Build better products with our product team
As much as I remind people to mark a decision on proofs, and even send a monthly reminder to anyone who has a pending proof with a link to a report where they can view them easily, our pending backlog continues to grow. WF needs some kind of functionality that either prevents a project from getting closed - this idea - or something that if a project goes to complete and there are pending proofs, any pending proofs change to a status of ‘later version approved.' The latter would be better, something automated. Or if a later version of a proof was marked approved, any prior versions that are pending change to a 'later version approved' status. Help!
Description - Our team is looking to have a view where we can see marketing channel overwrite capability in CJA similar to AA for initial adoption. We would love to be able to compare the overwrite with non-overwrite functionality so teams can leverage which view works best for them. Why is this feature important to you - Right now adoption will be harder due to the large discrepancies in some areas due to two different functionalities. How would you like the feature to work - It would have a way either through derived fields or a new feature to look at marketing channel overwrite or have the current marketing channel attribution in CJA. Current Behavior - Currently the channel overwrite is not available in CJA and creates discrepancies between both platforms.
The ability to mass add and delete tags on programs is needed in Marketo. Currently, the only option to change tags on programs is to enter each program manually and add or delete the relevant tags one by one. When a large number of programs have to be updated this business case becomes hours worth of manual labor.Use cases are as follows:Organization is beginning to use RCA/RCE reporting and wants tags to better sort and filter programs in various reports. Since this is the first time an urgent business need has come up to use tagging, many legacy and active programs exist that have to be mass updated with new tags created. We would like to add the correct tags to relevant programs en masse.A subset of programs no longer requires a specific tag, though the tag is still needed at an organizational level for use in other programs. We would like to remove the tag from the relevant programs en masse.Ideas to resolve:The ability to pull a report on programs to find particular subsets, export the list of program id's and any current tags, add the tags in Excel or similar in a new column, and import into Marketo.The ability to batch update using functionality similar to Smart Lists for leads.Thank you!
Right now, SQL code activities are very useful to clean data from the database or modify temporal tables generated in the workflow.But it would be nice to be able to create temporal tables that can be used in the workflow upstream:Right now, something like this causes an error, but I would like to be able to do that and generate a temporal table in the workflow that can be followed with other activities.This would be useful if you need to make complex queries and you want to make the workflow more efficient (not using a lot of activities). It would be useful for beginers in ACC that know a lot of SQL but not so much ACC. Thank you for reading.
Adobe Campaign, when tracking is enable in the delivery, places automatically the pixel tracking at the end of the email.This has been implement this way in order to avoid "false positive" when emails are scan by some specific anti-virus / spam filters...Unfortunately, today we have more & more client/webmail that are cutting off the email body if this one is too long:famous example: gmail cut it when HTML code reaches 102 kb... And we now have Orange in Europe that does it alsoDue to that, we are loosing a lot of open tracking logs if the email is too largeAC should then move the default open tracking pixel in the top of the email because the workarround is not suitable for a such product (having to create a typology rule that will add the link in the top of the delivery at start of the analysis) as you need someone with AC dev knowledge AND deliverability knowledge to put this in place for the business end usersSubject already dealt here in the past but as an E.R:Résolu : Move default tracking pixel - Adobe Experience League Community - 321282
Description - Allow block ordering/draggingWhy is this feature important to you - client request, UX experience, usability engineeringHow would you like the feature to work - with DCE, you can duplicate blocks, however, you cannot move the blocks up or down or drag them to desired location unless you modify the html source code.Current Behaviour - blocks cannot be moved or dragged. https://experienceleague.adobe.com/docs/campaign-classic/using/designing-content/editing-html-content/content-editor-interface.html?lang=en
Link to Video: https://ilos.video/OADIBV General STEPS: 1. Log in to your account 2. On any task log some hours for yesterday and tomorrow, leave today blank 3. Create an hour report -> set a filter on that task ID and Hour > Entry date between Yesterday and Tomorrow 4. In the Grouping switch to Matrix grouping -> set the grouping Row Groupings: Owner Name Column Groupings: Hour -> Entry Date (Grouped by Days). Make sure the "Show days with no results" is checked 5. Run the report and note that today is showing in the results with no data as expected 6. Edit the report and change the filter to be Between today and tomorrow or yesterday and today 7. Run the report and see that only the data for Tomorrow will show. The column for today won't show up
Description - We would like to be able to bulk assign tasks to teams in the Workload BalancerWhy is this feature important to you - We work agile and to assign tasks to teams in the same place we assign to individuals would be helpfulHow would you like the feature to work - Allow users to choose and individual or a team when using the Workload BalancerCurrent Behaviour - Can only assign individuals
Description - Allow for approval process tied to request queues to have an "exclude" feature/rule/filter for selected users whenever they make a submission to allow those requests to skip approval. Why is this feature important to you - Users set as an approver on an approval process for a request queue get notifications to approve their own requests and have to approve their own requests. These users don't want to be notified about their own submission, nor do they ant to have to approve their submissions. They would like to focus on the requests that other users are submitting to make sure those are valid rather than their own. How would you like the feature to work - Allow for more customization of approval processes to have an "exclude" feature/rule/filter that can be applied so that users who are set as the approvers aren't notified when they themselves make a submission and won't have to approve their own submission. Their submission would go through without needing to be approved because it's the approver making the submission. Current Behaviour - Users set as a approver for requests still have to approve their own requests that they submit. This sends them an unneeded notification and causes them to go in approver their own submission. They know they made a submission. They know the submission is valid. They would like for their submission to skip the approval process.
Description - Parent tasks can be moved to an iteration, but many times, this occurs unintentionally. The consequence is that all child tasks under the parent task has their iteration information updated, which could include finished tasks in a past iteration, which corrupts the past iterations. Preventing any parent task from being moved into an iteration (can be a Agile Team setting) and at minimum showing a warning dialog that a parent task is being moved to an iteration would be helpful to avoid this type of error. However, even a warning may not prevent accidental moving of a parent task. Why is this feature important to you - To reduce the potential for a user moving a parent task and all of the child tasks to a new iteration. When this happens, all past iterations for the moved tasks are impacted. How would you like the feature to work - Add a Team setting that are marked as Agile that determines if parent tasks and completed tasks can be moved to an iteration or not. Also show a CLEAR warning dialog that a parent task is selected to be moved to an iteration as well as a warning that completed tasks are also being moved. Current Behaviour - No rails to prevent a user from moving tasks to an iteration that should not be.
Description - AEP/Marketo Connector Good morning, Use Case: Vanguard Marketo instance has FAS, IIG and Canada Data. The requirement is to send division specific Marketo data to its aligned AEP sandbox. For example: - ABC Company XXX Marketo data to XXX AEP Sandbox. - ABC Company YYY Marketo data to YYY AEP Sandbox. - ABC Company ZZZ Marketo data to its own AEP sandbox. Data in Marketo Engage does have the following identifiers: - Person ID: 2021111 - First Name and Last Name: John Wayne - Email: wjDuke@hollywood.com - Person Source: Adobe Audience Sync- Person Partition: 02.XXX Account authentication happens at the Marketo Sandbox (Prod/Dev) Munchkin ID Level. The AEP Marketo Source Connector does not allow to filter the data based on division-specific partitions in Marketo. Data needs to be partitioned before it hits the CDP to avoid overload. Please open an enhancement request for Vanguard to add filters in the Marketo Connector to facilitate partition specific connection and alignment with relevant line of business specific Experience Platform Sandbox. Here is the AEP documentation for Marketo as a source – connector Enhancement request. https://experienceleague.adobe.com/docs/experience-platform/sources/connectors/adobe-applications/marketo/marketo.html?lang=en. Thanks - Mary Daniel
Description - with a PROD library URL, you can easily remove the .min.js extension to see the unminified library version, including every comment that was made, fully exposing all business logic.This should be disabled (on demand), or the unminified version should at least lie under a different ID Why is this feature important to you - exposing all business logic to the world is definitely not best practice How would you like the feature to work - have a checkbox that prevents the PROD unminified version of the library to be created in the asset cloud.Ideally, create a unique URL of the unminified version, that cannot be derived from the minified URL, yet to still be able to inspect this URL with external tools like the AEP Launch Inspector extension for Google Sheets. Current Behaviour - The unminified library, including all comments, is publically readable by removing the .min
Current Situation: In Marketo's default sync error reports, some errors display the Marketo ID but lack the Salesforce (SFDC) ID. This omission makes it challenging for users to quickly identify and resolve sync issues, as they must manually search for records using the Marketo ID and then navigate to the corresponding SFDC record.Proposed Enhancements:Add Marketo ID as a Displayable Field: Include the Marketo ID as a selectable field in the sync error report view. This addition would allow users to easily view the Marketo ID alongside other error details, providing a direct reference point for troubleshooting.Include SFDC ID in Sync Error Report: Enhance the sync error report to include the SFDC ID for records encountering sync errors. By displaying both Marketo and SFDC IDs in the report, users can quickly correlate issues between Marketo and Salesforce without the need for manual cross-referencing.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: As a DAM Asset Report user, when I try to create a "Download" asset report, I should be able to see a default "Downloaded by" option in the default column. Use-case: User should be able to generate a report of the assets in a given path, associated with the users list who have downloaded those assets, in a column Current/Experienced Behavior: There is no option to know about the users who have downloaded the assets in author environment. However, the feature is present in Brand portal Improved/Expected Behavior: "Downloaded by" column should be available while creating "Asset Report" of "Download" type Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5.4 with planned upgrade to 6.5.7 by installing the service pack Customer-name/Organization name: Oxford Properties Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Auto-saving text box widget to house miscellaneous notes on the new homepage. There is a checklist widget but it is not necessarily transferable for the same use. Why is this feature important to you - Ability to track personal project notes in Workfront. How would you like the feature to work - Widget on new Workfront homepage. Current Behaviour - Currently keeping notes in separate application and toggling back and forth.
Description - Something similar to “My Tasks” widget on the new homepage but with the option to view tasks of more than one user. Why is this feature important to you - As a project manager, it would be useful to see upcoming tasks and deadlines, as I can for myself, of other members of my team all in one list. How would you like the feature to work - See description - homepage widget preferred with same functionality as "My Tasks" but with ability to filter by other users in the org. Current Behaviour - Currently need to log in and out of other users accounts to view upcoming tasks.
Currently it is not possible to delete a Report which you have created by copying from another Report (if you did not have Delete rights on that one). Often users copy from an existing Report and edit the way they need. So ultimately it is their Report. However, the system does not let them delete this own created Report. A Report created from scratch can be deleted by the user who has created it. The same should apply to copied Reports. The user who copied should be able to delete that Report copy.
DescriptionWorkload Balancer information is currently exposed via the ASSGN:workPerDate and TASK:workPerDate fields. These fields truncate at 1,000 entries, with no ability to investigate further into those due to how the API's pagination works at the parent object level (ASSGN/TASK). What is needed is the ability to pull the workPerDate information via a separate object that supports pagination (ideally via a cursor rather than an offset).Why is this feature important to youWe bring Workfront information into Snowflake and link it to data from other systems, such as Salesforce, NetSuite, Workday, etc. Workload Balancer is an incredibly powerful tool that helps our project managers, and we need the per-resource/per-day assignment information in order to ensure our systems are synchronized properly for reporting purposes. Without exposing this information via a proper API object, there is no way to ensure information is accurate and not truncated.How would you like the feature to workMake the workPerDate more of a collection of a proper object, with that collection associated with an ASSGN and TASK, perhaps called something like "WORKITEM" or "WRKITM". An example of the object structure could be:IDobjCodecreationDate (date the object was first created)workDate (date the object references for the work to be done)lastUpdated (timestamp)lastUpdatedBy (user ID)parentObjCodeparentObjIDhoursSince these work items can change frequently, offset-based pagination ($$LIMIT/$$FIRST) really doesn't allow for pulling of all this information in a reasonable way. As such, it would be best to use cursor-based pagination so that repeated API calls to pull a set of information doesn't cause "gaps" -- that is, the paginated API has a "transactional" nature to it.Current BehaviourSee the ASSGN:workPerDate and TASK:workPerDate fields. The main issue is around pagination, with those fields each truncating at 1,000 entries max.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Interface to understand and manage permissions Use-case: It became very tough for the users to understand or manage the permissions in AEMasCS and was at least easy with legacy UI admin in AMS. Specially when it comes to fixing the access issues for authors and other business groups it's taking too much of time to go over the rules. Current/Experienced Behavior: Difficult to manage permissions. Improved/Expected Behavior: Easy to manage permissions. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMasCS Customer-name/Organization name: Bread financial Screenshot (if applicable): NA Code package (if applicable): NA
Description - See schedule exceptions when looking at a user's (or your own) time off calendarWhy is this feature important to you - It's confusing to users that they don't see our scheduled holidays when the look at their time off calendarHow would you like the feature to work - Days that are on the schedule as exceptions are also blocked out on users Time off calendars, perhaps in a different color than time offCurrent Behaviour - Both calendars live independently of each other, and as far as I can tell there is no way to see them in one place
Description - If an update / a comment is created using the checkbox Private to my company and a user is tagged, who is not assigned to the originators company, this user gets notified on this update. The user will also be able to read the update / note text in the notification email / notifications, but he/she is not able to see the update in the UI.This can be very confusion for the originator of the comment / update as well as the tagged user.Why is this feature important to you - To avoid any misunderstandings.How would you like the feature to work - There are multiple ways, how this could be handled.:- information in the update / comment editor, if the checkbox Private to my company is active and a person from a different company is tagged- denial of tagging users who are not assigned to the company as long as the checkbox is active- information in the update stream of tagged user, that there is an update, which was set to private- different functionality in the background -> User get's notified, but does not see the note text, or is able to ask the originator for permissions like it is possible on other objectsCurrent Behaviour - as described above
Description - right now, the Web SDK send event action shows a checkbox that can be selected to do a "collect" request and improve the overall data quality.It would be amazing if this could be based on an evaluated Data Element that can be leveraged to conditionally enable this feature (without going the way through the on before event send callback) Why is this feature important to you - Right now, the setting has to be done statically which is too rigid How would you like the feature to work - allow using a data element that evaluate to true/false to determine whether this feature shall be toggled Current Behaviour - "stupid" checkbox that has to be preconfigured
Description - View Project Schedule when Adding an Update from Quick ActionsWhy is this feature important to you - Being able to see the project schedule would make it easy on the project owner to send an update to those that are assigned to tasks. Our project owners are making revisions daily to their briefs and being able to see the schedule from this space would save them time from clicking into each brief to see who they need to send it to to make an update.How would you like the feature to work - Add a button in the "Add New Update" quick action pop up window to be able to see the schedule of tasksCurrent Behaviour - does not exist
If I have a PDF with comments in it, the comments are unable to be imported along with proof uploads. We often times receive files from our vendors or authors where they commented and we need to route the PDF and comments for internal review. It will be very helpful if the comments can be imported with the PDF during proof uploads.
Description - If an admin uses the Log in as function to login as a specific user, this action should not update the fields lastLoginDate and loginCount.Why is this feature important to you - We need a way to monitor, when a user really logged in to the system. Therefore the fields lastLoginDate and loginCount should be used. To test / double check specific system settings (e.g. object sharing) our admin team often uses the Log in as functionality. Unfortunately this updates the mentioned fields lastLoginDate and loginCount. As far as I found out, this update seems to only be done once a day. So, if you login as another user multiple times on the same day, the loginCount is not increased.How would you like the feature to work - As there is also an audit for login sessions under the endpoint AUDS, the fields in the USER entry should only be updated, if someone really logged into the account using the corresponding credentials.Current Behaviour - The fields lastLoginDate and loginCount are always updated, regardless of wether it was a "real" login or an impersonation by an admin.
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.
