to find duplicates, available options, whether or not something is in the tags within the namespaces. Add Tree and List views, ability to view references and published status, modified date, published date for multiple tags at once, not one at a time! Also create a References List export, not only have i lost the ability to scan the list of references applied to a tag, but i cannot pull the list. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5 Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
It would be extremely helpful to be able to make choices able to be hidden per form, so you don't have to make an entirely new field when you want to adapt existing fields to different forms. This would allow us to create fewer fields and reuse the ones we have.
A text mode book would be appreciated. Having a physical book to navigate through and look up pre-written codes, example uses, how to, troubleshooting tips, etc. would be helpful. I learned a lot about text mode and how to use the API Explorer table in the bootcamp classes; However, having a physical book to flip through will improve my experience of trying to learn text mode. I am a sticky note guru, so being able to use sticky notes and highlight text in the book would be helpful. And as updates are made to text mode, a new book could be released yearly including the changes, or a downloadable pdf on Workfront One.
After I shadow a user with the Log In As function, when I click Logout, I almost always need to return to Setup. Dump me there, specifically the Log In As section, rather than Home.
The Home and End keyboard keys do not work properly in the search box in the New Experience. In the classic interface, you can use those keys to move the keyboard cursor inside the search box. In the New Experience, the Home and End keys actually navigate the results preview drop-down list. It is less useful and less intuitive now, because the Home and End keys behave differently in the search box compared to any other field in Workfront.For comparison, try using the search box on the home page of Google. You can use the up/down arrow keys to navigate the results preview drop-down list, but the home/end keys move the keyboard cursor to the front/end of the search text. This is the standard behavior for most applications, and it would improve the user experience in Workfront if it was the same.
It would save SO much time if we were able to bulk edit reports. Sometimes there are instances where I have multiple reports that need to be edited in the same way (i.e. add the same column or filter to 5 different reports or edit the 'view as' access), and currently to make these changes it has to be done individually which can be painstaking when you have to work across a lot of reports that need to change frequently.
The new filtering option that allows you to search and filter within a report has been great, however this option isnt available when viewing reports within a dashboard. Users have to click into the report to use this feature, or if users arent WF pros, they won't even know this feature is available if they only view dashboards that were built for them. Having it available within a dashboard would make it way easier.
Now that Workfront has delivered on exporting custom forms, make this action possible to call from the API. We want to perform this action as part of an automation, but cannot because it can only be performed directly in the web interface, one record at a time.
Currently, there are project level templates that can be attached to an existing project, but this requires higher access to the project to leverage. In order to limit access, assignees only have permissions within their owned tasks. However, they cannot leverage templates because of this without exposing the rest of the projects and potentially users attaching templates to the wrong tasks.The request is to add an option at the task level to attach a template of tasks under the current task as the default parent. This way, task owners who have permission to create tasks can do so using a template without worry of attaching the template tasks to the wrong parent task. Attaching a template at the task level would obviously ignore any of the template setup for projects. Only the tasks and the associated details would be copied from the template per the options.
Currently, once a task is created it cannot be edited and changed to a recurring task. In some instances, with our more complex processes we end up having to change a task to recurring task so we would like the ability to change a task to a recurring task.
There are various regulations governing the handling of Personal Identifiable Information (PII). Based on the definition of PII, if you can see a user's profile in Workfront, you can see their contact info and manager, and that is already PII. Workfront currently allows 4 controls allowing admins to restrict profile visibility using Access Levels:1) Access Level > Users > View - leave "View Contact Info" unchecked2) Additional Restriction: Users could View only companies, groups & teams they belong to3) Additional Restriction: People in other companies should only view users from...Their Company4) Additional Restriction: People in other companies should only view users from...Primary CompanyWhat is not offered is the ability to restrict People in other companies so they can only view user profiles from groups or teams at other companies with which they're explicitly working. There is an unfortunate limitation for us with current functionality, because if you can't see a person (in Search Bar typeahead) due to restrictions because they're at another company, you also cannot tag them in Update threads. Our organization relies on teams from various companies to collaborate with one another on Work Items. The visibility restriction makes it so we cannot allow users from different companies to tag one another (to get their attention thru notifications) when there is an update because it means they can see EVERYONE at the other company. We're pretty seriously hampered because we have to disallow people in Company A from tagging people from Company B if it means the personally identifiable info of everyone at Company B is exposed to Company A. PROPOSED IDEA: add another level of granularity so that users from one company can at least tag users from diffferent companies, as long they are all in the same team or group, while still preventing them from seeing ALL users from any other company. Plugging up this hole should allow maximum availability of the Updates tagging feature without exposing Workfront customers to liability of sharing PII unnecessarily.
Please align the features in the Workload Balancer to what is available in the Scheduler. We know drag and drop resource assignments are on the way, but it will be critical that we can identify project tasks by color. Simply, if I am looking at task assignments in the Workload Balancer, I can quickly identify other tasks in the same project by locating the same color. At a glance, this will help identify resource assignments.
It would be so nice if there was an easy way to export all products form a Catalog or Collection. BrendanJaffary
Currently the workload balancer does not permit issue hours to be modified per user/per day - the same way task hours can be edited. This is needed for Agile functionality so backlog work can be assigned - with specific hours per day during the iteration period. Currently the planned hours can only be rearranged - This doesn't permit true resource utilization data.
Description - Allow the copy and paste of mulitple recipients in the workspace share dialog windowWhy is this feature important to you - When adding multiple recipients to many workspace reports it would save time in the case where admin access is not granted for me and admin resources will not prioritize the use of publishing lists or groupsHow would you like the feature to work - Simple copy and paste of multiple email addresses would be added through a lookup to verify the members instead of one by one verifcation by typing each individualCurrent Behaviour - Must type each individual and select the intended recipient with a mouse click
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.
