Build better products with our product team
Since the prehistory... In Adobe Analytics the possibility of sorting by dimension is something impossible.Now we have workspace and I really dream to have it.In freeform table we can sort by value we have in columns but not by value we have in rows. Please let's make it !! There are tons of reason why we need it. Try to think about a report where I'd like to have data sorted by Category of products, Zip codes, Order Id, Attributes of product...
Description - Ability to create segment based on calculated metrics Why is this feature important to you - Sometimes a calculated metrics need to be used to get a more accurate segment How would you like the feature to work - In my case, I created a metrics of revenue with tax, which added 2 existing metrics of revenue and tax. I then would like to create a segment of visits that meet a threshold of the calculated metrics. Current Behaviour - Calculated metrics cannot be used in segment creation.
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
Description - Our client wants that whenever a task is created then the plan start time should be start of the schedule. Example 9 AM. Even if the project owner creates the task at 3 pm, still the task should take it as 9 am. Also, user in another region/timezone should also see the project start time as 9 amWhy is this feature important to you - Projects have fixed date and it should be completed within the planned date irrespective of time zone.How would you like the feature to work - If the project owner creates the task at 3 pm, still the task should take it as 9 am. Also, user in another region/timezone should also see the project start time as 9 amORCan we remove the time component from timeline calculation and consider only day/dateCurrent Behaviour - The task timelines keep changing as per timezone. Also, the start time of a task is picked up automatically from the project creation date and time or predecessors.
I would like to be able to export a kickstart of just one project. We have thousands of projects so when you export a "projects" kickstart it comes with ALL of the projects and is way to big to even be delivered.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: When using UI Extensibility for the Asset view, when using UI Extensibility on the Asset view, the current options are rather limited and does not allow to cover all cases. Particularly features like "download asset" are basically impossible to override, since the button exists within the toolbar but also outside in the top bar Use-case: Asset View extensibility should provide an extension point for the top bar (the button list in the top right ) . As an example of things that cannot be done right now is overriding the button for "download asset". It is possible to hide or override the behavior of the download button in browse view (since it appears in the quick actions and action bar), but that button also exists in the top bar in a place where no extension points exists, making overriding all cases impossible Current/Experienced Behavior: There is no possibility to extend or modify the action buttons at the top of the asset view (neither on browse or asset view) Improved/Expected Behavior: There should be a way to extend or modify the action buttons at the top of the asset view Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): N/A Customer-name/Organization name: Banking Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Allow custom headers with dynamic value for assets to be added from AEM (for example, set header in the filter). Use-case: Integration of 3rd party search solutions to index content for search, for example AddSearch, but can be extended to any use case when custom header is needed. In case of AddSearch, pages are indexed by adding HTML meta tag, but for the assets this approach is not feasible. To enable indexing for the assets, HTTP header needs to be added as described in https://www.addsearch.com/docs/indexing/defining-custom-fields/ . Value of the header is dynamically defined by application (for example contains document type and file name). Current/Experienced Behavior: HTTP Headers are not present in the response. Filter is triggered and solution works fine on the Local SDK (screenshot attached), displaying proper values both on publish and dispatcher. Header is removed when redirecting asset request towards binary bucket. Improved/Expected Behavior: Clients are able to define custom headers whitelist so header added from the AEM is present in the asset response. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service SDK version is not relevant Customer-name/Organization name: ASSA ABLOY Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add timeout configuration to the pipeline Use-case: Pipelines can take a long time to finish, and the only way to cancel them is to contact Adobe support. While this is perfectly valid in cases when something is not working properly in the pipeline itself, it would be good to have the possibility to cancel pipelines in case there is something wrong with the user code, and there is no need for Adobe intervention. Current/Experienced Behavior: Pipelines can take up to several hours to fail. Improved/Expected Behavior: The configuration for the pipeline timeout is explicitly defined value in minutes, or as a relative threshold compared to the average calculated time over 90 days (this value is already shown in the pipeline). Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service Customer-name/Organization name: Any Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Support confirmed that personal projects remain open even after a user has been deactivated. Additionally, not even an admin can change the status of a personal project, so it's stuck In Progress forever and ever. Why is this feature important to you - It's extra labor for me to filter out personal projects that should be dead. How would you like the feature to work - Upon user deactivation, automatically close personal projects, including the tasks and issues within. Also allow admins to close personal projects. Current Behaviour - Personal projects remain active in perpetuity and some reports will display data from personal projects unless you intentionally filter them. (Support recommended a couple filtering options as a workaround: Personal = False OR Project owner Is Active = True.)
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
Description -Why is this feature important to you - our team use both board function and project function to review and update tasks. so it is important to have same field in both functionHow would you like the feature to work - The tag field is available for task/card under board view.
Description - My teams Create all new requests as issues, Fusion converts to projects and performs other configuration tasks at this time. Starting a new project from the "My Projects" widget does not align with how our teams work.Why is this feature important to you - The ability to hide the function would allow us to use the MyProjects widget to help requestors see work at a glance. Having a "New" button causes confusion that we need to train around .How would you like the feature to work - Ability to configure the Homepage widgets to remove or hide the button.Current Behaviour - "New" button on homepage widgets cannot be altered.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: When any value in the therapeutic area is changed then i want to open the warning popup Use-case: If the user changes the value of TA in the ISI field then pop-up appears for "Changing the TA will move the CF to the directory of the newly selected TA" Current/Experienced Behavior: Only changed value is getting saved Improved/Expected Behavior: If the user changes the value of TA in the ISI field then pop-up appears for "Changing the TA will move the CF to the directory of the newly selected TA" Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): New rte , open any content fragment in the new rte Customer-name/Organization name: J&J Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): const getProperties = async () => { await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 100)); } return [ { fieldNameExp: "therapeuticArea" , onchange: (newValue) => { console.log("[Log] Therapeutic Area changed to:", newValue); } }, ]; };this console is not working . im using this in my extensionRegistration
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.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Content Hub Display Use-case: Current/Experienced Behavior: Content Hub Display Labels on Filters Improved/Expected Behavior: The filter list in Content Hub currently shows technical values instead of display labels. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Provide the ability to add custom validation to the OOTB fields created via the CF model editor. Use-case: We have the following use case: two multifields. If one contains X items, then the other one needs to contain X items, or the validation should fail and show an error message to the editor. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, custom validation can only be added for custom fields. However, we do not want to add custom fields, we only want to add custom validation to the existing OOTB fields. Improved/Expected Behavior: Add an extension point for developers to define custom validation using an Adobe IO plugin. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS 2024.10.18311.20241017T104455Z Customer-name/Organization name: Assa Abloy Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): No example documentation found in: https://developer.adobe.com/uix/docs/services/aem-cf-editor/api/
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Provide the ability to define which RTE plugins to show to editors Use-case: In different CF models using richtext, we do not want editors to have all RTE options available, and we want to limit them to only a few, like: bold, itand alic, bulleted list. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, all default RTE plugins are shown to editors, and we have an option to add custom plugins. Improved/Expected Behavior: Have an option to define which RTE plugins to show, define a subset. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS 2024.10.18311.20241017T104455Z Customer-name/Organization name: Assa Abloy Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): No example documentation found in: https://developer.adobe.com/uix/docs/services/aem-cf-editor/api/
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add the ability to select/pick a folder in the new CF editor Asset picker Use-case: In some CF models, our editors must pick a folder, not an asset. We have a logic in our web component to display all assets within that folder. Those assets may change over time, and we always display all of them; we do not want editors to pick assets 1 by 1. Current/Experienced Behavior: Editors can only pick assets, not folders. Improved/Expected Behavior: Editors should be able to pick both assets and folders. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS 2024.10.18311.20241017T104455Z Customer-name/Organization name: Assa Abloy Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add mimetype of svg files to DAMUtil.java as it is read only file. Use-case: Since it is an image mimetype, replace should happen between svg/png/jpeg etc. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently we are unable to replace a jpeg/png with svg as it is not treating it as image mimetype in Dynamic Media Improved/Expected Behavior: We should be able to replace. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): DEV/STAGE/PROD Customer-name/Organization name: Signify Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
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):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Scheduled content sets for content sync Use-case: We have more than 60 sites on our AEM instance (and growing). There are days where we use to create content packages to sync all these sites content from Prod to lower enviroments.We were very happy to see the feature "Content sets", which made sync easy. Now we have to manually run sets for the sync process every two weeks. Current/Experienced Behavior: Executing the Content sets manually Improved/Expected Behavior: Ability to schedule the executing of content sets Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Re-label the home icon with "Experience Hub" as this is exactly to which the editor is routed once he clicks on the icon. He is actually already in the Experience Manager itself - in this case the start page! Use-case: The newly introduced icon confuses our editors. For them the AEM start page is their entry point to maintain websites and they are in the Experience Manager - if they click on the icon they will routed to Experience Hub and not like the label tells them to Experience Manager. Current/Experienced Behavior: Label is totally misleading and conflicts with the indicator in the upper left corner which actually tells you that you are in Adobe Experience Manager already. If editor click on the icon they will end up on Experience Hub. Improved/Expected Behavior: The home icon should be correctly labeled with "Experience Hub" to make it clear to where the editor is routed, once he clicks on it! 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):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Adobe Assets currently provides limited reporting capabilities for shared links. Admins lack visibility into which assets within specific folders were shared, how often, and whether those links were engaged with, clicks or downloads. This feature request proposes an enhanced Share Link Report that allows folder level targeting and includes detailed engagement metrics. Use-case: As an admin, I want to: Identify which assets in a specific folder were selected and shared via link. See who created the share link. Track whether the link was clicked. Determine if the asset was downloaded via the share link. This visibility is crucial for understanding asset engagement, optimizing content strategy, and ensuring proper usage and compliance. Current/Experienced Behavior: The existing Share Link Report under Assets > Reports provides a basic overview of shared assets. It includes the asset name, the user who shared it, the share URL, the expiration date, and a “Shared” column that shows how many links have been generated historically for each asset. However, it lacks the ability to filter by folder or collection, and it does not provide engagement metrics such as link clicks or download activity. While downloads initiated via share links may appear in separate reports as being performed by an “anonymous” user, this data is not reliably linked back to the original share event, making it difficult to track asset level engagement. Improved/Expected Behavior: An enhanced Share Link Report should allow admins to filter results by folder or collection, making it easier to target specific sets of assets. It should also include timestamps for when share links were created, show how many times each link was clicked, and indicate whether the asset was downloaded via the link. Ideally, the report would correlate anonymous downloads with specific share links to provide a more complete picture of asset engagement. This consolidated view would empower admins to monitor asset performance, understand user behavior, and make informed decisions about content strategy and governance. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Walmart Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Content picker in the New CF Editor allows only browsing assets, not sites/pages. Use-case: Our CF models contain CTAs linking to pages. Current/Experienced Behavior: Editor needs to manually find and copy and paste the correct link to a page. Improved/Expected Behavior: Editors should be able to use Sites Content Picker pupup to select a page Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS 2025.8.22171.20250828T220440Z Customer-name/Organization name: Assa Abloy Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
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.
