Product ideas | Community
Skip to main content

Filter by idea status

10000+ Ideas

bjoern__koth
bjoern__kothNew Participant

Web SDK - Simplify and fix Cookie Consent HandlingNew

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.

ashah123New Participant

Interacting Aging Bucket CheckNew

Hi Team, I’m currently working on a requirement related to interaction aging buckets. The idea is to categorize leads based on their most recent engagement in Marketo and assign them to corresponding buckets. I’ve created a text field for the interaction bucket, which I’ll start populating once the full solution is ready. To determine the appropriate bucket for each lead, I’m using the Marketo activity log to track opens and clicks. This helps us identify the least engaged leads and allows us to tailor specific campaigns or strategies for them. For context, we also have a custom rule that marks a lead as ineligible if they haven’t engaged for over 18 months. By implementing these buckets, we can be more mindful of engagement levels and run targeted re-engagement strategies. Below are the bucket ranges we’ve defined:My question here is :For example, in the 121–150 day bucket, I’m seeing leads who have interacted in the last 30 days, which is causing confusion.I’ve created the buckets as per the below screenshot, and they work fine in some scenarios and not all.I suspect the issue could be something related to contacts with multiple opens/clicks.Currently, I’m using “opened AND not opened” conditions within the bucket, but it seems some leads are still being included incorrectly.My goal is to only include leads whose interactions fall strictly within the bucket’s date range , so that we could categorize them in those bucket , lets say ..if they multiple opens then last open should be considered so have those buckets updated based on last interaction.Could you advise what adjustments are needed to achieve this? Do let me know in case of anythingRegards,Akshat 

sebastiendesautel
sebastiendesautelNew Participant

Issue with Time-off over time zoneNew

Hello,I would like to propose one improvement in the time-off concept over time zone.Currently, there is this issue that a whole day off entered by someone in a given time zone will be visible as 2 days off in another time zone. This gives a false information to other colleagues and this also prevent a correct planing with the resource manager. See also these posts describing the same problem:https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/workfront-ideas/time-off-not-dependent-on-time-zone-entered-viewed-in/idc-p/530272#M11903@francesdurhamevans , @yvonnemi2 https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/workfront-ideas/all-day-time-off-should-not-be-affected-by-time-zone-on-schedule/idi-p/523616@david_bray https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/workfront-ideas/time-off-settings-with-team-members-in-different-time-zones/idi-p/523728@leigh-annd37734 https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/workfront-ideas/time-off-consistent-viewing-of-time-off-across-different/idc-p/528950#M10581@arig48607165 , @ericava , @gbadad  I've been playing with the entry of time off and noticed the following:1. ticking the day off checkbox causes a lot of problem as described above and in the different posts.2. entering just one hour time off, for example between 11:00 and 12:00 for a given day, will be processed correctly, the resource manager even considering it as only one hour in the day and being able to consider the rest of the day work. That's a good behavior.3. entering 12 hours time off between 0:00 and 12:00 is quite funny because it will be shown in the time zone "after" from 23:00 to 11:00 the same day (back in time!). I've understood that the concept of the current implementation is to consider the real time in the different time zone, which is fair enough to me, but even considering that, it's not working correctly. The function has not been developed properly.So please fix this: when a user checks the "all day off" checkbox, Workfront should consider the corresponding time only, from 0:00 to 23:59 that given day. In the time zone "after" (+1), Workfront would have to display the 24 hours off like a time off from 23:00 (day before) to 22:59. That is 2 partial days off and by no means 2 days off = 48 hours.This solution would not be much better in the calendar (except the color of the time off showing partial time off instead of full day off) but at least, the resource manager will be able to evaluate correctly when a job can be delivered.The day off check box state must never be used for any time zone difference calculation, but only in the frontend to facilitate the entry of full days off.I suspect this fix can be down without reconsidering the whole concept and hope you can at least evaluate it and share your feedback. Thank youSébastien

NagaprabhuKNew Participant

REST API EnhancementsNew

The following are the REST API Enhancements we as a user are expecting to see it in near future. - Asset creator details to be included in the API (Email, Files, Campaigns etc.,)- Flow ID is returned in campaign API, however there is no endpoint to utilize and get the flow details- SmartList Cloning option is there, however there is no SmartList Update option (PUT method for updating the rules/criteria/conditions) via API. Likewise for Files, images can be created via API but there isn't an API option to update (PUT method) it. How come your product team ended up with just providing endpoints for reading and updating the meta data? Why should a development team in a company should create lines of code just to update a file name. I completely don't understand. - Final member count in a smartlist is not able to be pulled via API, again I'm not sure why this not considered as a meta information.- Worst pagination technique followed for returning records. While trying to pull the Activities (form submission alone) your document clearly states 300 records will be pulled in one single call. Whereas in reality just for 26 records, 10+ calls were used by Marketo API moreResults is set to true but the response will not have any result. What kind of logic is this and the worst part is when we raised a support request they simply said "it's a usual behavior" - I don't understand what kind of behavior is this.- API users are counted under users limit - with that of all these limitations I'm not sure why they are counted. It is atleast considerable to a certain extent for counting the license for users with UI access. Why API users? I'm a developer and I have noticed such things, when I speak with Marketing team they are giving even more such list. Very Strange tool. 

Marcella-Mae
Marcella-MaeNew Participant

Batch editing and saving assets with varying meta data in one stepInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: When bulk editing assets after selecting multiple assets and opening the details, the interface should allow for editing meta data individually as well as in bulk.    Use-case: When uploading multiple files it is often necessary to create individual as well as group metaproperties. With the suggested feature, one can do this is one single step instead of opening and editing all files individually.   Current/Experienced Behavior: 1) Selecting multiple assets 2) opening details 3) editing common meta data, e.g. attaching a meta property, tag, description etc to ALL files at once 4) when saving ONLY the common attributes applied to all assets are saved   Improved/Expected Behavior: 1) Selecting multiple assets 2) opening details 3) editing common meta data, e.g. attaching a meta property, tag, description etc to ALL files at once while all are selected 4) selecting only certain desired assets individually (in the same view) and editing individual meta data like titles, tags etc. 5) When saving, individual as well as shared meta data is saved into the assets. See Bynder DAM solution "batch editing" for comparison: Edit Assets in Asset Bank – Bynder Support.   Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Assets   Customer-name/Organization name: Customer-name/Organization name: HBK   Screenshot (if applicable):     Code package (if applicable):