Build better products with our product team
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.
It would be great to be able automatically un-sync a program from a SFDC campaign when the program is archived.
Description - only proof approvals are currently sorted by the deadline set within the my approvals widget. Confusion with users thinking there is not anything for them to approve because the urgent ones are sitting on the last page of the widgetWhy is this feature important to you - enable users to better manage their assigned approvals directly from the home pageHow would you like the feature to work - task and document approvals are sorted by the deadline that is set, enabling users to see the most urgent approval on the first page of the widgetCurrent Behaviour - document approvals appearing within the my approvals widget sorted by entry date
Description -Why is this feature important to you - in most cases UPSERT flag is required for a dataset. the option to enable upsert flag can be done only through API. it will be good if we have this option in UI.How would you like the feature to work - enabling UPSERT flag in UI as a toggle button.Current Behaviour - currently UPSERT flag can be enabled only through API.
Description - We would like a more intuitive way for requestors to clear out data in irrelevant form fields when they change their selections in a request form. Why is this feature important to you - We want to eliminate confusion for requestors and prevent errors in automated processes and reporting. Currently, our Fusion scenario triggers messages based on a calculated field, and retained data from previously selected options can cause false positives. Requestors often believe they’ve submitted the request correctly, unaware that hidden fields still contain outdated data. How would you like the feature to work - When a requestor unselects an option, any data entered in fields associated with that option’s conditional logic should be automatically cleared. This would ensure that only relevant data is retained and reduce the risk of errors caused by hidden, outdated inputs. Current Behaviour - Our request intake form uses extensive conditional logic. Occasionally, a requestor will change their selection mid-submission or copy a previous request and modify it. When they deselect an option, the associated fields are hidden—but the data within them remains. This retained data can interfere with calculated fields and downstream automation, leading to confusion and incorrect outputs. I refer to this issue as the “ghost of a previous deliverable.” Despite efforts to educate requestors, many find it unintuitive that hidden fields still retain data. I’ve attached a tutorial video I created a couple years ago to demonstrate this behavior.
Currently, Workfront calendars lack the "Run this report with the Access Rights of" setting that exists in Workfront Reports. Without this feature, every user must be granted access to every relevant project in order to view the calendar. It would be extremely beneficial if Workfront Calendars could adopt the same access rights as Reports. Calendars offer a more intuitive and visual way to communicate timelines compared to reports. For use cases like tracking launch dates across multiple teams and departments, calendars provide a clearer, more accessible view that supports better planning and coordination. Our department—and the company as a whole—heavily relies on Workfront calendars for their visual clarity and ease of use. We've built department-wide launch calendars to track email deployments and web production go-live dates. I spoke with a support representative today who confirmed that this feature previously existed. I recall this as well—it was a key reason we initially built out launch calendars. It's frustrating that the functionality has been removed, as it significantly limits the usability of calendars across teams. Can we explore bringing this feature back?
I would like the ability display a field solely on whether a previous fields was filled in. For eample I have a situation where I need to enter in up to 5 supplier names but only want the next supplier field to appear if the previous was entered.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Wildcard DV certificates and wildcard subdomains Use-case: For DEV and STAGE environments often a common publish domain is being used. As the default Adobe one (https://publish-pxxx-eyyy.adobeaemcloud.com/) does not allow subdomains the individual sites are addressed via subdomains of that common domain to have a similar setup as PROD (1 domain = 1 website). That allows even automatic mapping of content paths to sites without needing setup costs for additional sites. Current/Experienced Behavior: Cloud Manager does neither support wildcard domains in the domain settings (https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-manager-cloud-service/content/implementing/using-cloud-manager/custom-domain-names/introduction#usage-notes) nor does it allow wildcard DV Adobe-managed certificates. Therefore each subdomain requires - Configuration via the Domain - Domain verification via additional TXT record - Set up a dedicated DV manager certificate Although one could use a custom wildcard certificate right now, that needs to be OV/EV (too expensive for DEV/STAGE purposes) and also the management per subdomain still needs to be done manually. Improved/Expected Behavior: Allow wildcard domains so that the setup is only necessary once, instead of per sub domain. This requires:- Allow configuration of wildcard domains in Domain management - Allow Adobe managed DV certificates for wildcards (supported by Let's Encrypt with every ACMEv2 compatible client) - Adjust UI to allow mapping the wildcard certificates to the wildcard domain Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): n/a Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - the current Web SDK "set-consent" behaves a little unexpected in different situations, leading to unwanted results, whereas a the legacy Visitor ID service behaved differently. Examples: A) A new visitor denies cookies. With the Visitor ID service, you would've just denied the consent categories, mapped to the Adobe tools without having any whatsoever cookie written. With the Web SDK however, if you send a general "opt out" through the "set-consent" action, two things happen "kndctr" cookies are set (!) if the company has a RT-CDP license, a pseudonymous profile is created (correct me if am wrong!) with the consent preferences attached to it In my opinion, none of the two above make sense, and cookies written lead to potential legal problems. Now, I am a seasoned Launch developer and have a workaround that involves local storage and some other constructs to make sure the "set-consent" rule only triggers (and writes cookies and creates a profile), when it is needed. I am wondering what happened to the super simple approach with the old Adobe optIn API. Why is this feature important to you - ease of use, legal compliance and cost control. If I don't consent, why does the Edge network return cookies. And when I am a new visitor without consent, why create a profile? How would you like the feature to work - Web SDK should send a set-consent call if a user previously consented and changed his settings e.g., now opts out. a user gives consent to be tracked ("collect") Web SDK should NOT send a set-consent call if the user has never consented and rejected all consent categories, resp. the "collect" category Current Behaviour - opt out with cookies stored on client side and needed workaround in place to disable Adobe tools and functionalities that were automatically handled through the Visitor ID Service in the past.
Description - Apply attribution models to Data Warehouse exportsWhy is this feature important to you - So that we have an ability to automatically export approved data to vendors with the appropriate attribution in view.How would you like the feature to work - Be able to do attribution on metrics in Data Warehouse.Current Behaviour - You can only use Last Touch Channel as a dimension (with no ability to manipulate attribution window per report) and no metrics can be attributed.
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.
