Build better products with our product team
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
Description - It would be very helpful to add a widget on the home dashboard for users to track time there, rather than going to the time sheet icon in the menu. Why is this feature important to you - Our team is encouraging users to use their home dashboard daily and it would be nice to have a "one-stop-shop" there. How would you like the feature to work - Definitely a filter feature that can filter on certain project status, priority, etc. Current Behaviour - Our team isn't in favor of having to track time. I'm looking for any capabilities to encourage time tracking to be easier.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Need functionality for expediting content sync from Production to Lower environments for smaller content sets Use-case: Currently, the available feature in Cloud Manager takes a long time to process content sync request(2-3 pages) from Production to lower environments. Need functionality for expediting content sync from Production to Lower environment for smaller content sets Current/Experienced Behavior: Even while moving 2-3 pages from PROD to a lower environment, it takes 45-50 minutes in Cloud Manager. There has been instances where moving 1 page takes an hour. Using CRXDE Package manager, this will take only 5 minutes while. Since this access is not given to Production Author instance, we will need a facility to expedite small content package sync from PROD to lower environment. Improved/Expected Behavior: Need functionality for expediting content sync from Production to Lower environment for smaller content sets Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): 6.5 Customer-name/Organization name: Confidential Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Add Export CSV button on Activities and Audiences tabs in Adobe Target Why is this feature important to you - This feature is critical because we use this information for auditing purposes. In the past, we have received time-sensitive requests and have had to do this work manually. As you can imagine, this is cumbersome, has risk of human error, and is not the best use of our time. It also isn't effective since the information available on these pages is being updated regularly by our users. How would you like the feature to work - This feature should work similarly to other Export to CSV buttons across the Adobe site (i.e., Admin (Beta), Support - My Cases). Ideally, we would be able to export with specific filters applied as well. Current Behavior - Right now, there is no easy way to export this information into a CSV file. It would save us so much time if we could do this at the click of a button instead of having to pull this information manually or having to use multiple APIs that pull JSON and require additional work to make it easily readable/usable.
!!NOT the same as being able to apply segment to calc. metrics!!Goal:Segment Visitors based on calculated metrics (such as AOV)Problem:Calculated metrics is NOT available in Segmentation console.
Description - Presently, Query Service jobs do not write to the DCCS (Data Collection Core Services) which results in these events being ineligible to be qualified for event qualification to kick off a journey. I would like to be able to use a Query Service job to kick off a qualifying event for Why is this feature important to you - This would allow us to kick off journeys from a more flexible point of view. We typically have relied on subscriptions to events from our IT partners that we digest via the HTTP API Source. Unfortunately, development of these events is heavily dev intensive and can often take months. We had a use case for a reminder email for a customers order to send 2 days before their quoted pickup time. We frequently see updated date/time for our order pickups, so we need to use contextual data from other events to qualify the send. We were able to right the logic very eloquently in query servives, but we were not able to actually excecute using it, because of the inability to qualify the event via DCCS, even though it looks good on the profile.How would you like the feature to work - I would love a toggle in the dataset level to indicate whether or not I would like the data to be digested via DCCS. Current Behaviour - Event data that is generated via query service jobs are ineligible for event qualification. We're able to write the data to profile, so there shouldn't be an inflation in usage, but we would be able to better utilize the data that we're digesting from our various partners to drive customer facing results.
Recently we have had to add a good number of new users and I have found this can be a tiresome process. The majority of out users fit into a few users types, e.g. ‘Campaign Managers’ who have a plan licence, ‘Internal Stakeholders’ who have a review license etc. It would be good if we could set up ‘templates’ that contained the default information for a type of user, then we simply add the users email address, first and last name to the template and all other data is added in accordance with the template. It would also be good if a csv list of email addresses together with first name and last name could be uploaded to a template.
Description: I have multiple apps that are all based on the same code and tracking, all of these apps send data to the same suite. When I have to do UAT, I am often switching between the apps so that I can test features in a logical order. It would be a lot easier to do this if I could use one AEP Assurance session for all of our apps. I would like to see a feature that would allow us to add multiple base URLs to a single sessions... similar to how we can connect multiple devices to a single session, I would also like to have multiple apps (and by extension, multiple devices running multiple apps) coming into one place for testing. Why is this feature important to you: Lots of organizations will have apps based on one code / one suite, being able to test them in parallel would save a lot of time. No more needing to set up individual sessions for each app, and having to load them in multiple tabs, and constantly flip between them. How would you like the feature to work: When creating a session, have the standard option, where at least one Base URL is required, but add an "Add" button, allowing you to continue adding additional Base URLs. Current Behaviour: Only a single Base URL can currently be added:
It would be helpful to have the option to display the updates in order by the last update made. When reply is added to an older update, it is difficult to search for because the original post is displayed way down the update feed. When a reply is made to an older comment, it would be nice to have it move to the top, truly in order of last update, be it original or a response.
In a task report when pulling completed tasks, it doesn't filter out tasks with multiple assignees that have completed 'their part' - it will still show for the users that have marked their part complete until everyone marks the task complete. We need a way to remove tasks in which which multiple users are assigned, but have completed their portion of the task (using a $$USER.ID filter for assignment users/assigned to).There have been multiple questions/threads about this over the years but never an Idea - please upvote!
DescriptionA "new" version for "Transport Layer Security (TLS)" has been released in August 2018 already and Fusion is still not supporting it. The new version 1.3 is quicker and safer than the previous one (1.2). Why is this feature important to youThere are tools that require 1.3 to authenticate, which means that we can not use Fusion for automation. This leads to major disruptions in our workflows and makes Fusion unusable in certain use cases. How would you like the feature to workEnable support for TLS 1.3 for Fusion. It would be best if both versions (1.2 and 1.3) could be selected when using the HTTP module. Current BehaviourOnly TLS 1.2 supported, hence o automations via HTTP module to tools that require TLS 1.3 can be built.
Description -It would be great if Fusion would support TLS 1.3 for their HTTP module (at least).As per right now, only TLS 1.2 is supported - which is not enough to integrate between software solutions which are already using TLS 1.3.Whilst some of these applications can be enabled to support version 1.2, it surely is not always possible. This is very important to us, as this leads to Fusion simply being unusable for certain use cases All the best, Marius
Currently, the REST API only facilitates running a batch campaign immediately or once at some time in the future: https://developers.marketo.com/rest-api/assets/smart-campaigns/#batch This idea proposes that the schedule request be modified to allow setting of a recurring schedule for the batch campaign, as can currently be done with the GUI as shown in the attached image.
We are looking for a much more user-friendly way to upload a bunch of issues. Kickstarts are good for initial data loads but not easy for a typical project manager to use in their projects. It'd be great if there was a menu item on the Issues tab that says "Upload Issues" and then allowed the user to select a document (XLS or CSV) to load. We have many instances where our teams will build lists of issues outside of Workfront because it is so slow to do so within the system. However, we require that they track their issues in Workfront. Right now, we have people spending hours manually entering issues from Excel into Workfront. On a related note, the upload should allow for updating existing entries in addition to creating new entries.
The ability to ‘pin’ user guides or user-specific information to the user's homepage would be great. With the recent developments Adobe have completed for us it would have been good to add guides for users to the homepage but I noticed that the pin function will only allow the pinning of Workfront objects, e.g. ‘Projects’, ‘Issues’ etc, and that specifically pinning documents, just pins the ‘Documents’ section of Workfront, where I believe pinning individual documents would be much more beneficial to users.
I would like to have the ability to add a document upload section as a field choice in a custom form, so I can add that functionality anywhere within the form, and also be able to add display & skip logic, as well as the option to make it a required field. Why? Because we have several project types that are being entered into the Workfront system, and for some of the larger projects, we want to make sure that a creative brief is attached, as well as make this field required for certain project types, while optional for others. ‚
On a recent Ultimate Success call I mentioned that I was concerned about the ease with which it is possible to delete or alter custom forms. This came of the back of Case Number 00425051 - Accidental deletion of custom form - undelete request, where I had accidentally deleted one of our teams custom forms. When custom forms are deleted we are required to contact support to get them undeleted, which seems like a step that could be avoided. As a result I would like to suggest one of the following: Confirm deletion pop up Ability to undelete from the system admin settings menu Custom forms having a ‘lock’ that requires and extra step to unlock I believe any of the above would have prevented me from deleting the custom form. In another incident recently a staff member with Admin access altered a custom form with an additional data requirement, which then resulted in all existing copies of that form no longer displaying data until the new data requirement had been met. This makes sense but it not immediately obvious, it would also be beneficial we had a way of saving custom forms so that experimentation can be done, although maybe its best that I ask changes are first made to the form in the preview environment to check compatibility. Finally, If a field is deleted from within a custom form it seems all historical data collected by that field is lost, it would be good to have a way of reverting changes etc if needed to avoid data loss.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: I have a suggestion that I believe would greatly enhance the user experience within the Assets Folder. My idea is to implement pagination within the Assets Folder UI, especially for users with a large number of files. Currently, scrolling through an extensive collection of assets can become cumbersome and time-consuming. With pagination, users can easily navigate through pages of assets, making it more efficient to find and manage their files. I believe that implementing pagination in the Assets Folder UI as a feature would be a valuable addition to the Adobe product suite and further enhance the overall user experience. Use-case: Manage files in Assets folder for better user experience Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, scrolling through an extensive collection of assets can become cumbersome and time-consuming for loading assets. Improved/Expected Behavior: With pagination, users can easily navigate through pages of assets, making it more efficient to find and manage their files. Also this would help in finding the total number of assets in folder. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): 6.5 Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
