Build better products with our product team
Description - Allow Admins the ability to hide widgets that are not used by your teams/organizationWhy is this feature important to you - This would allow users to only pick and use widgets that the admin would like them to have available. Also, this would make it easier for training purposes to not have to explain and reiterate to users to not use certain widget types. This would simplify the experience for users and the admin to manage.How would you like the feature to work - Allow option for the admin to hide certain widgets in the layout template settingsCurrent Behaviour - Does not exist; Users see all the widget types that are available
I am the Marketo Admin for our company. This support portal will not let me add myself to open cases or launch a chat. I have some urgent sync issues that need support. Please reply and add me so I can open future tickets. We have ended our service relationship with the 3rd party implementation partner. With as much as we pay for this platform, it should not be this hard to use or get support. Very frustrated.Liz P., VP of Marketing, Coastal Business Intermediaries DBA Agency Brokerage
Each time I create a graph, I take an extra step to remove the anomaly bubbles as we have very few reports/scenarios in which they apply or are helpful. Maybe 1%? I would be very, very grateful if there were a toggle somewhere to turn OFF anomaly detection by default. Or perhaps Adobe could explore turning them off for everyone and see if you get any complaints. 🙂 My company is in media, so our metrics fluctuate significantly based on content available -- NBA Games, Star Wars, etc. etc.@jenla5, pretty please 🙂
It would be helpful to add the ability to deactivate trigger campaigns in bulk. This would be outside of the traditional deactivation Marketo does after 6 months. Event programs are notorious for having multiple trigger smart campaigns and turning them off after an event in bulk would be very helpful. Additionally, it would be even more helpful if we could set a time limit for our triggers similar to batch campaigns. The same example for an event works here too. We could set the deactivation time for after the event when we know it should be turned off thus streamlining the automation. Trying to remember to turn off some triggers is not efficient and we waste time remembering and turning them off.
Description -Why is this feature important to you - So earlier we used Confluence JIRA for tracking our tasks. In it we had a dashboard with Calendar, our tasks, status of tasks chart in one dashboard. Calendar report feature addition in Canvas dashboard will give anyone a quick snapshot what's due in a month or a week really quick without checking the details of it. We as a team/ group, certainly missing this feature to be added in the Canvas Dashboard (which is customisable in terms of layout and resizing). Standard Dashboard though have the option to add calendar in it however, it's not customisable and resizable.How would you like the feature to work - We are able to add the Calendar Report in a Canvas Dashboard which has blobs (thick vertical bars of the tasks due on the particular day of a month - for e.g. say 5 tasks are due on 25 Sep'24 there must be 5 blobs, i.e., thick vertical line; say there is 1 task due on 28 Sep so one blob visible)Current Behaviour - Currently, calendar report we are able to add in the standard Dashboard, but it's not resizable which takes up the whole page, while Canvas Dashboard lack this feature of adding calendar report altogether. Adding this feature will be one of the milestones for Workfront for sure.
機能改善要求（RFE）概要： In the current UI, the sidebar cannot be expanded horizontally, preventing the full display of query names. I would like to have the ability to see the full list of query names, perhaps by allowing the sidebar to be expanded horizontally. 環境の詳細（AEM バージョン／サービスパック、もしあればその他の詳細）： AEM Release: 2024.7.17098.20240711T134106Z スクリーンショット（ある場合）
ISSUE: PROOF FUNCTIONALITY TAKES FILES OUT OF SOURCE FORMATWhen using the proofing functionality, anything besides a PDF (e.g., Word DOC, Figma FIG, Powerpoint PPT) all get converted to a PDF therefore losing the working file so the agency must continually take feedback from a PDF and go back to the source document (Word DOC, Powerpoint PPT, etc). and reincorporate the feedback, creating room for error and missed feedback versus accepting, declining changes etc. Conversations about the document are essentially happening outside of the working file when we use proofs, creating additional work for the agency team.This creates a scenario where the agency is Referencing to “printed” PDFs to manually cross-transfer comment input back into source document creating risk because the team is working in multiple filesImpact: High impact for all projects, high risk for errors, creating additional work for project management and creativeIdeal solve: documents uploaded as a proof would remain in their native source file format and could be downloaded and shared as such, removing the need for multiple versions of essentially the same document just in different formats
Description - Ability to update the project template association on a projectWhy is this feature important to you - We have built a lot of our content operations reporting based on the project template associate (asset type). How would you like the feature to work - We are currently working on a thought leadership piece that we initially thought was going to be a blog, so we leveraged out blog project template. The content has evolved and is now a full blown Viewpoint piece, which uses a different set of tasks to get to done. So, now the asset type on this piece will not appear correct in any of our content reports. Current Behaviour - We originally created this project: https://experience.adobe.com/#/@cgi/so:cgi-Production/workfront/project/66463d4f00258653b6af4b0d132cfb31/tasks originally using our Blog project template but it's now a Viewpoint. So, this Viewpoint (now) reports as a Blog, even though it's no longer a blog. We now have to create a new project and hope it doesn't cause confusion. I had opened a case on this and told there was no solution at the moment so that is why I'm submitting this as an idea: Case #00418861.
We would like to see an option that the whole project is read only after it's completed so new comments can't be left unless the project is reopened by an admin. We have had several users that go into a completed project and want to make changes so they leave a comment in the updates and/or on the proofs and just expect us to know they did that, without any tagging.
I have noticed that a "Rejection comment" field is available in the Hour schema, but at this time there is no way to add this comment through Workfront interface; this has been confirmed to me by a Workfront support representative. We can add the field in a view, but users have no way to enter information in it! In my company the ability to add a rejection comment is important for the timesheet/hour approval process, and now users are forced to add information to the hour description, mixing the rejection comment with the hour description entered by the hour owner, which is far from the ideal situation.It would be enough to add a textarea in the hour edit window, since it seems that the Workfront database already has the field available, so this should not be a very time-consuming feature to add.Thanks for your attention!Andrea Benfenati
Now that we can create custom objects, it would be very efficient to be able to create custom object flows through flow steps, exactly as we can do with tasks.For each custom object defined in the admin, we would need 3 flow steps:Create (would take all the fields as input)Update (would require the UID + the fields to be updated)Delete (would required the UID)The create/update could also be replaced with 1 upsert one.Obviously, if it's a SFDC custom objects, the fields available would have to be set through mapping.With regards to Marketo custom objects, all fields created in Marketo should be available to be set in the flow steps.All the fields of the custom objects could be set with tokens.Typical usage : I create a custom object : product interest, with a few fields (Time frame, quantities). I Create the same fields at lead level, that I use in a form. Once a lead fills out the form, I create a custom instance and populate the fields with the lead tokens.We should also be able to update them, though the same mechanism.-Greg
New possible duplicate records could be found by adding new fields or combination of fields in the "Duplicate Fields" filter.Besides the existing ones, we believe the following ones would help detect duplicates:1- Mobile Phone Number2- LinkedIn Profile URL3- Combination of First Name, Last Name and Company NameAnd we understand the level of complexity of doing so should be relatively low.
We would love the ability to limit smart assignments on tasks to only users who have Work/Plan licenses. All of our review/request users also pop up as suggestions, which clutters the smart assignments and sometimes leads to mistakes as the wrong person gets chosen easily. They often even pop up as the first and/or second option where Work/Plan users get pushed down the list. This would speed up time assigning tasks and minimize room for error in assigning an incorrect person. Thank you!
Current Behaviour -Presently, when sharing a proof, the proof appears as though it is coming from the user who shares it, as it inserts their email in the 'from' and 'reply-to' sections.How would you like the feature to work -We want better control over the headers and bodies of emails leaving Workfront proof, especially around the 'from' and 'reply-to' fields. This needs to allow us to use proof's email sharing as a 'no-reply' address.Why is this feature important to you -The current method of working increases administrative burden on our teams, as external users respond to the emails directly, rather than adding their comments to the proofs. It also limits who can share proofs with a client, as having non client facing users uploading/sharing proofs can cause confusion, especially if email replies are sent directly to them.
Hi Marketo Team, Currently the MSI package upgrade versions are not covered in the marketo release notes and no intemations are given to the markto admins to plan the MSI package upgrade. Admins have to keep checking the MSI package in the appexchange to plan the upgrade. It will be good if marketo publish the MSI release schedule dates and versions in advance to all the markto admins. Thanks,Santhosh. S
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Native AEM Assets Integration with Salsify Use-case: Push assets from AEM DAM to Salsify to syndicate content to retailers. Push assets from Salsify Current/Experienced Behavior: Manual push of assets from AEM DAM to Salsify, and from Salsify to AEM. Suppliers are providing product assets to SGWS via Salsify. Manually pushing that product content to AEM Dam. For other assets in AEM, manually pushing assets to Salsify via sFTP. Improved/Expected Behavior: 2-way API integration between Salsify and AEM to push assets to Salsify (based on publish status ideally, but configurable). AEM receives product assets based on status in Salsify. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Cloud Service Customer-name/Organization name: Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Within the existing Board design, the Intake column does not display the Due date of the Task or Issue on the face of the card until it is brought into a main column. Nor is that column sortable by any of the same options supported for the rest of the columns that have been created, even as a partial solution. This makes it a barrier to user adoption, as they have no way to understand what is being asked of them first without opening each card in the Intake column to find the information. Why is this feature important to you - For any team or individual trying to manage their workflow on a Board, the ability to quickly understand 'what is being asked for first'? is critical to the usability of the Boards. Without that easy visibility, teams may prioritize discussions about items that are not as time sensitive as something later in the list. For any team or individual with more than a handful of work requests, this is simply unrealistic to expect and they are switching back to old task and issue reports to manage their work.How would you like the feature to work - The 'Planned Due Date' field should display on the face of the Intake column cards exactly as it does in every other column. Clicking 'Sort By' should affect the Intake column exactly as it does every other column. Current Behavior - Field is not displayed, and Sort functionality does not affect the Intake column at all.
Description - Currently when viewing the blueprint page you are shown an "install" button and a "details" button. Upon first glance it appears as though this hasn't been downloaded to the system yet. The only way to find out that the Blueprint was installed is to click the "details" button which isn't intuitive for some end users. Why is this feature important to you - Users are requesting downloads of objects that have already been implemented and don't have a way to see that easily. This causes duplicate work for system administrators. How would you like the feature to work - Instead of "install", once it's installed change the button to something else or add a new button. Current Behaviour - have to click into details to see that it's been downloaded.
ISSUE: WF proofing functionality does not allow for a PPT document to be uploaded as a proof and both the slide and the speaker notes content be visible and commentableThis creates a scenario where the agency has to upload 2 versions of a PPTV1 - PPT simply as a document, not a proof, that is just for viewing the deck in full view and sizeV2 - PPT saved as a PDF in “Notes Version” with a thumbnail of the slide and speaker notes showingAll comments are requested to be put into the proof “notes version” for trackingImpact: High impact for all projects, high risk for errors, creating additional work for project management and creativeIdeal solve: A way to upload PPT as a proof that did not need to be converted to a “notes version” where both could be seen and commented on without a change in format
Description - Bubble data with similar data points in bubble charts overlay on each other, making it impossible to read the writings on the bubbles and distinguish between them in any way. Why is this feature important to you - users need to be able to read the informaiton shown on the charts. Otherwise the chart is of no use. How would you like the feature to work - I would like the writings of informaiton on the chart be readable clearly and if two items have similar/close data they be distinguishable on the chart, at least after clicking on the bubbles. Current Behaviour - It is impossible to read the bubble on the bubble chart; writing shows as many words written on top of each other and scratchy.
Description - Bubble Chart Reports Groupings that are custom statuses should show the custom status label(name) and not the system default one. Why is this feature important to you - Presenting different names for statuses creates confusion among report audiences. How would you like the feature to work - Chart Reports Groupings that are custom statuses should should show the custom status label(name) and not the system default one. Current Behaviour - Chart Reports Groupings that are custom statuses show the system default status name rather than the custom status name..
Hi Adobe Team / @amelia_waliany ,While reviewing the documentation for switching experiences in XT activity available at Experience Targeting Documentation, I noticed that the behaviour described for single-experience XT activities doesn't seem to work as expected. Specifically, the document mentions that "Visitors remain in an experience even if they cease to qualify for the audience that put them in that experience."To verify this, I conducted a POC, and the results were different from what is outlined in the documentation. I have recorded a step by step video demonstrating my findings, which I have given below for your review.Guideflow interactive demo Please let me know if I am doing something wrong here, or if the documentation might need to be updated. If the latter is the case, I kindly request that this point be corrected.Looking forward to your feedbacks.Best regards,Vaibhav Mathur
Right now, in order to unarchive an Archived activity users need to Edit the activity and hit Save and Close. This flow is counter intuitive because users not precisely intend to do a change in an Archived activity, they might just want to bring it back to Inactive status, and it requires more steps than actually needed to change the status. As users, we expect to easily choose one activity from the Activities List and click on the Unarchive button.
What is the current situation? I currently have the problem that redirectOffers are running in Activities on a page with the WebSDK (asynchronously via Adobe Launch / Data Collection). The preHiding snippet is also used. Yes, at the first alloy sendEvent the style with the id alloy-prehiding is removed accordingly. But this is unfavorable for redirect offers because the page may be displayed before the redirect takes place. To fix this, I have currently built this workaround. I make an alloy sendEvent in Launch. I also pass the desired data to AT. What is new now - is that I additionally check in the promise with .then whether has_schema(data, “personalization/redirect-item”) contains. If this is the case, I know that this is a redirect offer and insert an additional hiding. In this case, not the default document.body.style = “opacity: 0;” - but that I only use the cmp-container and page-wrapper style classes in my setup here. I also do not insert the id alloy-prehiding here. As this is a redirect - I am not adding a timeout here either (you can of course extend this accordingly). What should the feature do? My idea is - that I don't have to do this myself, but that the WebSDK itself checks whether a redirect-item is contained in the first alloy sendEvent call. Or at least the option that a checkbox with a field for custom CSS is available here, for example. Note: I am aware here that with a very slow connection - the problem is that the normal prehiding snippet is removed after 3 seconds anyway - before Launch has been executed if necessary. Example code how my current workaround is: var data = { '__adobe' : { 'target' : { … } } } alloy("sendEvent", { "data": data, "renderDecisions": true, "xdm": { … } } }).then((data) => { const is_redirect = has_schema(data, "personalization/redirect-item") if(is_redirect) { const style = document.createElement("style"); style.innerText = '.cmp-container, .page-wrapper { opacity: 0 !important; }'; document.head.appendChild(style); } })
ISSUE: PROOF DOWNLOAD/PRINT FUNCTIONALITY – FORMAT OF COMMENTSAgency Project Managers are the gate keepers of the feedback, ensure all feedback is in and actionable, then download to share with the creative and strategy teams for next stepsThe issue is that neither version available for download using the “print” function are ideal for feedback review – and we end up pulling both versions down and our creative & strategy teams manually toggle between both to transcribe feedback back into the source document. Below are the issues with the different formats:Proof > Print > Print as PDF: Challenging to read. Lengthy comments stack on top and it is hard to see final direction. Comment thread numbers are referenced in comments, but not visible in this view. When comments are not tagged to a specific spot they float. This version takes a significant amount of time to arrive in Outlook inbox and often causes delay.Proof > Print > Standard print (Green Button): Challenging to read. View of document is very small, hard to tell where the comment is tagged. Comments are grouped by thread numbers, but out of order of where they occur within the document.Impact: High impact for all projects, high risk for errors, additional work for project management and creative and strategyIdeal solve: documents uploaded as a proof would remain in their native source file format and could be downloaded and shared as such and comments are then in a live, actionable document format and not a locked PDF file format
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
