We are having trouble with authorization issue, and if Adobe accept our suggestion, it will be a great help not only for us, but also those who want to grant authority user by user, differently. We suggest to change authorization system as follows:1 manage signal(including derived signal) by data sources, as trait and segment does.2 manage segment and trait folder by data sources, so that we can see folders only that we can access to.- we want to manage folder as same as we manage trait and segment, and suggest to include "choosing data sources" in the folder addition process. (we want to hide floders that users do not have access to.) - folder and folder trait are different now, so it makes us confusing.3 manage profile merge rule function by wild card permission.- also, if those who have no authority to access functions, we want to hide that tab from the menu bar.4 hide [payables] and [integrated accounts] tab from the menu bar, except for the administrator account.5 see data sources only the user have access to.- the users can access to all data sources now, although they don't have an authority to access some of them. Thanks!
When archiving a group of emails - it would be helpful to have a way to select multiple batch email programs and drag and drop them into an Archive folder. Currently move all 2019 emails to an archive folder is a massive manual undertakeing and would be speeded up by selecting multiples at a time. Thansk.
It would be great if users had an option to auto-assign tasks for the duration of the project. Ideally, this would be an option after '6 weeks' in the schedule when only one project is showing that would dynamically set the number of weeks to match the project planned start and end dates. However, if it's a tick box on auto-assign that means I can't see the entire project and I have to scroll, so be it.Yes, if you have a project that spans years it might cause problems. I'd suggest you don't select that option or put it back to 6 weeks in that case.
At this moment as a consumer of Customer Attributes solution, we don't have a mechanism to verify data is synced to Adobe Analytics on the UI, an only possible way to manually validate the in Adobe Analytics, this is so bad from a customer experience point of view, why would a customer need to login every time to Adobe Analytics and verify the data, instead of that if customer attributes platform displays the status on the UI or send a communication to stakeholders really helpful
It would be helpful to allow requesters the ability to attach folders with content already in them to requests rather than attaching content piece by piece. Not only would it help save time, but it would keep pieces of content organized.
I created a wildcard report that calculates the number of days the individual has selected as time-off. To have a more accurate calculation I used the expression WORKMINUTESDIFF so that it would not include any days that are Schedule exceptions (aka holidays) since a lot of people will take off around an extended weekend. I noticed there were incorrect calculations for some of my users and after research discovered that WORKMINUTESDIFF only refers to the Default schedule instead of the user's schedule.I wish there was an easier way to make a time-off report that did not involve so much text mode deciphering and could cleanly calculate John Smith has taken 10 PTO days this year.
I just went through this with Workfront Support and they suggested I add this to the ideas exchange as others may have the same thought.If you go to Statuses, Issues are the only item that you can have more than one set of statuses for (i.e. issue types). However, for our purposes, we have different types of projects: Some projects have custom statuses that are different than other projects. The workaround is to assign statuses by group, but ideally, you would have the ability to select a custom status for projects the same way you can for Issues.
I'm trying to see the differences between two Platform requests. The meaty part of the Platform request, which I control as an implementer is the "events" area of the post body. This is where all of my custom name/value pairs I am sending are contained. In the current formatting of the Debugger, it's nearly impossible to compare two requests side by side because this info is displayed in a tiny cell. You would have to click one cell, copy the JSON object then click the other cell and copy the JSON object and then compare the two using some other tool. Please make it easier to see the differences in the request between these two fields. I suspect this is a challenging task in all of the tools that have switched to sending data in the post request body (e.g. at.js 2.x) instead of as query string parameters.
It would be helpful if all system managed field mapping, such as the Owner fields, were displayed in the Field Management. It seems odd that they are mapped but not displaying as mapped under the "CRM field mapping." In order to clear up any confusion, ideally those fields would display the associated mapping.
Are there any plans to add visitor participation to Workspace? Would be useful in seeing the outcome of campaigns to events which do not occur in the same visit as the original activity.Or is there an alternative method for achieving the same thing in Workspace?
It would be nice if a project is a predecessor task on a 2nd project, that the predecessor task % complete field automatically update as it's linked project percent completion progresses. for example: Project 1 - is currently at 50% completion, a few tasks within this project are completed and the % completion changes to 60%Project 2 - has a task (Project 1 as an enforced predecessor), as the activity in Project 1 causes it's % completion to update to 60%, it would be nice for the task in Project 2 to automatically update to 60% to coincide.
While it's nice to get Web Service error notifications via Marketo, the information is typically not very useful in an instance with multiple API users as the errors are broken down by type and not by source.It would be great to have error logs provided on a per user/auth basis in the Admin/Web Services interface. We can see per user API request counts, but can't see which users are generating problems.
Problems often arise with actions written in another language. An additional language file could solve this problem, for example.I have installed the German version of Photoshop. But many actions are offered in English. It would be practical to use them here without problems.So either to be able to install a complete second language file, or to be able to switch quickly, or to have an integrated translation of the corresponding terms.I apologize for a possibly bad English, but I use a translator, because I don't know English.
Enabling the User cloning option for any user. This will help in fastening the new user creation overall process.
Hi, I was wondering if it will be possible to get an email alert if content added to predictive content does not work correctly, because: 1.) website URLs are not working because they have been deleted or changed. 2.) image URLs are not working because the images have been deleted from Design studio.I understood that right now there is no notification system for this, leaving us not knowing of the items contain errors o not. Would it be possible to create a notification system/analysis dashboard for Predictive content errors?Thanks,Karoline
My idea is to separate eVar and prop colors on WS. prop dimension and eVar dimension are using ORANGE color on WS.But, these items have a different meaning of dimension.When we using this, we need to check prop or eVar.I think it would be easier for everyone to understand, if the colors were separated.And I sometimes set the same data for both prop and eVar.In order to distinguish between prop's data and eVar's data, they are separated by name.I think it would be easier for everyone to understand when analyzing the data, as we wouldn't have to deal with this if the colors were separated. Thank you
Would like to be able to build a report showing report creation date. We would use this as a KPI report indicating how we are utilizing the information housed in Workfront.
Many of our users select and copy different field values from project details to paste into other programs. A 'copy to clipboard' button next to each field would be a great time saver.
It would be so useful if we could include multiple values inside of the Member of Smart List filter, the same way this is possible for Member of Program and Member of List filters. It can get complicated if we want to easily pull in multiple smart lists inside of 1 smart campaign without listing a filter for each one.
Right now, there is no accurate way to determine if a file is identical, but uploaded with a different name inside a Marketo instance. While you can pull file size and try to 1:1 compare sizes to understand if a file is identical, this is an imprecise method. By storing some sort of checksum hash (MD5, SHA-2, etc.) with an asset, there's now several options for handling duplicate files. Uploads via API or UI could use the checksum to prevent duplicate uploads, and exposing the checksum via API (or even UI in some way) would allow for faster and more accurate detection of existing duplicate files.
In one workspace report I have over 30 segments applied overall and throughout the report to different metrics. This gets really cluttered and hard to read for the end user. In report builder I can hide the different segments used from the end user and I can add an image so it makes it really easy for an end user to know what that metric applies to. This makes it cleaner and easier to find what you are looking for.
The grouping header of a report should function as a link to that object, if applicable.For example, if I'm running a task report and I'm grouping by project, I should be able to click on the name of the project from the grouping header and be taken to that project. It's redundant to have to add a column for the project name just so that you can click the link and go to the project.
Per system design, proof owners (non-admins) can change the decisions of other approvers on their proofs. While these changes are trackable if you go to Proof Details > Activity it presents a risk for companies who rely on proof sign off for regulated documents. Currently there are no options for restricting this.I would like to be able to switch off non-admins ability to change the decisions that others have made on proofs they own.
Similar to how a user can edit their comment on a proof, it would be helpful if they could edit their comment reply. If something is submitted with a typo, the user has to add in another reply that is correcting it.
It would be nice to allow users to edit a comment that they have made to add additional information or to allow for corrections. Thanks!
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.
