Build better products with our product team
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.
Our PMs would like to have the ability to edit the Template field on a project. Sometimes they need to switch out the template that's used via the Attach Template feature (because they don't have permission to delete the project and re-create it with a new template); however, the project relationship doesn't reflect this. This causes inaccurate reporting in some cases - when the project duration is compared to the template duration, for example.
For most normal dimensions you can only generate dynamic columns for the top 5 items. 5 is a very small number (I needed 8 the other day and was stuck!) - is there any chance of increasing this? If there are performance worries, even a small increase to 10 or 20 would be very useful! The feature can be seen here: Dynamic Columns In Analysis Workspace Freeform Tables | Adobe Analytics - YouTube
To be able to export from the Updates TabWe are archiving projects, and this is one more piece of project informationTo Export in PDF format (landscape or portrait)Current there is no option.
Description -the document upload notification email to say what folder the document was uploaded to. It would be nice to see that the document was uploaded to the "internal review" folder (in our case) and the project status doesn't need to change without having to go into the job and look each time. Why is this feature important to you -This would save our traffic team a lot of time. We wouldn't need to go into the project only to see that there is no action required from us yet. How would you like the feature to work -the document upload notification email to say what folder the document was uploaded to. Current Behavior - The notification email just says a document was uploaded to the job. I have to go in to the job and click to several different screens to see what folder its in to know what action I need to take.
One of my biggest issues when it comes to coding landing pages/ emails is the white screen that plagues the Marketo Designer. It would be really cool to add the option to switch on "dark mode" to make coding easier as the black screen helps with coloring and finding/fixing errors. I'm not entirely sure if this already is a feature - but I haven't been able to find it and I think it would be an awesome asset to add for people who tend to code a lot and don't have the resources outside of Marketo. What do you guys think?
When developing email templates that work with both light and dark mode, using <picture> and <source> tags with a fallback <img> inside it is a clean way to set both light and dark mode images without having to assign the image a conditional media query show/hide via CSS. However, the TinyMCE editor today will strip this markup rather than allow it to be in editable areas. Can this please be updated to no longer have this behavior?
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: display number on assets in list view Use-case: to have an easy way to know how many asset we select Current/Experienced Behavior: today we have a clear view of the total amount of assets in list view, but if we need to select only 35 assets (because of limitation on other flows for ex) then it's quite complex to do Improved/Expected Behavior: if in each line we have the number of line, then it's easier to do the selection Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): display number on assets in list view Customer-name/Organization name: Louis Vuitton Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description Love the Company Folder and the ability to share a group of projects across your organization, but want to potentially share only relevant projects for users and / or want to hide non-relevant templates and folders? Current state, the Company Folder is an all-or-nothing holding ground for placing reports and enforcing automatic sharing privileges. However, there are situations where you want only a certain team or group of individuals (maybe even product profile) to access a certain folder or even see that folder. I'm proposing the idea of allowing users to create a "Shared Folder" that will let you set-up your own sharing permission that allows you to create a project and move to the folder and all members of the group will be able to access, but will not have to give carte blanche access to all members of your company. Why is this feature important to you I often have a team of core people I work with for certain projects or reporting focuses that allow for many reports to get created, or I have a list of 5-6 people who NEED to be shared a report, but it has to be reviewed and approved internally before it is shared out, and putting it into the company folder before it is ready is not an acceptable option. How would you like the feature to work Ideally, I would like the folder when selected on the landing page and the blue selection bar appears, it would have similar options to selecting a project, to "share", "rename", "pin", or "tag". And inside the "Share" menu, you could manage the permissions for the folder similar to the pop-up menu that exists for projects: "Edit Sharing Access" could be used for determining who has the ability control access permissions for the folder, "Edit Project Access" would allow users to determine who could edit the projects inside the folder or move projects inside the folder, and "View Project Only" would allow users to be added to the folder to view reporting, but unable to edit (perhaps great for executives or others who you want to give visibility without risking a report getting unintentionally modified). It could also be more complicated, and move to using product profiles if supporting this level of granularity inside the landing page wouldn't be possible, but the idea of allowing users to have folder permissions for storing their projects similar to the concept of Dropbox, Box, OneDrive shared folders is the core of the idea.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Possibility to schedule the production deployment via Cloudmanager for Blue/Green deployment type. Currently, this feature is not available for Blue/Green deployments via Cloudmanager Use-case: The deployments via cloud manager takes too long, and we also don't want to start this in the evening a day before as then it doesn't leave much time for the next day for the new Green instances. Green instances stay active only for 24 hours. With scheduled deployment capability, we will schedule this to run early morning before the working hours start so that we are ready for next steps when the working hours start. Current/Experienced Behavior: This capability is not present Improved/Expected Behavior: Scheduled Cloud manager deployment for Blue/Green deployment Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5, Cloudmanager Customer-name/Organization name: Eurowings Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
The recent calendar look/feel upgrade from May 2025 no longer allows multiple entries (more than 2) from displaying for each date. Instead, the user needs to click on the "more" option which appears on any date with more than 2 entries. The text is light grey, blends in with the background, and is easy to miss. It's causing confusion among our users who do not see their entry and are unaware of the "more" functionality. We would like the option in Setup to turn off "more" and simply display all the entries, which was the standard prior to the May 2025 update.
Description - Currently, when you share a document folder on a project template with a group / team / individual, or choose to not allow inherited permissions, when you create a project those same permissions set do not carry over. However, part of the purpose of templates is determining permissions to be on the created projects, so this setting not carrying over doesn't make sense...Why is this feature important to you - We need the ability to restrict access to certain document folders and should not have to do it on each project, but rather at the project template levelHow would you like the feature to work - Created projects should receive the same folder permissions set on the project templateCurrent Behaviour - Projects created from templates do not retain the same folder permissions set on the project template when created
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Do not open Page Properties in fullscreen Use-case: Users provide images in the page properties to be used by teasers, og:image, etc. Current/Experienced Behavior: In AEM page editor, when one opens the page properties, the dialog is opened full-screen. I.e. It covers the Asset selector on the left rail. This means a user cannot use the search, filter and drag&drop capabilities the asset dialog offers. If more than one page is to provided with the same image, a user has to open each page and browse to the asset individually. Improved/Expected Behavior: Keep the left editor rail visible and open the properties dialog in a modal lightbox or only covering the page. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS latest and AEM 6.5 Customer-name/Organization name: all Screenshot (if applicable): Desired behavior: Code package (if applicable):
DescriptionWe have dozens of Roles, and hundreds of Teams, Reports, and Dashboards. The only tool that is built into Workfront to help us document and govern these objects is the Description field. The absence of custom parameters on these objects is limiting in what and how we are able to document their usage.We would like to attach custom forms on these object types so we can spend less time tracking down all the people and places throughout our instance that are impacted by updates to these objects.This was enabled last year for other objects like Groups and Billing Records. The efficiencies gained by those enhancements should be further expanded to these additional object types. Why is this feature important to youIt is challenging to track and document governance-related details on these objects because we have only the description field to do so, and that field is exposed to all users. How would you like the feature to workFor Teams, Roles, Reports, and Dashboards, we would like to attach custom forms that we would design to help us in maintaining and governing those objects. Current BehaviourWe have only the Description field to add all details about these objects, so are constrained by space, format, and visibility to users.We have explored using Fusion to seed a collection of Projects and Tasks 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.
It would be nice to be able to programmatically access the QA URLs for a current running AB test. We run a small subset of front end tests in our CI pipeline and we need the tests to be deterministic. The way we do that now is manually retrieve the QA URL from the adobe target GUI. We'd like to have the test determine the experience without having to retrieve the QA URL manually. I have two suggestions:First: Add it to the existing `Get AB Activity by ID` Second: Create a new API to `Get AB Activity QA URLs by ID` Suggested response: "experiences": [ { "experienceLocalId": 0, "name": "Experience A", "visitorPercentage": 34, "qaUrl": "at_preview_token=g5xKOs9QjAl3KN%2BwvyAAmnWEFq%2Br1NJA9GWwjZnLpb4%3D&at_preview_index=1_1&at_preview_listed_activities_only=true&at_preview_evaluate_as_true_audience_ids=1100025", "offerLocations": [ { "locationLocalId": 0, "offerId": 395818 } ] }, { "experienceLocalId": 1, "name": "Experience B", "visitorPercentage": 33, "qaUrl": "at_preview_token=g5xKOs9QjAl3KN%2BwvyAAmnWEFq%2Br1NJA9GWwjZnLpb4%3D&at_preview_index=1_2&at_preview_listed_activities_only=true&at_preview_evaluate_as_true_audience_ids=1100025", "offerLocations": [ { "locationLocalId": 0, "offerId": 395819 } ] } ] If the qaUrl property is too verbose it can be broken up into its separate properties:at_preview_token, at_preview_index,at_preview_listed_activities_only,at_preview_evaluate_as_true_audience_ids
Description - It would be extremely helpful to have the ability to remove individuals from the Workload Balancer tab of a Workfront project once they are no longer assigned to any tasks. Why is this feature important to you -This creates unnecessary clutter and makes it harder to focus on the actual project team members who are actively contributing to the work. Having a way to automatically or manually remove unassigned users would streamline resource planning and ensure that only relevant team members are visible when reviewing project resourcing. How would you like the feature to work - View Description. Current Behaviour - Currently, even after reassigning a user's tasks to another user or job role, their name still appears in the Workload Balancer.
Description - We would like the ability to upload a structured document (e.g., Word, PDF, linked SharePoint file) to a Workfront object (like a tactic or project) and have Workfront’s AI extract key data points and populate designated custom form fields. This would streamline the setup of records that rely on structured metadata already captured in offline templates. Why is this feature important to you - This functionality would eliminate redundant manual entry and improve data consistency across Workfront objects. It is especially important for our marketing team, which uses Workfront tactics to manage a content inventory. Each tactic has structured metadata that already exists in a completed Word template. Currently, this information must be copied and pasted into custom form fields, which is time-consuming and error-prone. How would you like the feature to work -Allow users to upload a structured document (e.g., .docx or .pdf) to a project, task, or tacticWorkfront AI parses the document and suggests values for mapped custom form fieldsAdmins can define mapping rules for which text fields in a document align to which custom form fieldsThe user reviews and accepts or edits the extracted field values before savingOptionally, allow mapping to vary by object type or custom form template Current Behaviour - Currently, documents can be uploaded or linked to Workfront objects, but there is no functionality to extract content from those documents and apply it to custom form fields. All structured data must be manually transcribed from the uploaded file into Workfront forms.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
