Product Communities

Description - Projected Date fields on projects and tasks dynamically update as progress is made (or not made) which is great, especially when using workload balancer. However, Projected Dates on issues do not work the same way. It is possible to have projected dates on issues that are in the past, causing them to "disappear" from the current view in the workload balancer.Why is this feature important to you - This makes measuring true workload extremely difficult. Instead, we have to manually change the planned dates, which causes us to lose the original data, making it impossible to measure true turnaround rates.How would you like the feature to work - The projected dates on issues should work just like they do on tasks.Current Behaviour - https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/workfront/using/manage-work/projects/plan-a-project/project-projected-completion-date#:~:text=Issues%3A%20The,the%20Commit%20Date

Hi, I wanted to suggest adding a new filter option in the dropdown for time frames. Currently Marketo has the below: 1. "is" (Specific date)2. "is not" (specific date)3. "between" (b/w specific dates)4. in past (one filter - such as past 30 days)5.  in time frame (today, yesterday....)6. after (specific date)7.before (specific date)8. on or after (specific date)9. on or before (specific date) I’d like to recommend a new filter that allows users to select a range within relative time frames.  For example, filter data between "past 3 months" and "past 1 month", effectively capturing a 2-month window.Currently, this can be achieved by combining two separate filters. A dedicated option would simplify this process. Let me know what you think 😄 

I have challenges where I want to create a smart list with date constraints, but because it does not allow me to use "in past before" or "in future after" in the date constraint section, I have to manually adjust that every month instead of automating it.   for example, I want to create a smart list of people who filled out a form in past before 2 months. To accomplish this I have to do "or or before" and set a specific date, and every 30 days, go back and update the date. The fact that I can't say "filled out a form in past before 2 months" and have to constantly go back and update the date is silly and frustrating.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enable public share links for Collections in Content Hub, allowing dynamic updates to be reflected in the shared content. Use-case: Our client frequently shares Collections externally, including in press releases and with large audiences. They need a stable, public share link that reflects real-time changes to the Collection (e.g., adding or removing assets). This ensures consistency and avoids confusion or reputational risk. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, Adobe recommends selecting all assets within a Collection and sharing them via the Share Link feature. However, this link is static: any changes made to the Collection afterward (such as adding or removing assets) are not reflected in the shared link. To update the content, a new link must be generated and redistributed. Improved/Expected Behavior: Collections should be directly shareable via a public link. This link should always reflect the current state of the

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enhance filtering capabilities in Content Hub Collections to allow filtering by "Created By" (specific users, not just "me" or "anyone") and by "Creation Date". Use-case: Our client uses Collections extensively to organize and share digital assets. To efficiently manage and locate relevant Collections, they need to filter by the specific user who created a Collection and by the date it was created. This is especially important in collaborative environments with many contributors. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, the filtering options in Collections are limited to "Created by me" or "Created by anyone", without the ability to specify a particular user or filter by creation date. Improved/Expected Behavior: Users should be able to: Select a specific user from a list or input field to filter Collections by creator. Define a date range to narrow down the list of Collections. Environment Details (AEM version/service

UI Description:The current Fusion UI does not prompt for confirmation before deleting a scenario. Additionally, there is no visual indication of which scenario is selected for deletion, and deleted scenarios cannot be restored via the UI.Why this feature is important:Accidental deletion of scenarios can result in lost work and require significant time to rebuild. Without a confirmation prompt or a visual highlight, it’s easy to misclick and remove the wrong scenario. Since the UI offers no recovery option, this can lead to irreversible loss.How this feature would work:When a user clicks the delete icon for a scenario, a confirmation modal should appear asking, "Are you sure you want to delete this scenario?" The scenario line item should be highlighted when hovered over or selected for deletion, so the user clearly sees which scenario is being targeted. Optionally, an "Undo" notification or a soft-delete feature (trash bin or restore option) would add an extra layer of protection.Curre

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add a "Shared Links" interface in Content Hub with enhanced link management capabilities. Use-case: Users need a centralized interface to manage all their public shared links within Content Hub. This includes editing, reactivating, and searching links, as well as setting default expiration rules. These features are essential for maintaining control over public asset distribution and improving collaboration. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, Content Hub does not provide a dedicated interface for managing shared links (Private and Public). Users cannot view or edit their previously generated links, nor can they see links shared by others. There is no way to search/filter shared links, reactivate expired ones, or set a default expiration period. Improved/Expected Behavior: A dedicated "Shared Links" interface accessible from the Content Hub UI. At least for public shared links. Users can: Edit their own shared links (

Description - We do have multiple admins in our Fusion team, who all get an email notification if a scenario fails. So far so good.It would be nice if you could temporarily pause these notifications for a specific scenario so as not to alert colleagues if an error occurs during modifying and testing the scenario.Why is this feature important to you - To be able to modify an active scenario without alerting team admins in case of an error.How would you like the feature to work - It would help to have a "Pause notifications" button, which stays active for an amount of time, or just a manual switch.Current Behaviour - Any admin gets notified, what leads to confusion, if not communicated, that someone is working on the scenario.

As we continue to use forms within the tool and require access to view submission data, we've identified a need for the creation of multiple people views that can be shared with our users. This enhancement would eliminate the necessity for each user to individually set up their own views, promoting greater standardization and consistency across our instance. We kindly ask you to consider adding this shared view feature as a potential enhancement in upcoming updates. Thank you!

Just like we can delegate project/task/issue approvals, and with 22.3 can delegate task/issue assignments, PLEASE have the ability to delegate proof approvals! There are other ideas for this with 'Not Planned' labeled, hoping power in numbers can help sway this bc this is something WF really needs. Hoping it is part of near-future proof enhancements.

At the moment the designed solution is that when a Workfront user who has access to a project to which a proof has been added and who the proof has not been explicitly shared before opens the proof from within Workfront, they are added to the proof immediately afterwards. This is a poorly designed system setting. Just because a user clicks on a proof to open it does not mean that they should be added to the proofing process. Users should decide who and when someone is added to a proof. If a user clicks on a proof but is not part of the proofing process, they should be able to view it without having to become a reviewer. This is especially annoying for system admins and project managers who are just trying to see where something is at in a project and aren't actually involved in the review process.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Allow Adobe logs forward to IP-whitelsting-enabled client Splunk setups Use-case: Customer Splunk setups have HEC IP whitelisting set up; AEM logs forwarding cannot be enabled currently, according to Adobe support. Current/Experienced Behavior: AEM logs forwarding cannot be enabled currently, according to Adobe support, as the egress IPs from adobe side are dynamic Improved/Expected Behavior: Adobe can provide IP range(s) to whitelist on Customer Splunk side, allowing the logs forwarding  Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS Customer-name/Organization name: multiple clients  Screenshot (if applicable): - Code package (if applicable): -

Current Behaviour:The delegate feature is only available from the "My Work" home widgetHow would you like the feature to work:Move this feature to a User profile tab or any other dedicated page Why is this feature important to you:We often set-up custom homepages for users bypassing the standard Homepage for user experience and work efficiency  

Description - I would like to be able to attach a custom form to proof templates. Why is this feature important to you - This would be more efficient when using proof approvals for various businesses/products as we could select the associated template and it would automatically pull in the correct details. How would you like the feature to work - We use Issues within a project for proof approvals on product packaging. We would like to be able to pull in specific details to a product or business with each proof created and tying the proof template to a custom form would make this process easier. Current Behavior - Currently, we have to manually add a custom form to the proof, in the document details and add the details each time as they are different for different products/businesses. 

Description - When building a freeform table with a subset of a dimension (either using a filter, using display only selected rows, or dropping individual dimension items), if you try to make a line/area visualization that is trended over time from the summary row it uses the entire dimension and not just the items that you've dragged in. This is a problem because it isn't accurately trending the dimension items that you have selected, it is including information that is not in the table and leads to an inaccurate representation. You can see here, with the header/summary row selected, it's trending the entire dimension, because the total for some of the single days in the line graph is greater than the total for the two weeks in the table.    Why is this feature important to you - This feature is important because when building out trended visualizations, we rely on having accurate information displayed. There are times that we need to trend the sum of a couple items from a

In order to prevent important smart campaigns from being turned off in the 6month cleanup there should be a setting on a smart campaign to prevent it being turned off and a setting on a program so that all smart campaigns nested under it will not get turned off

Why is this feature important to you?Tracking milestones is a critical component of project management within my organization. While the Milestones Dashboard is a great visual tool, its full potential is not being realized due to current limitations in how the data is presented and grouped. How would you like the feature to work?I’d like to see greater customization options within the Milestones Dashboard.Specifically:  - Program-level grouping: Currently, the view only displays milestones at the project level. It would be extremely helpful to group and filter projects under specific programs to better manage larger initiatives. - Team visibility: Include the ability to view which team members are assigned to each milestone or associated task, to improve ownership visibility and resource planning.- Expanded milestone assignment: Enable multiple tasks to be assigned to a single task and make them visible in the dashboard view for better granu

Description - Programs need to show the currency of the projects within that program Why is this feature important to you - We have multiple programs where all the projects within that program are in GBP, but when viewing aggregated data rolled up at the program level, it defaults to USD. This is time consuming and frustrating for users looking at a Dashboard in the left nav, they have to go to the View dropdown and the Change Currency dropdown within there to select their specific currency, the 'Project's Original Currency' shows all aggregated values in USD. If currency custom fields are used on a program, they also default to showing a US dollar symbol in front of the value How would you like the feature to work - Programs allow for a selection of currency and show all currency fields in the selected currency. Current Behaviour - When viewing custom currency fields on a program or when viewing Dashboards with aggregated values on a report that have been added to the left nav o

We have received some feedback about how hard it is to track and manage comments in WF. We would love to add the ability to search/group project comments by task to make this feature easier to use and keep the team more organized.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Update page titles and labels in Manage Publication flow Use-case: When using the Manage Publication option to publish pages, when you choose to unpublish a page and go through the steps, there is still areas on the steps that says "Publish". From an editor/authoring POV this can be confusing as you want to be sure you are in the right area. Current/Experienced Behavior: Page titles and radio labels inconsistent with the action taken. "Unpublish" sitting next to "Publish" button looks disabled rather than active. Improved/Expected Behavior: Title: Manage Publication (Unpublish)Destination Label : UnpublishImprove the contrast on the selected/active button (consider not using shades of grey). Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable):   Customer-name/Organization name: The University of Canterbury Screenshot (if applicable):  "Manage Publication (Publish)   Code package (if ap

新規メールデザイナーでは、旧来のサンプルメール送信の方法が「コンテンツをシミュレート」に変わっており、テキスト版のサンプルメール送信ができなくなっているため、対応させて欲しい。

Description - in reporting, need ability to sort and/or isolate results or group by top 10 in a matrix groupingWhy is this feature important to you - to report on top campaigns/initiatives being worked on by resource hours; provides pulse check on alignment to prioritiesHow would you like the feature to work - I'd like to be able to filter or group by top 10 (or something similar) so I can isolate data in dashboards and reportsCurrent Behaviour - Charts and Reports show all results, you have to export data to Excel to do Pivot table or ascending/descending filter. If I try to sort in my report details, it does not do it accurately. In the screenshot, you can see I have too many Campaigns listed to quickly assess our top ten.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Ensure that share links for collections in AEM Assets dynamically update when the collection's visibility changes from Private to Public, reflecting the new path in the DAM structure. Use-case: As a user managing digital assets in AEM, I need to share collections with external stakeholders. When a collection initially created as Private is later made Public via Collection Settings, or vice versa, the previously generated share link should remain valid and point to the updated path in the DAM structure. This ensures uninterrupted access regardless of changes in the collection's visibility status.   Most of the time, share links are distributed to hundreds of people, especially in contexts like press releases or external communications. If the collection’s visibility changes, it is not acceptable to recreate and resend a new link. The original link must remain valid, as updating it would be unm

Description - When using the Break Error Handler and a scenario retries, we would like a parameter (similar to the executionId) to let us know this is a retry, or ideally, which parent executionId is being retriedWhy is this feature important to you - We log errors in a workfront project and assign to developers, we want to remove duplicate errors when a fusion scenario retries. Currently this is only available by building our own retry logic or creating some custom execution key to try to do this ourselves, but it's not 100% accurateHow would you like the feature to work - Ideally provide an parentExecutionID with the Id of the original execution that's being retried. Or a simple flag to indicate this is a retry.Current Behaviour - No link or indication that retries are retries. 

Description - At the moment there is not simple action when we want to update access rules on an object, and it would be great to have this featureWhy is this feature important to you - At the moment there is no way to simple update access rules on Project/Issue/Task if neededHow would you like the feature to work - There is a new module or extension within custom actions where we can update access rules (add/remove/modify)Current Behaviour - We have to manually copy access rules, create new ones manually, and assign the full array to the object