I recently configured a form which had a requirement to have multiple fields on different rows in one form section. The fields on the same row all had the same display logic which i had to manually input for each field. It would be great if display logic from one field once defined could be copied to any other field. Either that or some way of grouping fields, like you can with a form section but without the section title and spacing, would achieve the same result provided you can apply the logic to the section the fields are in.
Please allow reviewer to appear in proof reports and on home page. Currently Proof reports just allows review / approver to show up.
Integrate with the newly release Google Hangouts Chat to push work objects and task lists back and forth.
It's great that you can get from the "edit library" screen into a rule/element to compare revisions. However, it is frustrating that when you close the rule/element you lose the context and get kicked out to the element/rules list rather than back to the edit library page. How it currently works:Edit Library > view rule > compare revision > *close* compare revision > *close* rule > rule list page 😞 How it should work:Edit Library > view rule > compare revision > *close* compare revision > *close* rule > Edit Library 🙂 Please can you consider changing the work flow to remember the context in which the rule was accessed so you are returned to the appropriate place? - when looking at a lot of rules this would really make a difference!
Presently if a Group admin adds a new user to Workfront, they cannot see or add the "Manager " proofing permission to the the new user's profile. But if a System admin adds a new user the "Manager" proofing permission is automatically added to the user. Can we have the same function for Group admins. But we would like the ability to update the proofing permission to a "Supervisor" or "Administrator" to still only be a Sys admin permission.
Would like the ability to set default Update settings to "private to my company". We are an in-house marketing agency and have been working to bring our clients in to proofing but discovered any updates that were made on a document/proof are visible to the client. We are trying to remind everyone to check off the private to my company BUT if they forget we don't notice until the client comments on a thread they shouldn't see. It would be nice to have a setting we can select to make Private the default for all updates and if we need someone outside our company to see it we can @tag them.
It would be great if the client had the ability to add their signature to an estimate within Workfront, same as you would annotate a document using Adobe or preview. Maybe proof isn't the place for this but is there an additional function WF could add that allows a signature to be added to an uploaded document.
Would love the the field name to change on the request queues sent/received from "Completion Date" to "Respond by" or something to that effect. That is very confusing for users when they receive a request and think the actual request must be completed by the next day, for example.
Currently, debugger adds new events as columns to the right of existing event table, as they fire. Because this is often off-screen from the user (and the left-right scroll bar is only available at the very bottom of the columns), it makes finding the event you're looking for in a series very difficult: Current: events fire, then you scroll down, then scroll to the right until you think you're near the events you want, then scroll up and check, and repeat.Better: events fire, each appearing as a new column closest to the query param labels, and 'pushes' old events out to the right. That way, a user can simply watch the dimension row they care about as events pop in and find the event they're looking for immediately, no endless scrolling necessary.
In old experience i was able to choose and pick which form to update when using multiple forms in an issue/task/project. In new experience, when you want to edit a form, all custom forms become editable, causing work management issues when one form contains required fields that based on the process are not ready to be completed. Please make the new experience so that I can choose which form to edit, not have all forms become editable once the edit button is clicked. Thank you!:)
In each classification table, there are 2 groups of unclassified data. One group is activity with no variable set and the other is activity on a set variable that hasn't been classified. As an example, direct traffic without s.Campaign variable and campaign traffic with an s.Campaign variable that has not been defined by processing rules or a SAINT upload yet. In fully processed data, these can be distinguished by adding classifications to the null (or ~none~) variable. For example, set the classification 'Marketing Channel' = Direct Traffic when the s.Campaign key is null.Data Warehouse treats these two groups the same. It would be very useful for reporting to have Data Warehouse recognize classifications on null/~none~ variables.
We discovered an issue (not a defect) with the Marketing Channels rules which it would be great if it was sorted 🙂 2 factors are combining to cause issues:Marketing Channels rules run on every metrics call (page views and linking tracking)Not all properties are available on link tracking metrics calls (e.g. pageName, URL, referring URL, query string parameters etc.)As we have to rely on some of the properties that are not available on a link tracking call to correctly ID a channel, we are finding that if a link tracking call occurs before the first page view in a visit the channel is initially incorrectly assigned and then overwritten with the correct channel on the subsequent page view. This results in our data being skewed. Got a feeling that this might be one that other Adobe clients may be suffering from but are unaware of.
Our team is interested in creating a custom automated response that would be sent out for any successfully submitted requests through the request queues. This would give requestors an estimated turnaround time as well as contact info if they have any questions.
On the collision report for each experience it currently listed ALL activities that clash with the experience from all workspaces you are wanting to publish based on the mbox and page URL. But there are no filters so its a pain to check if there are any live experiences that are clashing. It would be great if on the collision report you could filter based on the target status (ie. live, inactive etc) as well as being able to filter by workspace (ie. default vs training etc)
It would helpful if we could drag rows to adjust the task row height. When some tasks have lengthy descriptions and others don't it throws off the symmetry. I'd like to be able to "hide" some of the description, but still retain the ability to see the full description if I click on it.
We are looking to “decouple” front end element names from backend element names for Custom data elements in Workfront. Is that possible? For e.g. for this field on a custom form for tasks - the backend field is called “DE:Has spend been committed for this campaign?”. This makes the backend fields very verbose, and the SQLs that use them hard to work with. (Note: this is a relatively short name ‚Äì some custom fields are complete and very lengthy sentences/questions) Is there a facility (mapping) in workfront whereby we could have this element assume ‚Äì 1. A Front end name ‚Äì “DE:Has spend been committed for this campaign?” 2. A back end name ‚Äì de_spend_committed_flag
As an executive, I want to delegate my timesheet completion to a personal assistant, in order to save time on low-value administrative tasks (i.e. timesheets).Possible solution: enable executives to select specific users to log in to their account (i.e. their PAs).Possible solution: enable executives to assign their timesheet to a PA.
We have teams within my organization that would like to manage the creation and distribution of curated report suites/virtual report suites, but currently the VRS section of Analytics is reserved for admins, ref. Can this section get its own dedicated Analytics (Report Tool) permission so that this is possible without introducing the vulnerability of a team of new admins?
I'm hoping that there is a way while uploading a new proof to put each person's decision on the previous proof next to their name so I know which stage to put them in. Our designers currently have to have another tab with the proofing details open in order to see decisions made. it would be great if those decisions were just added to the recipients tab in the workflow on a new proof.
It would save so much time and energy if, upon uploading of a second or third version of something, if Proof could auto-fill the recipients to go only to the folks who asked to see the artwork again. (ie marked Change Required). Currently I have to take a screenshot of the previous screen to see who asked to see the art again and then refer to that screenshot to delete the folks who don't. When managing many proofs at once this is time consuming and very open to user error.
The original (custom) message cannot be found by the sender - the messages section of the proof does not contain the original message added upon creation. I think there used to be a checkbox to at least send that to the creator, (now) it's not there (anymore?).For audit purposes and in order to have a reference for the author who should be able to show evidence of what he/she wrote and push back or confirm potential blames.That's why this should be there as an option minimum, but the best would be to record that message and make it accessible for them or all involved parties.
A field should be added to the timesheet entity that will show which user actually approved the timesheet. There is a field that shows who the approver should be, but no field showing if the approver approved the timesheet or if the approval was done by an admin user. We need to be able to have a report that will show when the actual approver is different than the assigned approver.
With the new API-friendly option for custom fields, I have found an issue with the default display of custom fields in reports.Columns headers should be user-friendly by default, not system friendly. Thus, they should use the label by default as that is what the average user is aware of.
The measuring ruler took in ProofHQ changed how it behaves a while back. When you click the button, it opens but opens somewhere on the art – not where you are looking. It used to open in the view you are looking at. It is really annoying to have to shrink the view, search around to see where the ruler opened, and then move it to where your were looking and wanting to measure. Can you return to the old functionality?
Hello All, We're having integrations between Marketo and Oktopost. We're able to track some data about actions that a users performed in Social media. For example, we can see that a user clicked on a link on a post in Linkedin, or wrote a coment and so on. We would like our interesting moments to look like this: User wrote a coment "randomComment" to a post: "randompost.url" in "randomSocialMedia" In the example above Sales Team knows which post interested the user, and what exactly did user say. We're receiveing all necessary fields in Marketo but can't use them the way we want. Having possibility to place link and comment content to interesting moments would be very handy. Best Regards, Alexandr
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.
