Product Communities

Description:We are requesting an enhancement to Workfront form field validation to better handle ligature-based special characters (such as ff, æ, fl and others). Currently, these characters can be entered into form fields without restriction, which creates downstream processing issues when the data is consumed by integrated systems or exported for further use. Current Behavior:Workfront does not validate or restrict entry of ligature-based special characters in form fields.These characters remain undetected until they cause issues in downstream processes (e.g., PDF conversions, integrations, or reporting).Requested Behavior:Workfront should include real-time validation logic that can automatically detect ligature-based special characters at the point of entry.Users should be prevented from proceeding to the next step until such characters are removed or replaced.Ideally, the system should display a clear error message indicating which field contains invalid characters.Business Imp

Description - Enable a module that can call another scenario directlyWhy is this feature important to you - This would enable a more modular design of our workflow by having common functionality in one scenario that can be called by other scenarios without having to duplicate the functionality across all of the scenarios.How would you like the feature to work - A simple module that provides the input of the scenario name to call and the inputs to pass.Current Behaviour - Have to code custom webhooks to call scenarios

Currently, Marketo forms are limited to single-page layouts. If we want to create a multi-step form (where users can complete one section, then click “Next” to proceed to another), it requires custom code or third-party tools.A native multi-step form feature would be really useful because:It improves user experience by reducing form fatigue. Instead of seeing a long list of fields at once, users can progress step by step.It often increases completion rates, since breaking questions into smaller chunks feels easier to complete.It makes it possible to collect more data without overwhelming prospects.It keeps the form design consistent and aligned with Marketo’s existing functionality, instead of relying on workarounds.I’d love to hear if others have faced the same challenge and whether this would be a valuable addition for you as well.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Versions must be created in AEM upon using Manage Publication. Use-case: Manage Publication is commonly used feature within AEM and versions not being created with Manage Publication can cause issues while restoring content. Current/Experienced Behavior: Versions are not created in AEM upon Manage Publication and versioning works only if Quick Publish option is used. Improved/Expected Behavior: Versions must be created in AEM upon using Manage Publication. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as Cloud Service latest release Customer-name/Organization name: Abbott Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

The new Workfront Planning module is great but we are starting to see that Workspaces will pile up if there isn't a mechanism to organize/filterThis feature would help users maintain and organize their spaces by either folder or filter structures and also allow for archive.  Currently there is only Workspaces I own and Workspaces I'm on.

Description - Like Jira, and other work tracking systems, Workfront is missing the ability to link projects and requests with an association (like related, parent, etc.)   Why is this feature important to you -  Our current process of taking requests in a workload and then grooming it. Then once groomed I need to open 1 or more new requests in 1 or multiple different request queues (Web Publishing, Analytics, AB tests, etc.). I want the ability to add these links to reports so I don't have to have a custom field to manually keep up to date with the associated field. How would you like the feature to work - I want a new section in the request details for Links. It would have a link with the ticket title.  If a request depends on a project then only show the project.  I would be able to categorize the link as related or give a parent/child relationship.  The ticket type (request/project) would be shown.  I could delete, modify, add links from

Description -  When editing a custom form, the moment I scroll down into the form, the name of the form goes away. Would like it to remain!Why is this feature important to you -  I have to scroll up constantly to validate I'm in the right form if I'm making changes across forms or working on multiple. How would you like the feature to work - It would be nice if the name header could stick so we can constantly see the name of the form just to be sure we're in the right form!Current Behavior - the title of the form scrolls up with the page. 

Description - It would be beneficial to have the ability to delete profile-enabled schemas, specifically in lower environments   Why is this feature important to you - Dev's that are 'learning' how to use AEP/RTCDP may incorrectly enabled schemas for profile, thus causing any type of schema clean-up efforts, unable to be completed.   How would you like the feature to work - The simple ability to remove enabled toggle, once tied dataset is removed from schema.   Current Behaviour - Unable to be currently done, verified this with adobe support that the ability was taken away due to issues.

Regulators and external stakeholders may impose requirements regarding the monitoring of functionality and data usage by internal employees. This includes tracking who accesses which data and what actions are performed with it. The objective is to enable the automatic detection of anomalies through monitoring tools.To achieve a form of automated monitoring and alerting, detailed logging must be implemented, and these logs must be accessible. Since this is currently not the case, I would like to propose implementing such logging. As an example, consider the level of detail captured in Adobe Analytics.

Hi there, I'd like to raise a feature request on AA/CJA segments & components. DescriptionI’d like to suggest a few improvements related to traceability and governance of key components in AA and CJA, specifically for segments, derived fields, and Data Views. Why is this feature important to youThese features would greatly enhance collaboration across teams, improve auditability, and enable safer and more transparent management of assets within Analytics. In environments with multiple users and frequent changes, it's essential to track who made what changes and when, and to be able to recover previous versions if needed. How would you like the feature to workSegment change history: Ability to view a log of changes for each segment, with the option to restore previous versions. Ideally, this could be enabled selectively for specific segments to avoid unnecessary data load.Author and last modifier for derived fields: Each derived field should display who created i

Description : When large values are shown as long strings of digits it slows comprehension and increases the chance of misreading. Replacing long zeros with readable units like 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 and 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 for counts and 𝗠𝗕 𝗚𝗕 𝗧𝗕 for data size will make licence pages clearer and faster to use. Why is this feature important to you :𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 ✅Teams must validate entitlements at a glance during renewals audits and governance checks. Human eyes scan better with semantic units like 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 and 𝗚𝗕 𝗧𝗕 rather than counting zeros. This reduces review time supports accurate decisions and improves confidence across stakeholders 📊 How would you like the feature to work :Display large counts using compact units 𝗸 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 with hover or tap to reveal the exact numberShow data size using 𝗠𝗕 𝗚𝗕 𝗧𝗕 and allow switching to bytes when neededP

Description - Option to Customize Template when Converting Issue from a Template (and when creating a Project from a Template)Why is this feature important to you -  This allows for flexibility on having more generic templates and minimizing the number of Templates to maintainHow would you like the feature to work - Just like it happens when a Template is attached after Project creationCurrent Behaviour - Customization only happens after project creation, but not during Project Creation from Template or Issue conversion 

Field Mapping between CRM (Salesforce) and Marketo currently remains in perpetuity, disabling the Marketo Admin's ability to remove (or merge) a field if it has ever been mapped to a Salesforce field.  A client of mine was just informed on a support call that this field mapping cannot be deleted from Field Mapping, and once a Salesforce field has been mapped it must remain.   Salesforce admins consistently over-permission fields to the Marketo Sync User, which creates incredible amounts of technical debt and sync backlog issues for Admins.  Our current solution is to get our Salesforce admins to remove Field Level Security (FLS) permissions from within Salesforce, which addresses only part of the problem.  However, we have no means in Marketo of removing the field association within Marketo Admin so that we can remove the technical debt (the field that was errantly created) on our side.   Please allow Marketo Admins, either via Support or via a UI mechanism, to

Some time ago, Adobe recommended using the “share with a friend” option, but this feature is no longer available:https://nation.marketo.com/t5/product-blogs/deprecation-of-forward-to-a-friend/ba-p/358045#:~:text=As%20of%20September%2029%2C%202025%2C%20the%20Forward%20to,been%20or%20will%20be%20sent%20using%20the%20token. We need a way to share emails with internal personnel for review before sending them out. Since we are working with the new email designer, we must avoid adding employees as additional contacts in Marketo, as these would count against our license.

Description:Introduce an option in Adobe Analytics Workspace filters (e.g., dropdown segments, panel filters) to enforce single selection only so users cannot apply more than one filter value at the same time. Why is this feature important to you:When users multi‑select from a dropdown filter or segment, some reports produce incorrect or misleading values. As an example, we use segments to isolate our Web and App experiences. However if a user selects both of these from a dropdown, they will get inaccurate values in the data set. Similarly, during gradual rollouts, mixing two experiences into one selection can lead the stakeholder to make decisions based on inaccurate values. A single‑selection restriction would ensure data integrity, especially in decision‑critical scenarios such as product rollouts. How would you like the feature to workAdd a setting to the filter/dropdown component in Workspace (e.g., a checkbox “Limit selection to one value”). When enabled, the filter beh

We’ve seen a sharp spike in unsubscribe rates in recent months. Unsubscribe logs show users being marked as unsubscribed across multiple emails (see image), with entries spaced just 5 minutes apart—this does not reflect actual user behavior. This issue began in June 2025, coinciding with the rollout of one-click unsubscribe by major email providers. It now inflates unsubscribe metrics, distorts performance data, and raises serious concerns about potential domain reputation impact. Other Marketo customers are reporting the same problem. This is more than noise in analytics—it’s a systemic issue that demands urgent investigation and resolution. 

Description - Datastreams are required to set access type to Mixed Authentication to allow unauthenticated requests from AEP web or mobile SDK https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-platform/datastreams/configure. My understanding is edge network validates ECID, environment id, org id and other non-cryptographic-secrets to ensure request is not bogus, but does not care where the request is coming from. Can we have the option for authenticated access type to protect our datastream from spoofing attacks?  Why is this feature important to you -Our organization has security requirement for this. Data passed from mobile SDK to datastream contains sensitive customer data, that if unprotected can expose notifications intended for our customers to unauthorized third parties, and possibly fraud activities. In my country, there are federal cybersecurity guidelines and laws that govern how we handle customer data. How would you like the feature to work -Hav

Description -Why is this feature important to you - When working with multiple user groups that have different roles, this feature will allow admins to restrict the custom form visibility based on sections that are relevant to a specific user group and not everyone. This will also help in restricting visibility of confidential information instead of creating new custom form for different user groups.  How would you like the feature to work - The feature should have the ability to adjust the visibility of a custom form section to only a specific group and not be visible to other users who have access to the custom form. For eg. A custom form has two sections, section A and section B and the custom for is shared with group A and B. With this feature, section A should not be visible for group B and section B should no be visible for group A.  Current Behaviour - There is no option to share a section and adjust the visibility for users on the custom form. 

Description -Fusion convertProject module currently does not maintain the same order of custom forms when converted from a template. How would you like the feature to work - By default, when the issues are converted to either projects, it will nice to have the order of the custom forms is same as the template that is used to convert to project.Current Behaviour - It currently does not maintain the same order

Description -Task / Project / Issue description field to have text editor / formatting options (Bold, Italics, Underline, add image etc) like Comments sectionWhy is this feature important to you - To create structured content, To improve readabilityHow would you like the feature to work - Similar to the Comments sectionCurrent Behaviour - Text with no formatting

Hi, we are using data warehouse exports.The Files that we are receiving a quite big -> in avg. 1GB on hourly basis. Our db don't support ZIP format (the same like Athena, Redshift, Snowflake etc.), so we need to convert the files first in GZIP. Since unzip large files consumes a lot of time & ressources,  we would like to submit an idea:- add the gzip compression format to the exports- split large files automatically (like in Data Feeds) into smaller chunks of gzip files. It's actually the same way Data Feeds currently exports the data. Cheers,Piotr  

DescriptionIn a scatter plot we usually have two metrics and one is usually the independent one and the other dependant. In a line chart we have the ability to add various trend lines. It would be great to have the ability to fit a linear regression line to the scatter plotWhy is this feature important to youThis would provide the ability to spot relationships and trends between two metrics and highlight value that are outliers, either way above or below the line. This data can greatly help drive business decisions. How would you like the feature to workAdd option under the viz configuration "cog" to turn linear regression line on or off

Description - When a "Read Only" viewer accesses a Proof, the system creates a new Stage with "No Deadline." This causes the Proof to be showng as having No Deadline in our Reporting.Why is this feature important to you - We need to be able to accurately track and report out on our Proofing.How would you like the feature to work - We would prefer that the New Stage not wipe out the Proof Deadline in Reporting.Current Behaviour - The current behavior is that the New Stage is listed with "No Deadline" and so then the Proof appears with "No Deadline" in our Reporting.

Workfront offers out-of-the-box integration with cloud storage providers like Box, Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive, and SharePoint. However, it does not natively integrate with Egnyte. Many of our clients rely on Egnyte for document management, and having native integration with Egnyte would greatly enhance productivity. Although Workfront supports ‘Custom Integrations,’ integrating with Egnyte currently requires purchasing a license for an Egnyte plugin. We request a feature enhancement to add native integration with Egnyte in Workfront, similar to the existing functionality for the other listed providers.

While being able to list out individual Program cost line items is a useful feature, it's limited by a few things: namely, the ability to only parse certain types of budget information based on information in the note. I would like to build a more robust approach for budget measurement and compliance in Marketo by providing a standardized set of custom fields that could provide more detail in budget analysis. While I would expect to have some of these as fully custom, I think others are widely applicable and may make sense to be in the core product. Some examples of these would include: - Spend Type: Categorizes the primary expense of the campaign (e.g., 'Media Spend', 'Agency Fees', 'Content Creation', 'Sponsorship'). This allows for a more granular analysis of where the budget is going and the ROI on different types of spend.- Budget Source / Team: Tracks which team's budget is funding the campaign (e.g., 'Corporate Marketing', 'Product Marketing', 'Fiel