Build better products with our product team
Today in MSI our sales team can create modified list views for Best Bets using basic "AND" statement logic . In many cases the team would like to be able to configure this list using more advanced logic such as "OR" statements and logic groupings. A AND (B OR C)
Companies typically update exchange rates annually. At present, Workfront does not support multi-year exchange rates. For instance, revising the exchange rates for FY25 impacts the financials of projects completed in FY24 and prior. While this may not influence projects with minor budgets, it becomes significant for those with larger budgets.Request: Implement custom exchange rates that include a year parameter.
Currently in the New Request Experience Beta when you filter by status (see first screenshot below), the options are:CompletedIn ProgressRejectedIn reviewPending ReviewOut of these statuses, we only use Completed and In Progress, and there are many statuses that we use that are missing. Additionally, new Requests are shown as "In Progress", even when the Requests are not yet in an In Progress status. This causes confusion for our users when there is a status mismatch between the Request itself and the Requests page. See the example below in screenshot 2 and 3 where it shows my test request as "In Progress" on the Requests screen, but when you go into the Request, the status is "New". Ideally, the filter options for the Requests page would include all of the active Issue status options, similar to what is available when filtering Issue status in a Report. The status shown in the status column on the Requests page should match the status that the Request is currently in. Description -Why is this feature important to you -How would you like the feature to work -Current Behaviour -
Description -Why is this feature important to you - as there are lot of data generated in Marketo Engage Email engagement data, having this filter option will enable only to ingest specific type of event records into platform, and not all the email engagement data. there are like millions are mails sent daily and we dont need all the email send events.How would you like the feature to work - similar to adobe analytics connector which has filtering optionCurrent Behaviour - there is no filter option for marketo engage source connector.
Description - When a field group is created for a specific class (lets say individual profile class), this field group by default wont be available for experience event class. where as we can extend the field group to experience event class through API. it will be beneficial to have this configuration done in UI.Why is this feature important to you - it is very useful to use the same field group for both individual profile class and experience event class. and this is possible now through API, but not UI.How would you like the feature to work - kind of a toggle button to extend the field group.Current Behaviour - currently it can be done through API, but not UI.
Description - Currently document proofs open in a new tab. We'd like for document proofs to open in the same tab. This feature is important to us because our team frequently opens and reviews proofs and they would like to toggle between the project and the proof in the same window. Proofs opening in a new tab is creating excessive amounts of open tabs for the team. Thank you
Description - Need to be able to see which user adds/removes custom forms on an objectWhy is this feature important to you - Fusion troubleshooting and investigation supportHow would you like the feature to work - Identify the user that made the update, identify the name of the form, and identify the timestampCurrent Behaviour - Addition/Removal of custom forms are not tracked in the update feeds as is stands today
When submitting a Adobe support ticket there is a selection of 129 time zones to choose from and it is difficult to find the one I need. There is a lot of scrolling through this long list because they are in not in alphabetic order. Perhaps you could offer up time zones in an easier way to navigate when submitting a ticket. Even better, having the system remember what I selected last time or what is linked in my profile would make this a much easier experience.
This idea proposal addresses a critical data integrity and reporting inconsistency in the existing Journal Entry Report related to Date custom fields. The report currently fails to correctly apply the user's time zone offset, resulting in dates that are one day off from the actual user-entered value displayed elsewhere in the platform. Description - The "New Date Value" column in a Journal Entry Report tracking edits to a Date-Only custom field (i.e., not a Date/Time field) often displays an incorrect date. This date is shifted by the user's UTC offset, resulting in a day mismatch compared to the date displayed in the Custom Form and the System Activity Log. This inconsistency arises because the report is not correctly translating the stored UTC date (which defaults to 12:00 AM UTC) into the viewing user's local time zone, causing the date to prematurely roll over to the previous day. Why is this feature important to you - Accurate reporting is fundamental to trusting a work management system. When a foundational report displays data that contradicts what's seen on the project itself and in the official activity log, it severely erodes user confidence and creates significant administrative overhead.Data Integrity and Trust: Contradictory dates force our teams to manually verify every data change, slowing down audits and governance processes. We need a single, reliable source of truth.Administrative Burden: The current workaround involves manually adding a text mode expression (ADDDAYS({}, 1)) to every single report column for every relevant Date field. This is not a sustainable or scalable long-term solution.Risk of Error: A manual offset workaround is fragile. It will break if users in other time zones view the report or if local time zone rules change (e.g., Daylight Saving Time shifts), introducing a high risk of new reporting errors.This is a request to fix a systemic design flaw (as acknowledged in support feedback) that prevents the Journal Entry Report from displaying the correct user-entered date consistently across the platform. How would you like the feature to work - The Journal Entry Report must be updated to apply the user's time zone offset to Date-Only custom field values consistently.Specifically:The date displayed in the "New Date Value" column must exactly match the date the user entered on the Custom Form and the date recorded in the System Activity Log.The system logic for the Journal Entry Report should be aligned with the logic used by the Project Custom Forms and the System Activity Log when displaying Date-Only custom fields, ensuring all three views show the same, correct local date.This fix should be system-wide and automatic, requiring no text mode workarounds or manual configuration changes by administrators for any Journal Entry Report. Current Behaviour - When a user in a time zone with a negative UTC offset (e.g., Central Standard Time, UTC-6) enters a date (e.g., 10/30/25) into a Date-Only custom field:Custom Form: Displays the correct user-entered date (10/30/25).System Activity Log: Records and displays the correct user-entered date (10/30/25).Journal Entry Report (in "New Date Value" column): Incorrectly displays the date as the UTC-adjusted date (10/29/25), shifting the date by one day due to the 12:00 AM UTC default crossing the day boundary in the user's local time zone.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Added configurability for retaining applied filters when a user navigates away from a page where there are filters applied. Use-case: Improved user experience, greater levels of control/customisation over our environment. Current/Experienced Behavior: As a user on Asset UI/AEMaaCS/AEM Assets, when I apply filters for a search and navigate away from the page with filters applied and return to the search, the filters are cleared. This means that I have to reapply the filters to return the same search. Improved/Expected Behavior: I want the filters to remain applied so that I do not have to add the filters again. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Asset UI/AEMaaCS/AEM Assets Customer-name/Organization name: NatWest Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Cloud Manager: Move Pipeline Configuration from "Source" to "Configuration" tab. Use-case: Configuring Pipelines Current/Experienced Behavior: Configurations are distributed randomly in unrelated tabs, Improved/Expected Behavior: The Pipeline Configuration is not related to the source code repository. Thus it is more intuitive to place it under the "Configuration" tab rather then "Source". Even better would be to divide the tabs as - General - Behavior - Source - Test and Experience Audit Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): CloudManager / all Customer-name/Organization name: all Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): n/a
Currently, the closest thing in Fusion to a Loop is the Repeater Module with hardcoded i and n variables. A loop module in Workfront fusion is greatly needed with the following capabilities.Ability to set i and n for loop.Ability to update i real time during loopAbility to escape loop once case is metAdding all types of loops... for each, do while etc. would be a home run.Fusion 1.0 had this type of logic and hoping we can get some of it back again.Current functionality does not allow for escaping the loop when certain condition is achieve so the loop is optimal. Now we are forced to indicate the number of iterations to a max number which is suboptimal from a processing point of view.
Description -While working in the source workspace, I've noticed two key usability gaps that affect data management efficiency:1. Missing Date-Based Sorting/Filtering.Currently there is no option to filter or sort files on a source folder by their date of availability or uploaded time.This make it difficult to locate newly available files or track which data arrived most recently -especially when the number of files is large.Adding a simple date filter or filter (e.g: Last 7 days, 30 days or custom range) would make it much easier to ingest files or validate latest ingestions.2. Dataflow Filter Performance IssuesThe existing filter under Dataflows is slow to load and often returns incomplete or inaccurate results.Optimizing the Dataflow filter logic and improving response times would significantly help teams manage multiple dataflows and save time.Why is this feature important to you -Easier identification of newly uploaded data to ingest.Faster and more accurate Dataflow managementOverall improvement in user experience and operational efficiency for AEP users handling larger datasets.
Description - Ability to in-line edit External Lookups with dependencies on list views. Curently we are able to edit fields that do not have dependencies.Why is this feature important to you - This is important because since the field is working fine on a custom form, it should essentially work on the list view as well. Having the ability to edit the field but restricted due to a technical limitation is not a great user experience.How would you like the feature to work - Ability to in-line edit External Lookups with dependencies on list views. The external lookup field should be able to process the URL with dependency on any other field.Current Behaviour - Curently we are able to edit external lookup fields that do not have dependencies I referred to this post: Custom forms: External Lookup – Usage in Views & F... - Adobe Experience League Community - 637209 and looks like the last update, to edit external lookup fields inline, was made last year. I think it has been way too long to keep this feature from the end users. To completely implement editability of External Lookup fields, this Idea needs to be implemented.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Offer an option to disable the new Assets UI Use-case: Our users work in AEM and are used utilize the AEM UI also to upload assets to AEM Assets Console. The new Assets UI should not be used as as e.g. important custom validation of file names or folders that we have implement as customizations are not effective. Current/Experienced Behavior: As new Assets UI is completely decoupled from AEM UI for Assets console, custom validations on file and folder names are not effective. Therefore unwanted file names and folder patterns are possible to create. Improved/Expected Behavior: We as a customer want to control if and when our users could see/use the new Assets UI. 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 - When using Fixed Dates times constraint, have the 'Actual Completion Date' field give the 'Actual' date the task was completed. Why is this feature important to you - It logically doesn't make sense for the Actual Completion Date to not give the date the task was actually completed. When it comes to to start of the month and we're billing clients for the work completed in the previous month it seems to me like we are not billing for work completed at the very start of the month. However these tasks were actually completed in the previous month, but the dates don't align to this. This affects other reporting too when we're trying to drill down on specifics for when tasks were completed. How would you like the feature to work - the Actual Completion Date should give the Actual date the task was completed for all Task Constraints. Current Behaviour - The Actual Completion Date field currently gives the Planned Completion date where a task Constraint of Fixed Dates is used.
Description - Send Time Time Optimization Why is this feature important to you - Because my client has campaigns that only require an Email send, so it only makes sense this function should be available in Campaigns and not just Journeys. How would you like the feature to work - This feature is only available in Journey, but should be available for Campaigns are well. Current Behaviour - I have to currently build out Journeys to use STO, and with so many Journey's being used Globally, we can easily reach the threshold of 300 not to mention the resources it uses.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enable Rollout of Cq:tags property by default for content update and other relevant MSM configs Use-case: In AEM page properties basic tab, the Tags field is excluded from rollout to Live copies. This is due to an exclusion rule applied in MSM content update Action OSGI config where anything that starts with cq: is excluded from getting rolled out to love copies. while this makes sense for node specific , under the hood properties like cq:lastModified, cq:lastModifiedBy, cq:lastReplicatedBy , unfortunately this also excludes cq:tags property as well. This should be included by default and the current excluded properties regex should be updated to include this property by default for rollout. Current exclusion regex (CQ MSM Content Update Action) - cq:(?!(designPath|template|lastTranslationUpdate|targetEngine|redirectTarget).*) New regex value to include cq:tags - cq:(?!(designPath|template|lastTranslationUpdate|targetEngine|redirectTarget|tags).*) Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently , the cq:tags property is not enabled for rollout by default Improved/Expected Behavior: cq:tags property should be enabled for rollout by default. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as cloud service Customer-name/Organization name: TCS Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Inconsistent user experience using the updates on objects that have a summary panel. Need the ability to mark if comment should be private. Why is this feature important to you -Comments/updates functionality manages security of data. We need to avoid exposing updates to unintended parties. Not to mention we need to avoid confusion with user experience in Workfront. How would you like the feature to work - Exactly how new comments/updates function when replying directly on objects using left navigation Current Behaviour -“Private to my company” availableLeft navigation on objects like Projects, Requests, Tasks, etc.“Private to my company” missingSummary panel on My Task on Home pageSummary panel on Tasks objectSummary panel from Workload Balance left navigation
We have several instances where one of our Planners who did not create a proof and is not a reviewer will view a proof. A "Workfront" stage is automatically created with that user added to it. The user has to remove that stage or else they will begin to receive emails and notifications related to that proof which results in unnecessary and irrelevant emails and notifications. They cannot turn those notifications off because they need to receive them for proofs they are actually on.We need a way to disable the automatic creation of the "Workfront" proof when a user not on the proof views it.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: AEM Core components should have common and generic features, including accessibility. It appears that ARIA Attributes are not implemented in AEM Core ComponentsTeaser ComponentLooking at AEM's teaser component documentation, which showcases screenshots from author, the only accessibility field Adobe have is for the "alt" property.• Teaser Component (https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-manager-core-components/using/wcm-components/teaser)When I look at Adobe example output (the Markup tabs under each section) and look at the sections with anchor links, I do not see any ARIA attributes either.• AEM Core Components - Example Output - Teaser Component (https://aemcomponents.dev/content/core-components-examples/library/core-content/teaser.html)Button ComponentOn the other hand, looking at AEM's button component documentation, Adobe DO provide an aria-label field for authoring.• Button Component (https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-manager-core-components/using/wcm-components/button)When I look at Adobe example output and look at the anchor links here, I still do not see any ARIA attributes.• AEM Core Components - Example Output - Button Component (https://aemcomponents.dev/content/core-components-examples/library/core-content/button.html)My ConclusionI think that AEM put in the ARIA support for the button as a way to resolve common accessibility issues with HTML buttons, but Adobe has no broader solution for accessibility.I am requesting Adobe to add properties required for Accessibility to the AEM Core Components Use-case: Accessibility Current/Experienced Behavior: No capability to add ARIA Improved/Expected Behavior: Able to author ARIA label Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS Customer-name/Organization name: Lexmark, a Xerox Subsidiary Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
There is a Seed List feature in AJO when it comes to use of Seed Lists, but that needs to be further developed. Today the Seed List is configured on the email surface. That means that you cant decide if you want to use it or not, when the surface is used. F ex if you have a marketing surface and you use that surface for "all" your emails, like onboarding, sales and Newsletters. Whatever you are sending with that surface is using the Seed List even it is wanted or not. A use case is it Customer service wants to know what has been sent out in a mass sending, like a Newsletter. Then the Seed List works great. But it you then use the same surface for your onboarding activities, customer service gets a copy of each and every single email that runs through the onboarding prosses. Our ideas is if you can decide from the email node configuration if you want to use a Seed List or not. And if you also could select from a list over different Seed Lists, who you wanted to use, this would be great. Then you have the option if you want to use a Seed List for this specific email or not, regardless of surface, and you could also use different list for different emails, in the same Journey.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enhance the Content Fragment Models (CFM) console to support folder navigation and organization of models within nested folder structures. Use-case: Authors and developers often need to organize multiple Content Fragment Models logically (e.g., by business domain, content type, or project) under nested folders within the configuration structure. Supporting folder navigation in the CFM console would help teams manage large sets of models more efficiently and maintain a cleaner, more intuitive structure aligned with their business taxonomy. Current/Experienced Behavior: Although it is possible to create nested folders for models using CRXDE or the repository directly, the CFM console UI currently displays only the models located within the root configuration folder. Users cannot navigate into subfolders, which results in all models being listed together without hierarchical grouping. Improved/Expected Behavior: The Content Fragment Models console should allow navigation through nested folder structures under the configuration path. This enhancement would let users browse, create, and manage models within organized subfolders, improving model discoverability and aligning with how other AEM consoles (like Assets or Sites) handle hierarchical structures. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Reproducible on AEM 6.5 and AEMasCS Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - The derived fields UI to grab and persist a URL query parameter, for instance UTM parameters like "utm_source", "utm_medium", etc. seems rather counterintuitive, at least I have not managed to set it up successfully to assign a utm_source grabbed on pageA to pageB. Which functions to use is a little unclear, and setting the persistence does not seem to work as expected. From what I have read, you will somehow need to check if the query param is set on pageB and if not, return the previous value? It would be amazing if a working approach could somehow be baked into CJA derived fields function templates and call it something like "Get and persist query parameter" or whatever. Why is this feature important to you - The UI should be as simple as possible and self explanatory. If there are multiple steps needed to come to a result, it would help to provide guidance or a template to avoid making "beginner" mistakes. How would you like the feature to work - Add a function template to derived fields Current Behaviour - Derived field documentation is still sparse, persistence settings seem to not be working as expected, order of steps to achieve something as basic as storing a value across multiple page views is not clear.
Resumen de la solicitud de mejora de funciones (RFE): Currently, AEM’s XSSProtection configuration (/libs/cq/xssprotection/config.xml) does not allow several accessibility-related attributes such as aria-label, aria-hidden, role, and tabindex.We propose including these attributes by default in the configuration to improve accessibility support and reduce the need for overlays or custom configurations. Caso de uso: Developers using HTL expressions like: ${property @ context='html'} cannot render accessibility attributes defined in component properties, since they are filtered by the XSSProtection mechanism. This limits the ability to build fully accessible components following WCAG and ARIA standards. Comportamiento actual/experimentado: When rendering properties that contain ARIA or accessibility-related attributes, these attributes are removed by XSSProtection because they are not listed in config.xml. The only current workaround is to overlay /libs/cq/xssprotection/config.xml into /apps, which may cause maintenance issues with future updates. Comportamiento mejorado/esperado: AEM should include the attributes aria-label, aria-hidden, role, and tabindex (and potentially other accessibility-related attributes) in the default XSSProtection configuration, allowing them to be safely rendered through HTL without requiring overlay. Detalles del entorno (versión de AEM, Service Pack y cualquier otra especificación, si corresponde): AEM as a Cloud Service Issue reproducible in both Author and Publish environments. Core Components and custom components affected. Nombre del cliente o de la organización: TELEFONICA ESPANA Captura de pantalla (si corresponde): N/A Paquete de código (si corresponde) Not required – issue reproducible with any component rendering an HTL property with @2941342='html' containing ARIA attributes.
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.
