Product Communities

Description:There is a critical inconsistency between the activity records in the Adobe Admin Console and the logs shown in Workfront. When users make changes — such as editing profiles or managing access — via the Admin Console, these actions are not properly attributed in Workfront logs.Why is this feature important to you:Accurate traceability is essential for our security, audit, and compliance processes. Without clear identification of the user who performed a change, we face risks in governance and accountability. This is especially critical during permission reviews, account deactivations, or investigations.How would you like the feature to work:Workfront should reflect the actual user who performed the action in the Admin Console, both in the system logs and in Journal reports. Instead of showing “System” or generic labels, the logs should capture and display the authenticated user responsible for the change.Current Behaviour:Changes made in the Admin Console appear in Workfron

Description - Support WebP image file format for document upload and sharing (Not needed for proofing purposes)  Why is this feature important to you - My team manages our corporate websites - those sites primarily use WebP file formatted images for page load speed and other reasons as supported by industry best practices.  As an enterprise we use Workfront for request and project intake - so someone from another group within the enterprise can send a Workfront request to my team to update/create a web page - this included updating images - those individuals need to have the ability to upload and share WebP files with my team via Workfront for us to load to our DAM and websites. We would not need the ability to create WF proofs of these images.  How would you like the feature to work - simply upload WebP file formatted images to documents within Projects and/or intake requests - again, for sharing purposes, not needed for proofing. Current Behavior - WebP

Description - Any validation possibilites for entered values into custom fields would be great. Why is this feature important to you - At the moment there is no possibility to validate any entered values into fields. We cannot validate, if e.g. a valid email address, or url was entered, also for date fields it is not possible to define, e.g. that the allowed choices have to be after a specific date,... How would you like the feature to work - RegEx would be fine Current Behaviour - no validation

Including "Email from Name" as an Email attribute in Advanced BI analytics would so so useful for auditing From name usage in emails.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: This idea proposes enhancing Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) by shifting the storage of display settings within Sites and DAM sections from browser cookies to an instance-level configuration. By managing display preferences (such as UI layouts or viewing modes) directly within the AEM instance, users can enjoy a consistent experience across devices and browsers without relying on client-side storage. This approach improves usability, eliminates cookie dependency, enhances security, and ensures compliance with stricter data privacy regulations. Use-case: Use Case: Unified Display Settings for Multi-Device Content Editors Scenario:A content author frequently switches between a desktop computer at work and a laptop at home to edit content in AEM. Currently, their preferred display settings—such as column view—are stored in browser cookies. This leads to an inconsistent user experience, as their preferences need to be manually reconfigure

We should be able to reference custom fields associated to a Typeahead object through Calculated Custom Fields and Calculated Columns.valuefield=[Typeahead Field Name]:[Custom Field]Ex. My organization uses a User Custom Form to track employee details such as 'Department' or 'Employee Number'. When a request is submitted on behalf of another employee we would like to use the Typeahead field to identify the employee and then have a set of calculated custom fields to 'auto fill' in the rest of the employee details.

We have roughly 7,500+ users on Workfront globally.In a small number of cases, where a user shares the same first name and last name, we are unable to distinguish which user is which when "@" tagging them into an update or other.It would be great if Workfront could either add an additional data point when tagging users in updates or add the user profile hover-over functionality to the draft update module to help determine if you are reaching the right person.Example below:Any questions, do let me know.Best regards,Christian

Description - We currently are using typeahead fields for single select employee lists on a custom form for Marketing and have a need to have an employee list with a multi-select optionWhy is this feature important to you - Since employee data lives in Workfront, it makes sense to be able to choose the appropriate information from Workfront instead of having to point to an external resourceHow would you like the feature to work - Would like the Typeahead field to be able to have both a single select and multi-select optionCurrent Behaviour - Typeahead field only allows a single select option

Description -We would like some groups to have the ability to see Data Views and their configuration without having the ability to modify. Current Behaviour - users without edit/modify permissions cannot see data views.

We have identified around 8K+ bogus domains which we would like to exclude from our Marketo Forms Submissions. However, there is a 2000 max limit of custom domains which can be added in the Global Forms Validation Rule and we are not able to restrict all bogus domains we have identified for exclusion.It would be ideal to have the limit of 2K max domains removed so each Marketo customer can add their own list in the Global Forms Validation Rule. Or if not possible, another option would be to provide the list of bogus domains in a .csv file to the Support team and they to support us with updating the default list which is provided by Marketo in the Global Forms Validation Rule. 

Description - Implementing the Analytics CNAME involves creating a subdomain for our website, which is then utilized to place cookies in a first-party context. However, during SEO crawling, these subdomains are scanned as well. To prevent Google from crawling these subdomains, we need to make adjustments to the robots.txt file located within it. Yet, as end users, we lack the capability to perform this task on our own and require assistance from Analytics Engineering to handle it on our behalf Why is this feature important to you -Search engines like Google allocate a crawl quota to domains, determining the time and resources dedicated to indexing a website. If these crawlers expend their resources on redundant URLs, like CNAME subdomains, there's a potential for vital content on our site to go unnoticed during indexing. This poses a risk of missing out on organic traffic if the crawlers neglect new or updated content while focusing on less crucial areas. How would you like t

We are creating a photography brief in a custom form, and it would be helpful if each checkbox included the photo angle name along with a reference image

Description -  In the Priorities module, we would like an option for the bars on the calendar view to span the duration of the task based on the planned start and planned completion dates? Why is this feature important to you -  Allows users to see how busy they are each day on the calendar Current Behaviour -Currently, the bars only show based on single date; the planned completion date

We have a mismatch between the [Priority] field values when creating a project from an issue using a template. Use case: We have an issue with a high priority. When we convert it to a project, the new project has a medium priority. We want the project to reflect the original project's priority. The cause: The Project Template requires a [Priority] value. All projects created using that template will have that value, regardless of the original request's priority. Proposal: When creating projects using a template, the new project inherits the [Priority] value from the original request. (Or have the ability to leave the Template value blank, so people who want items with that template to always have the same priority can have that option too) Benefits: Workfront user does not have to manually change the project Priority to match.When creating projects, other Project fields inherit values from the original request. Having [Priority] inherit values would lead to a consistent use

Description - The Delegate feature should include all the options like assignments, access to campaigns, email notifications/updates,etc and should not only limit to approvals.Why is this feature important to you - We have set up assignments for group leads who if go on vacations, we have to manually change the assignments for that period to anyone who is covering up for them. Also when they are back, it needs to be assigned back to group leaders. This is done on routers on queu topics or through fusion scenarios in some cases where we need to update everytime. If this can be covered under delegations, it would be great.How would you like the feature to work - It should automatically pick any assignments/notifictaion/ownership of campaigns to be asisgned to the delegated user.Current Behaviour - It only works for approvals, not for assignments and updates and project ownership.

It would be very helpful if approval paths could vary based on selections made in a Request Queue form request. Currently, when the issue request is submitted, it follows the one, pre-defined approval path. What we are looking for a way to have different approval paths that get triggered by a selection on the request. For example, the requestor selects between two radial buttons, A or B. Depending on which one is selected, the approval path is different. 

Description - The SSO ID (Federation ID) for the Federated users is no longer accessible on Workfront after migration to Admin console. Earlier we had this info on user profiles. We can still see it on the users profile if they were added before the migration date, but anyone added recently has no info about their SSO ID in Workfront.  Why is this feature important to you - This field was used to map internally with users of our organisation to monitor the movers and leavers and hence carry out deactivations (by mapping the SSO ID with company's internal active directory). Now we don't have that value in the reports and there is no way we can pull in in Workfront without manually feeding that info in the custom form or excel reports.  How would you like the feature to work - I would like the SSO ID field to show the value in user's profile so that we can pull it in the reports. Its okay if we cannot edit it, similar to the email address field but atleast keep it vis

Hi, we are planning our resources by tasks and user. We always use the features "Set Users' Planned Hours as Budgeted" and then "Set Roles' Planned Hours as Budgeted". The issue is this is causing many clicks by each PM all the time they update their planning to assure we really have the latest numbers in our Resource Planner tool. Is there a trick to "Set Users' Planned Hours as Budgeted" and then "Set Roles' Planned Hours as Budgeted" for all users and roles at once, e.g. at least for one project or ideally for several at once? This would make resource planning much easier and quicker.

Description - CJA Derived Field Lookup() funcion support on schema array field Why is this feature important to you - Lookup for array field is a powerful feature for many use cases How would you like the feature to work - The Lookup() function should be able to take an schema level array field as input, and output an array with lookup names Current Behaviour - Currently it's not supported. But Lookup() function seems somehow have this functionality as it can take the array field outpt from the Split() function.

Current Behavior/Problem: Currently, onboarding new users in Workfront requires manually configuring individual settings for each user. While copying users can help, it doesn't provide a standardized, reusable approach for common user types, leading to potential inconsistencies and errors. Description/Proposed Solution: Introduce User Profile Templates. These templates would allow administrators to pre-define and save configurations for common user types. Functionality: Key elements of this feature would include...Template Creation - Administrators can create named templates, defining settings for any profile features like access level, layout template, team(s), group(s), job role(s), timesheet profile, and other relevant profile attributesTemplate Application - During user creation, administrators can select a template to pre-populate the user's profile.Customization - After applying a template, administrators retain the ability to customize individual user settings to

Description -Currently, Workfront only allows delegation of approvals within a defined timeframe. There is no native capability to delegate a specific approval process to a specific person dynamically, based on the context of the request (e.g., expertise or request type). Implementing this feature would enhance flexibility by allowing approval routing based on logic-driven criteria. Why is this feature important to you - It allows dynamic routing of approvals to the most appropriate person based on their role, expertise, or responsibility. Increases process efficiency and ensures faster decision-making. Enhances the user experience by aligning approvals more closely with business logic How would you like the feature to work -1.Ability to delegate an approval process to a specific user based on a condition or request type.2.Just like there is an option to delegate for a specific timeframe, we need an option to delegate a particular request to a specific user.Current Behavior -

Description - The idea proposed is to help seamlessly connect the Issue object type with Workfront Planning records. This integration would offer a more intuitive and traceable workflow from the moment a campaign request is raised. Currently, campaign planning and execution can be fragmented, especially when the original request (issue) becomes disconnected from subsequent project records. By establishing a direct connection between the issue and the planning record—using relevant lookup fields—we enable requestors and stakeholders to get a comprehensive, real-time view of the campaign's progress. Why is this feature important to you - Campaigns often start as requests (issues) — linking them with planning records creates a seamless flow. Enables complete visibility of campaign status from request to execution. Lookup fields can show real-time progress to requestors and stakeholders. When an issue is converted to a project, the planning data remains connected — ensuring continui

Description - I would love for requests and objects to be separate objects. We currently use a request queue for projects, but I am exploring issues and how this could work to track unplanned work while working on a project. We report on how many requests we receive a month, it would not make sense for issues to be included in this. Why is this feature important to you - To show the different types of unplanned work. I think it would be helpful to show issues that come up on projects in reporting to better allocate resources and help with future planning.How would you like the feature to work - I would like them to be separate objects.Current Behaviour - Requests and issues are considered the same object.

I would like to use the data that exists against each project, (i.e. client name, reference number, planned hours) and export it into a templated pdf. This templated pdf would then contain a header and/or footer with the relevant information you would usually associate with an invoice (company address, VAT number, contact detail, payment terms, bank account details etc). We can then use these PDFs for invoicing purposes. Exporting each report/project as a PDF already exists as a feature, so hopefully using customised templates is a relatively achievable feature WF could develop. Thanks!

It would be greatly beneficial to be able to hide "Recent Paths" (in the dropdown) when making a new Request. The "Recent Paths" listed first adds confusion to my teammates adn they can't seem to find what Request Queue they are looking for because the Recent Paths are listed at the top.