Build better products with our product team
Description: The update to the Custom Form Field Logic in version 25.4 introduced some frustrating issues. Clicking 'Add Logic' opens a full-screen view unnecessarily. The primary concern, however, is that the Field Name is no longer displayed—it only shows the front-end Label.Why this feature matters to you: When working with multiple fields, being able to see the Field Name serves as a valuable point of reference, especially when using numbered references for better organization.Desired functionality: The feature should operate in a smaller view screen while ensuring the Field Name is displayed alongside the front-end Label.Current behavior: The logic editor opens in full screen and does not display the Field Name.Example:
We are on a Quarterly product release schedule and in the upcoming "24.7" Release, Adobe has stated that they will be replacing the legacy form builder with the new "Form Designer". In the legacy form builder, for each field, we have ability to enable the option "Track field changes in update feeds". This option was removed from the new Form Designer and now the only way to set this option is from the Interface tab under Setup. (Setup > Interface > Update Feeds > Tracked Fields > Custom Fields). I submitted a ticket to Support, and received the following suggestion: If you would like to see this checkbox to track these fields be retained within the Custom Forms area as it was in legacy, please submit this as a feature request via our Workfront community on our Experience League site. So here I am, requesting that this ability be retained in the new Form Designer tool. Please!
Idea: Allow ability to expose project level information on a request or issue form. We have a need to expose things like dates that allude to key deadlines or even things like key project data when submitting through issues on in process projects. This would help create much more flexible use of calculated fields and functionality that appears to be essentially there already. Current behavior: There is already the ability to add a calculated field to a form that reads from the project level, but this simply is just not updated (or calculated) until after the form is submitted. How could this work? The idea would be to turn on the dynamic calculations or even simply calculate upon opening of a queue topic form to expose the current values. The amazing thing is this essentially already works today! Just need to have a calculation upon opening to capture the data from other objects levels! Attached a mocked up sample that shows how a simple {project}. indicator in front of a field will read the project level data, just not until after submission.
Description - It would be great if Adobe could give recommended schema-level governance labels on their own standard field groups to speed up labelling. Why is this feature important to you - Applying field labels to the schema fields is a process that is new to many clients, especially to people from legal departments. With Adobe's recommendation to stick with standard field groups as much as possible, it would be amazing to give recommended labels for the fields contained in these field groups. That would surely make many people's live a lot easier and reduce the room for errors. How would you like the feature to work - upon selecting a field in the Labels tab, show additional information like "often labelled as" Current Behaviour - Every field has to be labelled, and no recommended label is given which is a cumbersome process.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Functionality improvement to allow users to define the tag order for CF Use-case: The order in which tags are displayed is very important because it is a selling point of the product. Currently, they are displayed in the order specified, but in the new CF editor, they are displayed in ascending order of tag name. Please improve the function so that users can define the display order of tags themselves, because it has a large impact on business. Current/Experienced Behavior: The old editor displays tags in the order you specify, but the new editor displays them in ascending order by tag name. Improved/Expected Behavior: The tag order specified by the user is maintained even in the new editor. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM aa CS 2025.03 Customer-name/Organization name: TOPCON POSITIONING ASIA CO LTD Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Currently the "Post as update..." message shortcut in Slack App does not accept links or show the name of the @mention tags making the feature to lost part of the relevance since people want to understand who is being tagged (we just see a bunch of codes) and also it simply removes any links from the post update.Why is this feature important to you - with the ability to share a Slack update on Workfront we want to make sure to understand who was tagged and also which links were shared. Currently we're not able to see that, which loses the need for us to connect the update to Workfront.How would you like the feature to work - When we post a Slack update to Workfront, I'd like to bring the name of the person that was tagged and also any links that were shared in the update.Current Behaviour - Currently the "Post as update..." message shortcut in Slack App does not accept links or show the name of the @mention tags making the feature to lost part of the relevance since people want to understand who is being tagged (we just see a bunch of codes) and also it simply removes any links from the post update. Thank you!
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Link Reference Update inside experience fragment when creating a live copy or rollout an experience fragment Use-case: When we rollout or create a site/live copy of a page the link reference gets updated from language master/language to respective country/language inside components with in that page. But in experience fragment this feature is missing Current/Experienced Behavior: Link Reference does not get update inside experience fragment when creating a live copy or rollout an experience fragment Improved/Expected Behavior: Link Reference Update inside experience fragment when creating a live copy or rollout an experience fragment Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
It would be useful to be able to delegate work to multiple people. I am in an agency environment and one person may support multiple accounts (portfolios in our instance). When they are out it would be ideal for them to be able to say delegate tasks in this portfolio to person 1 and in this portfolio to person 2.
Description - Make the task description and project description fields formatted text field types instead of paragraph field types so that we can link, bullet, bold, and use italics. Why is this feature important to you - I always add links to reference documents in task and project descriptions and the full URLs make the field really long and hard to read.How would you like the feature to work - Change the field type from plain text field to formatted text/enable rich text formattingCurrent Behavior - can't format text in task or project description at all.
With the Next Gen update to Images and Files Details, users can now edit an image in Design Studio. Saved edits to the image will be reflected wherever the image is currently used, including any live assets. Similar to Edit Form and Edit Landing Page permissions, it would make sense to have an "Edit Image" permission added to Role Permissions so admins could lock down this capability to certain roles.
Description - Once a request is converted to a project and assigned, it would be helpful if there was an option to "lock" the original request. Why is this feature important to you - Often, those who request projects add updates or documents to the original request versus the project and forget to @ whoever they are trying to communicate with, and those comments or documents are missed. How would you like the feature to work - Once converted, the request is locked (automatically would be preferred) but could also include an option for System Admins or Project Managers to unlock or make a change if necessary. Current Behaviour - I have found a workaround for this within the dashboard (removing the link to the request) but it is much too easy for requesters to click on "Requests" and then click the original request, which then leads to the original issue.
Description - After a thorough implementation, we decided to use the Request Queues built directly in the projects. The functionality is great. We have a project template set up with Queue Topics, Groups, Forms etc. The issue is that when creating requests directly in a project there is no Autosave or Drafting functionality that we know of. Our users are becoming increasingly agitated by having complex requests easily deleted at the unfortunate click out of the request window or accidental refresh of the page. Why is this feature SO VERY important to you - Our current solution is to submit requests without auto-routing to a traffic team so the work can be saved. Leading to needing to save as you go, something that is antiquated in this day and age, especially knowing that autosave exists in many other places in Workfront, including the Global Request Queues area. How would you like the feature to work - simply autosave as you go with a Drafts section built into the Request area of the Project. Or a new section called Request Drafts. Draft autosaves until the Submit Request button is clicked. Current Behaviour - User begins a request, fills out info and has to Submit the Request in order to save it and continue working on the request, and they must click save as they progress. If users haven't submitted the request yet or haven't recently saved, it is very common for users to accidentally click out of the window, closing the request and clearing all the info. Leading them to have to painstakingly recreate the request they could have spent many hours on. Please prioritize this, WF.
Description - A user should be able to set the the default number of hours that a request will take IN ADDITION to the Default Duration that can be set. Currently, if hours are used to describe the Default Duration, the Request will have a start and end date/time based on those hours. However, Requests should be defined by both the Planned Hours set (e.g. 2-3 hours of working time) as well as the total Duration of the Request (e.g. 3 days). If a user chooses 3 days as the Default Duration, the system assumes that the assignee will allocate 24 hours of working time to complete the Request. If a user chooses 2 hours as the Default Duration, the system assumes that the assignee will be done with the Request in 2 hours time. The system should account for both forms of timing. Why is this feature important to you - As Requests are made, the incorrect Planned Hours based on 3 days of duration are assigned to the working team member. These hours, while not accurate, often spike their capacity for the 3 days they are working on the Request. It requires additional management of the Request to update the Planned Hours and this can often be overlooked. How would you like the feature to work - An additional field called Default Planned Hours would pre-set the expected hours needed to complete the Request within the timeframe set by the Default Duration. Alternatively, if there was an option to convert a Request to a Task using a Task Template (currently, only Project Templates exist), a user could select a template that has both Planned Hours and Duration preset.
Description When searching for projects by name, a bunch of criteria comes up. I'd like to also filter that criteria by most recently edited date. I don't believe this is possible today. Why is this feature important to youI have so many projects, this helps to find projects more quickly. How would you like the feature to workOnce there's data in the name field, I could click on the 'last modified' filter at any time. Current Behaviour - Only one filter can happen at a time and they cannot be mixed together.
Description -Our team relies on commit dates to plan out and communicate our workload every morning to our lead. This helps us know if we are able to take on more work or if we need to push out work. Having easy access to it is very efficient. The process we had in the updates tab was a simple dropdown 1 step process that was separate from the completion date which made it easy to identify it and update it.
Description: Finance Recalculations on a project do not trigger a system update or appear in the Updates tab, Audit Logs, or the Adobe Admin Console Audit Log. Per a recent Workfront Support request, I was informed that this action is considered a background process and is not currently tracked in the standard system or audit logs, and there’s no built-in setting to enable logging. Why is this feature important to you -Tracking of hours and actual cost is integral within Workfront for reporting, and is often a cross-departmental mandatory required reporting functionality, sometimes in terms of governance. It should considered as best practice, when finances are recalculated within a project, that there is a system automated date/timestamp and audit log tracking created for this. How would you like the feature to work -Preferably there would be an automated update of a successful (or unsuccessful) recalculation attempt, which should show which object unique ID the attempt was made for in Workfront System Audit Log and the Adobe Admin Console Audit Log. Further, a System Update should be made within the project Updates menu itself, the same way it would be when a project changes status, etc. Current Behavior -As stated previously, this very important best-practice feature, I'm told by Workfront Support, is not available at all. The only thing I've noticed upon any sandbox testing of Finance Recalculation on projects is that there is a brief pop-up, that is too fast to read and easy to miss on larger projects (because it can take a very long time staring at a screen for larger projects to Finance Recalculate).
Currently when you unassign a user from a task/issue, it automatically fills in the assignee with that user's job role. My company has never used this feature and it just creates extra work and confusion to either remove that job role or to see it in the assignments. It would be great if this is something we could disable in the setup area.
AMP brings modern interactivity to emails and could really help marketers make their email experiences exceptional. In addition to HTML and plain text, Marketo should also begin supporting text-x-amphtml, the MIME Type for AMP for email. Email clients like Gmail and Outlook.com already support it, and it's rolling out to others too. Bonus points if Marketo could integrate with Litmus or get 250ok to support AMP email version previews for testing/QA.Here's more info on the subject: Gmail rolls out AMP for Email - Litmus
Description - latest change to Project Edit screen removed the last vestige of posting comments by removing the ability to post comments to multiple Projects at once when bulk editing selected Projects. Why is this feature important to you - there is no longer a simple way to put information/comments/updates on multiple relevant jobs creating multi-step process X each applicable project (could be 3, 10, 50, more). How would you like the feature to work - options (may be others) 1) at minimum, return to the way it very recently was where if you were bulk editing a project one could select the Comment box in the left pane to post a comment to multiple projects at once (cannot do this with single Project Edit for some time); 2) allowing us to Open Summary on Projects in bulk and add a comment; 3) at the very minimum provide Project-level Open Summary panel that includes Updates section as in other parts of the system -- this one doesn't remove the repetition but does reduce it as well as offering easier ways to interact with the Project level data points.Current Behavior - must locate project, click into project, click on Updates 'tab', enter comment, post (with or without additional step of tagging others) then repeat for each relevant project (could be 3, 10, 2, 50, more). This is a lot of time, steps, repetitive clicks (think ergo) and personal opinion -- boredom and frustration.
Description - I am trying to understand how we can use the connections we build in Workfront planning in our reports. If we build a connection between a record in WF Planning to a project in WF Core, I wonder what is the best way to show connected metadata (Record/Record type/Workspace) from planning into project reports that include those connected projects. Why is this feature important to you - This will help immensely in making the connections we build in WF planning visible in our WF Core reports. How would you like the feature to work - Ideally the planning connection fields we create on any custom forms should be available in that object as a reportable field (similar to a custom field) Current Behaviour - Planning connection fields are not visible in Workfront reports.
Description -Currently, Workfront's Audit Logs primarily track actions performed by individual users. While recent enhancements (specifically the "Other enhancements during the Second Quarter 2025 release timeframe" regarding Represent Adobe Admin Console user changes as "System" in the Workfront update feed) have introduced "System" activity updates in user update feeds, and these actions captured in the comprehensive System “Audit Log,” however, it’s no longer possible to filter for these log types and action performed by “System” listed under the User Name column.Why is this feature important to you -This highlights a critical visibility gap regarding automated or system-driven changes within Workfront. For example, changes originating from integrations, API calls, automated workflows, or even internal Workfront system updates are not readily auditable through the Setup > System > “Audit Log” page.Improved Transparency and Accountability: Gain a comprehensive understanding of all system-driven changes within Workfront.Enhanced Troubleshooting and Issue Resolution: Quickly identify the source of unexpected changes or errors.Strengthened Security and Compliance: Maintain a detailed record of all system activity for audit and compliance purposes.Increased Integration Visibility: Track changes made by integrations and API calls for better management and troubleshooting.How would you like the feature to work -We propose the creation of a dedicated, filterable "System" Audit Log within Workfront, mirroring the functionality of the existing user-based Audit Log. This log would:Capture all system-initiated actions: This includes changes made by integrations, API calls, automated workflows, internal Workfront system updates, and actions attributed to the "System" user as seen in the user update feeds (e.g., Adobe Admin Console user changes).Provide detailed information: Similar to the user Audit Log, this log should include timestamps, action types, affected objects (projects, tasks, users, etc.), and relevant details of the changes made.Offer robust filtering and search capabilities: Users should be able to easily filter and search the log based on various criteria, such as date range, action type, affected object, and integration/system source.Maintain a consistent format: The log should adhere to a clear and standardized format, making it easy to understand and analyze.Respect existing access controls: Access to the System Audit Log should be governed by appropriate permissions, ensuring data security and compliance.Current Behaviour -The recent change to represent Adobe Admin Console user changes as "System" in the Workfront update feed highlights the need for a dedicated “System” Audit Log. While this change is a positive step, it underscores the lack of a centralized location to track all Workfront system-initiated actions.We’ve confirmed with support that, “The reason, we are unable to search for “System” it's only a text string, and it's not a user. This will need to be a feature request, since the audit logs, are designed to only search for Workfront user objects.” and that it’s not currently possible to access this information via the API.Call to Action -Please vote for this idea to enhance Workfront's audit capabilities and provide greater transparency into system-driven changes. This will empower administrators and users to better manage and troubleshoot their Workfront environment.
Would love to have the ability to change the routing/"Path" (located in Issue Details tab / Overview Sub-tab) of a submitted request? It happens when the Requestor incorrectly selects it from the get-go so it does not appear in the correct team(s) queue. Since the Queue Topic can be edited, it would be nice if it would automatically change the Path associated or simply have the ability to change it manually. Thanks in advance!
We have an increasing number of social animations. Workfront have flagged we’re unable to collate animations on Proof HQ it means the client gets numerous links and they’ve now voiced it’s too much to manage. As a result, it means copying and pasting every link into one consolidated email for them to review animations – It’s extremely time consuming and they then approve on email rather than on Proof HQ. It also means if the same amend is needed across 10 videos that the client needs to go in and add that individually to each rather than applying one comment which gets applied to all.The client sees the statics in one proof and can't understand why this can't be the same for MP4s.Developing the ability to proof multiple MP4s would save valuable time, reduce human error of say forgetting to approve 1 out of 20 links and make ProofHQ more desirable for future and existing clients- instead we are at risk of being able to implement the process as this is so much of a high level issue.
Dark mode is necessary for a lot of teams. I have Workfront opened all day, and the white backgrounds gives me migraines. Please add dark mode to this otherwise perfect system!
Description - Proof Deadline Date should not be blanked out on the most recently activated stage when the "Workfront stage" is added to the WorkflowWhy is this feature important to you - Reviewers are not seeing these proofs appear on their report and are missing proof deadlines.How would you like the feature to work - When a "Workfront stage" is added, it should not change/blank out a Proof Deadline Date in the recently activated stage. The Proof Deadline Date should retain.Current Behaviour -Proof Deadline Date is blanked out on the most recently activated stage when the "Workfront stage" is added to the Workflow This is related to:a ticket we have opened with Adobe Support: 00415119 [WORKFLOW-2900] Issue: Sync with Compliance Catalog is Blanking out Proof Deadline Date - Jira (atlassian.net)
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
