Product Communities

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Improve the visibility logic of Manage Publication button Use-case: For a node, make the button of Manage Publication visible when the conditions are meeting crx:replicate + workflow users. Current/Experienced Behavior: 1. workflow-users are seeing Manage Publication functionality even if users don't have crx:replicate privilege.2. crx:replicate privilege is making both of Quick Publish and Manage Publication visible for a node. However, Quick Publish is working well, and Manage Publication requires additional permissions from workflow-users. Adding users into workflow-users group will cause another problem where users will see Manage Publication feature for the nodes which don't have crx:replicate privilege. It doesn't make sense because the publish access from workflow-users is extended to the nodes even only having jcr:read privilege. Improved/Expected Behavior: The visibility logic of Manage Publication button should be improv

Demande de résumé des améliorations des fonctionnalités (RFE) : Display metadata specific of 3D assets Cas d’utilisation : as we have for all images or videos we need also to know what is the identity of our 3D assets, and it will be easier to select the good asset between different "resolution" of assets Comportement actuel/expérimenté : no info today just preview Comportement amélioré/attendu : Display metadata specific of 3D assets (GLB, GLTF, FBX, 3DMAX, USDZ) : size, vertex number, number of textures, cherry on the cake : resolution of texture, to display for in the properties of the assets Informations sur l’environnement (version d’AEM / service pack, et autres informations spécifiques si applicables) : AEMaaCS Nom du client/de l’organisation : LOUIS VUITTON / Nathalie RIASSE Copie d’écran (si applicable) :   Package de code (si applicable) :  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: AEM Instance link should be provided in the access email Use-case: - A big team of authors when enabled with AEM access are expected to have all the information of AEM instances in the welcome email.  Current/Experienced Behavior: - When you provide AEM access to a user from admin console, user gets a welcome email. The link in the welcome email usually redirects user to https://experience.adobe.com/ instead of specific AEM instance to which the access is given.- Because of this user has to navigate to https://experience.adobe.com/  and have to find the link to the specific AEM to which he/she was given access to Improved/Expected Behavior: - When you provide AEM access to a user from admin console, user gets a welcome email. The link in the welcome email should redirect user to the AEM (https://author-pXXXX-eXXXX.adobeaemcloud.com/) instead of https://experience.adobe.com/ Environment Details (AEM

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Changed Page Order - Fix Publishing Process Use-case: The main navigation of your website is build by the order of the first level pages. Now, you want to change the order. To achieve that you change the order of the item in the Sites Console and publish the reordered item. Let's take the WKND example. Here the initial main navigation is: MAGAZINE | ADVENTURES | FAQs | ABOUT US. Now, we want to have ABOUT US entry at very first item, so we move position of the corresponding about-us document before magazine document and publish the about-us document.Pls see screenshots. Current/Experienced Behavior: The changed order is not present on the publisher, instead you still get the old order in the main navigation.To get this working you need to publish whole website content which is basically not possible in daily work as you have always some prepared pages (status = modified) which should not go online yet and of course you don't want

Description - Enable users the ability to edit Actual hours from a report or in bulkWhy is this feature important to you - Where tasks are repetitive, this would save a lot of time and effort, as users have to currently click into each project to log time or actual hours.How would you like the feature to work - Allow users the ability to edit actual hour totals from a report and in bulk.Current Behaviour - Users must click into each tasks to update actual hours by logging time  

Description - Can you add the "Can Start" column to the "Team Requests Widget"? Currently it's only on the "My Tasks" widget. It would be extremely helpful if you can add it to the "Team Requests" widget as well.Why is this feature important to you -  We're received this feedback from several different departments. It would make it easier for them to confirm that they can start working on their tasks. How would you like the feature to work - See aboveCurrent Behaviour - See above

The Time Off section in the user's profile allows a user to indicate which days they will be OOO. When a user deselects All Day to indicate a partial day off, the text Working Hours: appears above the Hour From/To fields. This is incorrect and confusing for the user. Should they indicate the hours that they will be out of the office, or the hours that they're working and available?  The correct answer is that they should input their hours out of office, but that's the exact opposite of what the text indicates.  We suggest that you change the text Working hours: to one of the following: - Hours Out of Office- Hours unavailable- Time out of Office ... or simply remove the text entirely, especially as the explanation <User Name> will be gone: is already at the top of the dialog box.  And so, some users correctly indicate their partial hours OOO, while others mistakenly indicate their working hours. Because of this confusion, our Resource

Can enhancements be made to the approval decision box. We use the approval process fairly frequently for items that are audited, and we need to retain the decisions and comments. I have a large number of users that approve or approve with changes and then hit the "X" to close out, not realizing the "X" is actually recording a Reject decision.  I am also having issues with people accidentally recalling their decision.  This is causing quite a few headaches as people are insisting they have approved their items and the system is wrong. I am then having to take the emails they send me and upload them as proof of their decisions. 

Description - Building content in Analysis Workspace can be challenging. We've all been in situations where someone asks for support (within our company, the Experience League, or other platforms like Measure Slack) when trying to build a Segment, Calculated Metric, or Analysis Workspace Project. Oftentimes, this then leads to length discussions of "drop this one slot below! No, not at the very bottom, above that! No, that's where you started! Let me give you a screenshot! No, don't drag it onto the screenshot! Argh!" and lots more screenshots, messages, and "can't we just hop on a quick call?" of 2 hours length. As a second scenario, agencies and consultants often want to easily bring content from one IMS Org to another one. Even admins within a company wish they could just quickly make changes like replacing all instances of a wrong Segment with the correct one in a Workspace Project. However, there is no quick way to do this today. Thirdly, enthusiasts like me tried building communi

Hi!The new commenting system allows users to edit their comments, however if this functionality is available, I find it necessary for us to have control over which users/licenses/roles/groups etc. can edit their comments. Let's assume that in your WF instance there is a legal/compliance-related workflow where conversations or updates carry high importance or sensitivity. Being able to edit a posted comment as you wish may cause confusion or disruption when a post containing vital information is suddenly changed - in such a situation it's better and safer just to post a new message to rectify the previous one. A big plus would also be an audit trail of edits made to comments.

Description - Companies are able to develop and release both private and public Extensions to Adobe Tags to provide new capabilities. However, the process of making an Extension available internally or externally is complicated to a point where companies and individual community members (me included) refrain from doing so. While the development can be complicated on its own due to the mandatory Node JS tool stack, releasing an Extension (even internally) is even more convoluted and requires work with the APIs, managing Adobe IO integrations, and certificates/keys. To help with that, I want to propose an extension to the web interface of Tags to allow easier Extension management. Why is this feature important to you - Because I would like to see a more active community around providing capabilities for Adobe Tags. How would you like the feature to work - In an Extension-development Property within Tags, provide new menu items to manage Extensions. Specifically, I can think of options f

I can't take credit for this idea. It was suggested ~2 years ago by @brendanjaffary It's desperately needed for clients who maintain large catalogs in Adobe Target. It was suggested to me to post this again so it's more recent.  Summary We need to have a feature that can mass delete entities based on a filter. I manage a catalog of over 400,000 entities so running a full catalog deletion is a huge impact to the business.  There is no real solution to manage your catalog as the comma delimited string for singular deletion requires the user to have a list of entityIDs to delete which they are not able to export from the catalog.In the documentation, it states that the more entities in your catalog, the longer your criteria’s will take to process.  I’ve also noticed that the larger my catalog is, the less accurate the recommendations are. Temporary SolutionThrough a recommendation of a forum user... once you filter your

Description - The new updates functionality allows the editing of comments. We would like sight of these edits to see the original and edited comment.Why is this feature important to you - This would ensure a complete audit trail when audits are carried out. How would you like the feature to work - Either within the updates section or in the audit logs we would like to see when edits were made and see the original and edited message side by side. Current Behaviour - Currently edits can be made and, although the comment will show it has been edited, we are unable to see what changes were made specifically. 

Description -Why is this feature important to you- ECID is the backbone of AEP, providing a way to consolidate all activity through to one "person". Through profile stitching, ECID is a great feature that we can use (and not have to re-invent the entire fingerprint / visit / user consolidation). How would you like the feature to work - Upon loading Launch.js library, ECID should already be resolved (via server side cookie? or available as a property within _satellite), so that ECID can be read immediately and incorporated into custom XDM for initial pageView / sendEvent -- so that downstream services can read custom XDM field. Current Behaviour- In order to obtain ECID, a separate and async request (alloy getIdentity) must be made, which causes a delay, which has an affect on Adobe Target "flicker" -- since we have to await ECID so that any Target Activities and/or other applications (AEP) that need ECID are gaurenteed to have ECID resolved and exposed in the XDM.- This gener

Workfront should create a login record for each time someone log's into WF System. This will help us determine how often people login and also help us debug cases where people are unable to login.

Description - I would like to print the entire report opened using the link generated by Share with Anyone feature. I am only able to print the current page and not able to print all the pages.Why is this feature important to you - It is important for the business users to share the prints of the reportHow would you like the feature to work - I would like to print all the pages of the report.Current Behaviour - Only the current page is being printed.

Description - For the A/B activities with 50/50 manual split using A4T and having a redirect offer is having a delay in showing correct split of traffic in the reports when data generated correctly in the backend.Why is this feature important to you - We need to know the traffic is being split correctly and activity is working as expected.How would you like the feature to work - Should be able to see the correct traffic split latest by a day.Current Behavior - Takes 4-5 days or weeklong for reports to show correct information.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Currently adidas is using user synch tool to synch the users from adidas Azure to Adobe Admin console. We are not able to synch the users with GUEST type (different domains) and forcing use to create adidas external accounts for 1000+ users. Enable the feature to support the synch from Azure to Admin console with EMAIL attribute for GUEST users.  Use-case: Azure to admin console synchronization for GUEST Type Users Current/Experienced Behavior: Its only possible to synch the users and groups from Azure to Admin Console for the fixed domains. Improved/Expected Behavior: It should be possible to synch the users from Azure to Admin console for guest accounts whose domains are dynamic (personal accounts and agenciens) and should be created as Federated type on admin console. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Admin Console Customer-name/Organization name: adidas Screenshot (if

When a person is tagged in a comment in a proof they receive a notification, but when they click through, they have to figure out how to find the comment by some magical combination of looking for the comment number or searching for a word or person and then scrolling to figure out where it is in order to reply. When there are 500 comments in a document, it is time consuming and frustrating. The comment notification should link directly back to the page in the Proof where the comment was made.

In classic, when you click on a proof in the document list, and then look at the details window on the right, it tells you right away the status of the proof - whether it's pending, approved, changes required. However, in the new experience, it doesn't have this information right there. You can still find out, but you have to click around in 2 or 3 different screens. I reference this status frequently when we have multiple proofs in one project where some may be approved, yet some may need changes - it's essential to see the true status at a glance. The letter "icons" only say if a decision is made, but not what the decision was.

Problem: Currently, if someone comments on a proof, other users on the task will receive a proof comment notification via Workfront and email, if email notifications are turned on. This is very annoying for a user. For example, if 20 comments are left on the proof, the other user will receive 20 emails. The only way to not receive this notification is to turn off updates/comments in the user settings; there is not something directly related to proof comments/updates. Solution: There should be an ability to turn off notifications or create a daily digest for proof comments in the Workfront notification settings.

As of right now, only those with Workfront licenses will display as an “approver” on the Proof Approval report. In our department, we send proofs to external users for review and approval and as of right now there isn’t a way to track the proof approval process (decisions, last update, etc.) on those proofs that are sent to external users. Currently, there is only the email notification that our Workfront users get when a decision has been made.

Hi there, I am hoping this enhancement request can somehow be implemented in Workfront. At the moment when you make a comment in the Proofing Tool of a document, click save, and then delete the comment for one reason or another (you wrote the wrong thing, someone verbally stetted it, you missed a meeting where client direction changed, etc.), the comment STILL EXISTS in the Updates tab of said document. You have to manually delete the comment you wrote within the Updates tab (and that’s only if you have admin rights, I think). I would love it if when you deleted a comment in the proofing tool, it would auto-delete in the Updates tab of the document itself. Maybe a toggle could be added to a future release of Workfront that would allow users to have updates deleted from the Updates steam when a proof comment is deleted? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sara Enloe

In Workfront you have Document Approval and Proof Approval then you have the standalone ProofHQ. WF Proof Approval and ProofHQ are similar if not identical in functionality. WF Document Approval seems to be a step-child and causes confusion with plan users. Can the three be combined into one proofing system.

Proof comments do not carry over when a Request (Issue) is converted to a Project. The comments still show up in the Document Updates, but the proof is empty-- it would be great to have these still show up within the Project Proof comments.