Build better products with our product team
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Currently in AEM we have option to use Oauth2 (CQ Mailer SMTP OAuth2 Provider) for email integration with SMTP server, along with SMTP(Day CQ mail service) can we have option to use the Oauth2 with Microsoft graph API Use-case: Due to security reasons some clients won't enable the SMTP authentication for the accounts as those accounts are shared within multiple brands and SMTP AUTH is also being deprecated by Microsoft. So thinking to use the Microsoft graph API for email integration it will use the same access token generated using the Oauth OOTB implementation. Current/Experienced Behavior: Oauth2 integration with SMTP Improved/Expected Behavior: One more option to have Oauth2 integration with Microsoft Graph API Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Bounteous Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description -Why is this feature important to you - When creating a field in a custom form and viewing item in Preview mode, items are truncated. Would like the ability to stretch the field box in order to see everything. How would you like the feature to work - Be able to stretch the box within the window so items can be viewedCurrent Behaviour - Field box is not very big, so you can't view everything. Items are cut off.
Description - Allow using the "same field" custom field with "different labels" on various forms. Example below:Field Name: "Select Apps"Label 1 (Form 1): Select Affected AppsLabel 2 (Form 2): Select Top 3 AppsWhy is this feature important to you - Currently, the absence of this functionality leads to duplicate fields, increasing maintenance overhead. For instance, if the "Select Apps" field is a dropdown and I need to add two new values, I have to update every duplicate field individually, which can lead to errors if not updated.How would you like the feature to work - When adding a field to a custom form from the field library, the label should default to blank (or the initially set value). Either way, this should allow users to enter a different label if needed, without overwriting existing labels on other forms.Current Behaviour - If a label is modified on one form, it updates the labels across all forms using the field. This forces users to create duplicate fields and manage them separately.
Description:Parent task constraints in a template should yield the same results when applied to a project. Currently, this is not the case.Why is this feature important?If you need a specific phase of a project (with many child tasks) to start on a particular date, it makes sense to have the ability to set a start date for the entire group of tasks. Task constraints work as expected on parent tasks in projects, so it’s essential that a project template behaves the same way when creating a new project. Consistency between templates and projects is crucial for accurate task planning and scheduling. How would you like the feature to work?Parent task constraints in a template should function the same way they do in a project, ensuring that the template creates the project with consistent, expected results.Current Behavior:Some task constraints on parent tasks in templates are not respected when the template is used to create a project. For example, in a template, I have set a constraint on a parent task to start on day 5 (working days). However, when I create a project from the template, the task is pushed to day 10. With the project start date set to 2/4, a constraint for day 5 (working days) should set the task to 2/11, but it is instead set to 2/18. This discrepancy suggests a calculation error.Adobe’s response was that task constraints should not be applied to parent tasks. My counterpoint was: if that’s the case, then why is the option to apply constraints available in the first place? And, why does it work as expected when I apply it in a project? It also works on simple templates but seems to get confused on more complex templates. Adobe could not provide an explanation and reverted back to it's first response of not putting a task constraint on a parent task and to put in this idea. Anyone else having this issue?
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Increase the folder depth limitation for the Export Metadata feature in AEM Assets to support folders exceeding 10 levels. Use-case: Some customers rely on deep folder hierarchies to manage large-scale asset libraries effectively. Their current folder classification system often exceeds 10 levels in depth. The existing limitation prevents the Export Metadata feature from functioning properly for assets stored in these deeper folders, leading to inefficiencies and an inability to extract necessary metadata. Current/Experienced Behavior: When using the Export Metadata feature, it fails to export metadata for assets located in folders deeper than 10 levels. This limitation disrupts workflows for customers with complex folder structures. (Case #E-001458355: Support Response: I checked the code for AssetMetadataExporterProcess and found that the FULL_TRAVERSAL_DEPTH = 10, which means it only allow 10 levels of depth. This limit restriction can’t be increased.) Improved/Expected Behavior: The Export Metadata feature should support folder depths exceeding 10 levels, allowing users to export metadata seamlessly regardless of folder hierarchy depth. This enhancement would enable greater flexibility and efficiency for customers with advanced folder structures. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud (2024.8.17569.20240822T203847Z) Customer-name/Organization name: LG Electronics, Global HQ Korea Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Our Firm has not been able to use Activity Maps since it was re-engineered to v3 due to our security policy that forces us to modify the extensions guid as software is not permitted to update outside of the Firm. Why is this feature important to you - Adobe Extension is a great tool that makes analytics more accessible to users. The work around limits its use for some users. How would you like the feature to work - We would like Adobe to allow custom guid so that our users can authenticate using the extension. Current Behaviour - Authentication is blocked by Adobe as it does not recognize our GUID.
We would like to understand what combination of events equal to what user actions via CJA Audit logs.The CJA Audit logs help doc https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/analytics-platform/using/cja-privacy/audit-log gives insights on very general things but we want to be able to get more specific information.For example: Project Created: Name = #### will that only show up once per project creation? Project Viewed will show up multiple times for a single view of a project(tested) or on a future date after the actual view. This makes it a bit challenging to extract precise usage insights.What are API_REQUEST? Why is there no User Name against some Action Name in the Audit logs? Description would show: Project Viewed: Project Objects - What are Project Objects?
Description -Why is this feature important to you - We want the ability to control whether the select all option appears in a mutifield dropdown or checklist. How would you like the feature to work - Add an option in the custom field that allows the admin to instruct WF to add the Select All option. If not selected, then do not allow the ability for the user to select every option. Current Behaviour - Workfront adds the Select All/ Deselect all option automatically.
We are looking to customize "Forward to Friend" feature in Marketo to have the following result, "When the email receiver forwards the received email from Marketo to a friend, the receiver should receive the email with a customized message in subject or in body of the email before forwarded email content"This customization is not currently not available, could you consider adding this in future developments
Description - I found community threads from 10 years back(?!) where people asking about lowercasing prop/evar values in processing rules. Till date, this still does not seem to be possible, correct? Why is this feature important to you - Why would I use processing rules if even this simple functionality does not exist? How would you like the feature to work - have an option to lowercase as string value as one of the given dropdown items Current Behaviour - still no can do in 2024
We have an app that functions both online and offline, with offline tracking working as expected.A key business question is how often the app is used offline versus online. However, the Connection Type dimension does not accurately reflect this, as offline hits are attributed to the connection type available when they are eventually sent to the server.To address this, I propose categorizing these hits under a new dimension item: Offline.
There are a couple of ideas out there for a better representation of this view in Smart Campaign Schedule: But I wanted to express again how confusing this line can be. 1. Email is operational. Blocked from emails doesn't account for that, but still lists all records which are unsubscribed or marketing suspended. That is not true: These people are in fact not blocked from that email.Also, it blurs the view on people who are really blocked, e.g. due to being email invalid.2. That line also appears if there isn't even a "Send Email" flow step in that Smart Campaign. It is also shown when the flow step e.g. is "Change Data Value" where there is no such thing as a block.I had to explain this misleading information to colleagues or clients countless times.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Provide a new report in the Assets Reports which provides the information if asset are referenced and in use or not. Use-case: As an editor I want to ensure that unused asset are deleted from DAM. Therefore I would need a report which asset are not in used anymore = not referenced in pages anymore. With this I can simply go through and delete and free up space in DAM. Current/Experienced Behavior: No report available ootb - need to check each asset individually regarding references. Improved/Expected Behavior: Ootb report which lists all unreferenced assets and provides option for the editors to filter for published or unpublished assets (so, the status of the assets). Background: an unreferenced and unpublished asset could be deleted immediately. An unreferenced but published one could still be in use from some other website using direct link to it - might need some further investigations before deleting it. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Carl Zeiss AG Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - There have been many times I'd love to share instructional text, or something to summarize a portion of a dashboard. Why is this feature important to you - It could help explain portions of the dashboard.How would you like the feature to work - Similarly to building a website, have the abillity to add a singular text box with bold, italic, underlines. Would also like the ability to add a link or graphic with the text.Current Behaviour - There's not a way to do that without creating a graphic, or some external link rigged way to get it to populate.
Description: Currently task approvals are only shown in the task view, but we regularly have projects stuck in task approvals that have gone unnoticed unless we hunt through tasks to see if it's stuck in an approval Why is this feature important to you: In order to keep projects on track, visually identifying approvals in the project timeline view would greatly improve our ability to monitor risks in our projects in the project timeline view. How would you like the feature to work?: Add some sort of visual queue that a task approval is pending approval in the timeline view without having to dig into tasks Current Behaviour: Approvals are only visible in the task view.
Description - It would be really nice if sections and custom fields edit and/or view capabilities could be controlled via a specific user, team, or group on a custom form. Why is this feature important to you - We are working on a way to have multiple people with edit permissions on a form be able to edit only one field or one section of a form, unique to each user/role, while the other fields and sections can either be only viewed or do not display at all. This is all based on the specific user that is viewing the form.How would you like the feature to work - This feature would allow us to control which sections or fields a specific user could edit or view. Different users would look at the form and for each user, a different section or field would be editable, view only, or wouldn't appear. This would greatly reduce the number of forms that we would need to create.Current Behaviour - You can set display logic based on field values in the form, but not based on user, team, group, etc. You can set edit and view permissions for a form based on which users have edit or view permissions for sections on a form, but it does not limit it based on user, team, or group.
Description - Highlight Description field changes (what was added/what was removed) in updates. Why is this feature important to you - This will save users a lot of time when trying to review changes to the Description field How would you like the feature to work - When the text in the Description field is updated, the System Updates section can:Option 1: Record the new text with the old text (combined as one), striking out anything that was removed highlighting it in red, and highlighting anything that was added in green. If colored highlights are not feasible, simply strike out removed text and use bold for added text. Option 2: Record the system update in two columns, the left being the original text and the right being the new text. In the New Text Column, it would also be great to strike out anything that was removed highlighting it in red and highlighting anything that was added in green. If colored highlights are not feasible, simply strike out removed text and use bold for added text. A basic version of Option 2 is available in Jira. Current Behaviour—When the Description is changed, the system records the updated text as-is in the System Updates section. For a user to figure out what was changed, they have to read the entire description (sometimes this can be very long), and even then, it is hard to find what was exactly updated. Users are forced to use a third-party text comparison tool to determine what was changed.
Description - There should be a way to export the query results to a .csv file.Why is this feature important to you -It will help analyzing the data easily. Make any bulk changes and ingest back into AEP. How would you like the feature to work -Ability to save the output data to a file in your local drive. However there should be a limit to avoid storage space issue. Current Behavior -You can view them in the output window which is very small to review or copy.
Description - There have been times where text on a pie chart is cut off because it's butting up against an edge or another report. Would love to be able to spin the pie chart and lock it's position so no text is truncated. Why is this feature important to you? We have times when long titles are being cut off because of the chart's orientation.How would you like the feature to work - Set the position of the pie, and lock that orientation for viewing.Current Behaviour - When you refresh after spinning the pie chart, it resets the position.
Description -Why is this feature important to you - Since we migrated to the admin console, account provisioning has become significantly more difficult as users now need to click on multiple links in order to access Workfront. How would you like the feature to work - Revert back to former functionality in which a free license is autoprovisioned whenever a new user clicks on any Workfront link. Current Behaviour - Users now need to click on multiple links in order to access Workfront.
Description: An organization with a single domain should be enabled to separate their products across multiple Administrator Consoles. (Of lower priority, a separate idea is that - once an organization is forced to share products on a single console - there should be a single point of contact at Adobe to help manage shared issues caused by console sharing.) Why is this feature important to you: We are a multinational company with a very distributed organizational structure. The R&D department has little business reason to interact with our Marketing department, for example. The introduction of the console has created a lot of work, the unnecessary need for added coordination, and layers of authorization/access because of the current Console constraint that a domain can only be controlled by one set of primary owners - and those owners are arbitrarily the first group of administrators to have migrated over to the console. Until the admin console, it was very possible for separate business units to set up SSO for their own products and manage their Adobe products without the need to coordinate. This efficiency goes away once all units migrate to the console. If one group migrates to the console first, they essentially own the admin console. They gain decision-making authority for who can use the company's "claimed" domain. These admins are understandably reluctant to share their highest privilege in the console if it means granting access to sensitive or confidential information in their own applications. Furthermore, at least make all decisions at the highest level going forward as to who else can be added to the console at the highest-provisioned level. Applications owners whose users later migrate to the console are now required to get authorization from primary owners to either share ownership (e.g. Application A's primary admins must decide whether or not to let Application B admins become global admins within the console) at this primary level, or grant permission for the new application to use the claimed domain to set up SSO for the Adobe product being migrated. In addition to the efficiency loss, Admins of one product lose the ability to completely secure their sensitive information from the admins of other products if those Admins "own" the primary console. Using the same example above, R&D information can be highly secretive. Another group should not have the ability to give themselves access to your R&D information simply because of the current architecture of the Admin Console. Furthermore, to set up or migrate accounts for users, the owners of the Primary console must have the SSO-enabled users first created on the primary console in order for the users to be set up on the secondary console. This creates a lot of work for the primary console owners, as well as duplicative work for the downstream application that wants to set up users with SSO. Because 2 or more business units in a company have different products, the units deal with different Adobe representatives who do not connect nor mutually solve a company's overall issues with the console migration. This causes delays, ambiguity as to the root cause of a problem, misinformation, ambiguity with whose responsibility it is to solve the issue, and the need to communicate repetitively. How would you like the feature to work: Let each business unit have a separate console regardless of whether or not they need to set up SSO for the same domain. Do not force groups with separate contractual relationships with Adobe to have to coordinate and set up a governance model simply because of this technical limitation that dictates 1 Domain/1 Console. Current Behaviour: The admins of the first application to migrate over effectively (and arbitrarily) gain global management rights to all applications later on-boarded onto the Admin Console. Later application owners to on-board must request permission to either become global admins themselves or to use the already-claimed domain for their own SSO implementations. Any user who is to be set up with SSO in that domain must first be set up at the global level (by the Adobe "global admins") at the company before being added as users to any application where SSO is enabled and this increases the administrative and coordination burden.
Description - We often need to ask the same question more than once on a form, i.e. 'what size flyer is needed?' or something similar for our multi asset requests.Why is this feature important to you - This would help automate the multi asset request process.How would you like the feature to work - allow admins to add the same custom fields to a form without one answer overriding the previous one.Current Behavior - the same exact fields will show the same answer when filled in across all of them.
Description - Can we please add the ability to log hours within a Card in a Board with the Mobile App. Why is this feature important to you - Staff photographers need to log hours to Tasks on the go. Currently this team can't log hours affectively to a Task with the mobile app. This means no adoption of Workfront by the team. How would you like the feature to work - add hours function to a card within a board on the app, just like the web browser version.Current Behaviour - No log hours function on a card in the app.
DescriptionWe have hundreds of Custom Forms and thousands of Parameters, many of which are referenced in dozens of automations across multiple platforms, both in and not in Fusion. The only tool that is built into Workfront to help us document and govern these objects is the Description field (forms) or the Instructions field (parameters). The absence of a full-featured data dictionary within the platform is very limiting in what and how we are able to document.We would like additional fields on these object types so we can spend less time tracking down all the areas throughout our stack that are impacted by things like changing a parameter name, or deleting a custom form, etc.While we do want the ability to attach custom forms to a wider array of object types (especially including Teams, Roles, Reports and Dashboards), I believe this need is better served by the addition of a few extra system fields on these objects. Doing so will allow us to build our data dictionaries directly in Workfront. Why is this feature important to youThe frequency in which we or teams we work with encounter errors due to benign changes on Categories and Parameters is having a strong negative impact on our efficiency, productivity, and the perception of Workfront's quality by our users because "it's always breaking." While a data dictionary can be maintained externally, there's no way to encourage or enforce admins/group admins to use or update it as they interact with these object types, as it's not built in to the form editor. How would you like the feature to workOn both Categories and Parameters (maybe even Parameter Options!), we would like multiple additional system fields made available in the form editor so we can add and reference additional details relevant to each object. Open to suggestions on what these fields should be or how they behave, but anything that allows us to input and edit the various entity relationships of a field or form will be helpful. Current BehaviourWe do our best to document dependencies in the one field we're allowed to do so, but it is limiting to us and also confusing to users. (E.g. when using a custom field's Instructions field to document entity relationships of the parameter, that is shown to users interacting with forms and they have no idea what it means.) We have explored using Fusion to seed a collection of Projects and Tasks as a pseudo data dictionary, which allows us to add a lot of detail and metadata about these objects, but its tedious to maintain and isn't easily seen when someone is making updates to one of these objects.
Description - I have 2 ideas how this could be resolved: 1. Move the entire thread which contains the latest update to the top of the page 2. Create an area at the top of the updates page that would contain the latest message. In a similar fashion like "solution" is highlighted in EXL Why is this feature important to you - because today latest update is not always at the top, and this requires users to scroll to search for the latest one. How would you like the feature to work - I would want to see the latest update always at the top in the updates thread Current Behaviour - updates are sorted on thread level. This works fine when users don't use "reply" option, but if they do, finding latest message is really hard. Think about e.g. task with 15 updates, all with replies (several of them), and suddenly someone responds to the very first message at the bottom of the thread.... You won't notice that easily. That's huge UX miss
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.
