Build better products with our product team
Description - Proof Reporting is very limited and we are not able to create a proofing dashboard for our team that includes all required aspects.Why is this feature important to you - Our teams are not able to successfully see what is or isn't left to proof, the sync for the Proof Document report is not consistent and our teams are left with proofs on their dashboard that complete but they can't remove them (constantly clicking on them to review already completed proofs)How would you like the feature to work - Reporting needs enhance so you can join reports and not isolate it to one object. We have had to dance around this with Fusion and it is costing us time and money.Current Behaviour - Proof reporting is limited, inability to pull in additional objects into the reports.
Description - I'd like to address an issue with the current settings in Workfront Fusion regarding webhooks. Currently, webhooks have the capability to accept multiple executions simultaneously. However, it would be beneficial to have a setting where we can restrict webhooks to only accept one execution at a time, particularly for scenarios where duplicate records can be created.For example, in our "Watch for Record" module for Salesforce opportunities, the webhook triggers with each occurrence. While we have implemented a check to prevent duplication, the parallel execution of multiple instances can still result in duplicate records.It would be advantageous to have the ability to configure webhooks to accept only one execution at a time when necessary. This would help streamline processes and minimize the risk of duplicate data.Why is this feature important to you - Chances of duplication of records increases when run parallely at the same time.How would you like the feature to work - A setting that can be activated for webhooks to complete one execution at a timeCurrent Behaviour - Currently webhook accepts multiple execution at the same time.
It would be ever so useful if we were able to export whole dashboard in pdf. At the moment we are able to export single reports which makes our work harder. And we need to play about to get it in pdf through printing options. It would be so useful feature.
Description - Allow thumbnail to be shown in task list (on a project) for documents uploaded to a taskWhy is this feature important to you - Since Workfront is not supporting bulk editing, bulk approval, etc. on documents, we are using tasks to represent each document on a project. That way, we can bulk edit / approve documents. Each task has one document attached to it, the issue is that there is no option to allow thumbnail to be shown for documents uploaded to that task. How would you like the feature to work - Ideally, a document thumbnail would be available in a project view for tasks. E.g. on https://customer.my.workfront.com/project/XYZ123/tasks view the thumbnail would be available and a preview image of the document attached to that task would be shown. I assume that if there are multiple images uploaded on a document, just one random would be shown or none - that depend's on Adobe's ability to implement this function, but if there is just 1 document uploaded, it should work. Current Behaviour - Currently, we are using text mode to display the image but this is not working as the dynamic URL breaks. We have a custom field on a task custom form that is driving the URL of the image, but this breaks as the image URL is dynamic. The URL we are using is https://customer.my.workfront.com/internal/document/preview?versionID=6639ebfb0019bf6e33398b2cdc3054b1&ID=6639ebfb0019bf6d6cefa1ca70dbdc77 which should display the image, but this URL is resolved to https://wf-prod-customer-docs-emea.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ which breaks the image. For reference, here is a piece of text mode we are using to currently show the image via custom field (DE:Asset Preview URL) which has the image URL. This is unfortunately not working due to reasons described above. displayname=Asset Previewimage.name=Asset Preview (click for full size)image.valuefield=DE:Asset Preview URLlink.isnewwindow=truelink.url=DE:Asset Preview URLtextmode=truetype=imagevaluefield=Asset Preview URL
I work on the project coordination team (marketing operations) at my organization. We each schedule hundreds of projects per year for over 40 healthcare facilities worldwide. Something that users tend to struggle with is tagging someone directly when they send an update,EXAMPLE: " @ John Smith : New photos have been added to the client doc folder" etc. They can't seem to grasp how important it is to tag someone directly when you are requesting action from directing info to someone specifically. I feel like it would be really helpful if a reminder would pop up when you click on "send" - something like "You haven't tagged anyone in this conversation. Are you sure you want to continue?".
Hi guys,we are using the Workfront AEM Native Connector to link asset between Workfront and AEM.As soon as the Native Connector is in place and configured it is possible to configure a project template in the "Experience Manager" area to automatically create a linked folder as soon as the project template is used.This works well using the UI. The API / Fusion up to now ignores this feature even though a template is applied in the project creation command.It would be appreciated if the same behaviour given via UI would be available in the API / Fusion as well, as this is a process which is desired to automated.Thanks and have a good day,Christian
Description - Allow moving around tables and visualizations inside of panels Why is this feature important to you - The current auto-snap/-arranging of components is sometimes too limitingHow would you like the feature to work - Have a "snap to grid" or "auto arrange" default setting that can be disabledCurrent Behaviour - moving elements around will try to snap into place which hinders some layouts
"FTE" and "Work Time" fields on our user objects can be more than 2 decimals places (e.g: work time = 0.8108). However, standard user reporting will not display the full number, the best achieved is "0.81” as none of the available value format options achieve the desired result.This can be achieved in text mode by applying the format code "doubleAsString".It would be beneficial if the valueformat "doubleAsString" could applied to a field format option in standard mode to allow us to display full numerical values including all decimal places.
Description - AEP Permissions need better granularity added since there is only View and Manage. Create, Edit, and Deletion rights should all be segregated to prevent accidental deletions by limiting the people, roles, and groups that are given Delete rightsWhy is this feature important to you - We have had to recreate things several times in our new environment as people get used to the platform, but in order to do their jobs they need Create and Edit rights. They do not need Delete rights.How would you like the feature to work - Like any standard system granular rights settings are intended to workCurrent Behaviour - We can give people view or we can give them manage thereby giving them too much access.
Description - Today I learned from the Grant access to projects | Adobe Workfront article that you can create rules based on when a user of that Access Level creates a project. It would be amazing to have a comparable function for Tasks.Why is this feature important to you - When working with vendors that are represented by multiple users, it would be helpful to automate allowing all of users associated with that vendor to at least see what the rest of the vendor users are working on. Fusion can accomplish this, but the rest of us are stuck with either sharing by template configurations or individually by project. In our case, we "collect" vendor users by company, therefore we would like to give visibility to all projects the vendor touches by sharing projects to the company.How would you like the feature to work - In Access Levels settings, allow admins to create rules for Tasks along the lines of "When a user is assigned to a task, grant x access to their team/group/company."Current Behaviour - You can only add rules for projects. See community thread here.
There seems to be an irony to the fact that Adobe Analytics doesn't provide analytics on how Adobe Analytics is being used As an organisation we have massively bought in to using Workspace to drive the self-service of data/insight throughout our business.As a result we are centrally managing a large quantity of workspace projects, segments, dimensions, calculated metrics for a significant number of Analytics users.In order to manage these effectively with Workspace, we desperately need to be able to understand things such as:how many times are components actively used (e.g. Segment X has been used 200 time in the last 30 days to retrieve data)which workspace projects a given component is associated with (e.g. Segment X is used in project A, project B and project C)what projects a given analytics user is accessing (user X has access Project A ten times in the last 30 days)Please can you consider giving us a decent level on Analytics on the Analytics?
Allow projects to be colour coded statically (set once and stay that colour) in the Workload balancer. This would be set at the project level or alternatively an automated rule could be added to the Workload balancer looking at who the assigned project manager is and colour coding accordingly. Or colour code conditionally based on another parameter in the project (from core fields or custom form fields).This will allow for a quick visual way to view the spread of work across all people assigned to a project within the Workload balancer.Scenario 1: All project being managed by Person ‚ÄòA’ are blue and all project managed by Person ‚ÄòB’ are green. But all projects that have no project manager assigned are grey.-OR-Scenario 2: All projects in the portfolio of “Information Technology” are purple and all projects within the portfolio of “Marketing” are pink.
We were testing the new Environment Promotion Beta.It's a great now tool to bring data to another systemAs we have a 2nd PROD system for performance testing using a different domain, we would highly appreciate to use the new feature here as well. Unfortunately this is currently not possible crossdomain.Therefore we have to always manually or via Kickstarts move the data, on top of that we lose all IDs by this and have to adjust a lot. Overall there is quite some effort for this data migration, and crossdomain Environment Promotion would help here massively.We already created a support case related to this: Case #00399884
When trying to create a report filter, Rich Text fields do not show up as options to filter on. So for example if you have a rich text field called "Challenges", you can't set up a report that filters for projects where the Challenges field is not blank.
For all the "non developers" or people who do not have access to a web developer in their teamCan we have the option to exclude some web pages on a "global rule" for a form. For example, we get leads who provided their @gmail, @hotmail, @yahoo or another free email address to us at events or sales reps sneak them into Salesforce. We prefer to collect company email addresses for our company.We send the lead promotional emails, although when this lead wants to unsubscribe, the unsubscribe form won't accept their @gmail, @hotmail, @yahoo or another free email address. The lead can then say we are not conforming to GDPR rules or spam laws for their county, or they can make a complaint to our legal team.I want to exclude some forms from the global validation rule.OR if there is a solution that is native to Marketo (ie don't need a web developer to create a piece of code) please let me know!
Description - Once User Management is within Admin Console, all Users should be set-up here. However, currently the ability to add new Users will still be within Workfront. This creates a risk of profiles not being set-up properly and being out-of-sync with what is in Admin Console. There should be an ability to de-activate new user adds in WF (once moving to Admin Console) and instead, if someone navigates to the 'new user' section, it should show a note with a direct link indicating New User Management needs to be done in Admin Console. Why is this feature important to you - User management is core to product management & we do not want 2 different places for setting up users that could cause out-of-sync information. When a user is created in WF and automatically pushed to Admin Console, it pulls the users email name as their Username. This creates an Incorrect profile for our company in Admin Console, because our Admin Console user names need to be set up with SSO (Federated IDs) for users to have any product access. How would you like the feature to work - Ability for a System Admin to turn off the ability for others to Add Users via Workfront & instead are re-directed with a note to Admin Console for user management.
Description:We need be able to identify irregularities/defects in our ecommerce business (declines in web traffic/sales/conversion).Using Alerts (both daily and hourly) with segments applied helps our teams triage in root cause analysis and investigations.Some of our hourly alerts trigger frequently if the criteria are met, most often during hours of the day where a large portion of our website/app visitors and purchasers are not browsing or purchasing. Why is this feature important to youWe are receiving specific hourly alerts for certain use cases more often then we would like.We have leadership and other stakeholders that have requested to receive these alerts, but we do not want to add them to the distribution until we can control the frequency to exclude these known instances from firing. We want to prevent the integrity of the Alerts tool from being deemed inaccurate and irrelevant as a result of this. How we would like the feature to workWe would like to have a dropdown filter to select specific hours of the day to exclude the hourly alert from triggering for. Alternatively, if we can apply apply a segment that excludes specific hours of the day from being included that would work.With current behavior of applying a segment using either of the criteria below still yields triggering an alert during the 3AM, 4AM or 5AM hours of the day.Logic Option 1: Exclude Hit where Hour of Day = 3AM OR 4AM OR 5AM Logic Option 2: Include Hit where Hour of Day = 12AM OR 1AM OR 2AM OR 6AM OR 7AM OR 8AM OR 9AM OR 10AM OR 11AM OR 12PM OR 1PM OR 2PM OR 3PM OR 4PM OR 5PM OR 6PM OR 7PM OR 8PM OR 9PM OR 10PM OR 11PM
Hi All. I hope things are going well. I had an idea I was hoping you could consider. It seems that the OOTB functionality of the AEP data processing from a Web SDK implementation includes converting the user's IP address into the Designated Marketing Area Identifier (DMA ID). This identifier is part of the Web SDK Experience Event Field Group and again is provided by Adobe automatically, meaning this is NOT something we set or configure within the Web SDK itself (if you exclude "turning the feature on" within the Data stream and Web SDK extension). The values within this field look like numbers - for the US based visitors505, 506, 507, etc The problem with this field is it's data type. It's set up as an "integer" field, not a text string For example, ID = 505 is actually the Detroit MI area. but there is no 'DMA Name' field in AEP, just the DMA ID. So running a report in AEP Query Services or CJA and getting a 505 number is not helpful to our analysts. We need to translate the ID 505 into Detroit. The problem is since the field is set up as an integer we are not able to classify it. We've tried setting up an AEP Lookup Table, but you can not set up a Relationship between two dataset when you're dealing with 'integer' fields, the keys that connect tables together must be 'string' values. We tried converting the DMA ID integer into a String using the Data Prep Mapping Services, but it seems the DMA ID doesn't yet exist or isn't accessible by the Data Prep tools so those efforts also failed. We tired using CJA Lookup capability within Derived Fields and we after 4 business days can't seem to get our DMA Dataset connected to our CJA Connection... the tool just won't process the dataset because we can't set the DMA ID field as an 'identity field' because it's an integer data type. So our idea is:- to have Adobe add the DMA Name field to the field group and then update the DMA processing to also populate the DMA Name field automatically without the need for us to 'classify' the DMA ID- if that's not possible, we'd like Adobe to update the Web SDK Experience Event Field Group so that the DMA ID field data type is a 'string' instead of an 'integer'. - If that is not possible without impacting already existing customer who are using that Field Group, then we ask that you expose the DMA ID field to the Data Prep services so we can manually create a rule that will convert the integer field into a string field. - If that's not possible due to the way AEP processes data, then we ask that Adobe provide a solution to calculate the DMA within the Web SDK Extension or Adobe Data Collection Data Element so we can set our own custom field in our Schema to collect the DMA ID as a string value (so we can classify it within AEP / CJA) I hope that all made sense
I would like to be able to customize the label of a field on each form but keep the back end for reporting. Similar to how we can customize statuses per group but the 3 letter code can remain the same. We can then manage the same pick list and back end data but have the label (aka user facing) make sense to each group.
Description - Enable reviewers providing feedback on docs / proofs to be anonymous, so the feedback can be seen but not their name. Even though the feedback is anonymous, still want to be able to report on the specific users engagement (eg: User 1 reviewed 4 proofs) but the feedback they provided should be anonymous outside of System Admin level. Why is this feature important to you - We have certain processes (like DE&I) that require anonymity for feedback providers, in order to create a safe space for their feedback & increase comfortably with providing feedback. Since WF currently doesn't enable this, we are going to build their process flow in AirTable. We How would you like the feature to work - Be able to select if the feedback being provided should be anonymous or not. If yes, have it turned on for a full process/proofs. Still ensure the engagement can be tracked via reporting however for each user. Current Behaviour - Shows everyones name whose provided feedback.
Description - Create a way to pull or use data from Fusion operations."How many times has a scenario/module been run?""Can I use runID to track and check against operations in an integrated system?""Who is triggering the scenarios the most?""Did Fusion even exist before 30 days ago?" Why is this feature important to you? - This would help us optimize existing scenarios through usage data and build better solutions with integrated systems. How would you like the feature to work? - It would be great if it was as straightforward as Workfront's reporting, but no specific implementation requirements. Just having access to the data would be extremely helpful. Current Behaviour - We can manually check runs that have happened in the past 30 days. Checking this way is very manual and tedious at best, and only shows data from the specific run. Any sort of aggregate data would have to be manually tallied and synthesized.
Description - Allow PDF layer functionality to be available in ProofingWhy is this feature important to you - Users who go to the effort of incorporating layers into their PDF's don't want their final audience to not be able to use them.How would you like the feature to work - Retain more of the original PDF structure to allow layers throughCurrent Behaviour - Workfront flattens the PDF to view in proofing, thus removing the layer functionality.
Description -Why is this feature important to you - it was extremely beneficial to see the unassigned work on the same page as assigned work, this was allocation was much simpler to see who could take on work.How would you like the feature to work - just as it had beforeCurrent Behaviour - you're not able to review the team report for workload balancer for both unassigned work and assigned work. Unassigned work is not visible by job role.
Description - The ability for a workspace owner or editor to hide/unhide selected panels in workspace.Why is this feature important to you - Would allow me to condense what is visible for users that only requires a certain area of a template or workspace without outright removing panels. Would also allow for a space to workout a thought or a theory without muddying the report.How would you like the feature to work - Function should be the same as hidden tabs in excel Right click on a panel header to find the option to hide/unhide panels. Current Behavior - Panels can be minimized but anything you don't want shown needs to be in another report or deleted from the workspace.
Description - Have Workload Balancer free up hours for users if not usedWhy is this feature important to you – Right now if a user estimates 20 hour on a request, logs 5 hours and the request is either cancelled or completed, the user is still allocated for 20 hours even though 15 hours have freed up. Doing that over multiple requests could free up much time as estimated is always off some.How would you like the feature to work – If a user estimates 20 hours and logs 5 hours and the request is complete or cancelled, then the remaining 15 hours availability should be freed up for that user to be able to assign additional work.
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.
