Product Communities

Hello,Per my chat with client care, in the debugger, under Launch configuration, "Add Embed Code" is intended for use when there's no script present, whereas "replace" or "block" is hidden under the "...".  We use these features to debug our sandbox environment on live site. I understand the difference between the two, but could we make it clearer or give replace its own button and add tooltips? The obvious thing to do is to click the big button right in front of you, when in reality you need to block/replace the active script to accomplish what you want  "The important distinction is that the inject option is intended for pages with no embed code, whereas the replace option should be used if there is already an imbed tag present."

I would like the ability to change the display name on fields per custom form but keep the same list value for data governance and consistency. For example:One team calls the field "Market Segment" while another wants to ask the question "Which Market Segment are we targeting?" to better help their requesters. It's the same list value to maintain from an administrator perspective but helps the team get the right questions answered from their stakeholders. With the new ability for Label and Name being separate, I don't see why it can't go one step further and allow the change on a per custom form for label. Similar to how a field can be required on one field and not on another.

Please take steps to make Edge Chromium an officially supported browser for Workfront.

Remove comments from custom code during the build process or even minify the custom code.

Our company has quite some active forms. So if any change is needed this takes a lot of time. My idea would be to create one central place with all the form objects. And that you only have to change those and that will affect all the forms you want to be updated. You should also have the possibility to create a form of which the objects are not part of the central place in case you need a real custom / different form. This would increase efficiency tremendously. 

An individual must have sys Admin rights within the organization rights to access Privacy UI. Our customer Signify is looking at an option to have separate role to access the privacy UI. Basically they don’t want to give sys admin to the one who will be using the Privacy UI. We had similar ask from one of my other customer as well in the past. Would be really great if this can be addressed. @lalitar1 @2402434 

As I understand there is no way to bring the calendar events and any annotations into the workspace, It would be great to bring in calendar events and create annotations in the workspace visualisation. Is there any other way to get around this?  

Hi all, I understand the purpose of the low traffic bucket and the reason why it was originally set up, however times have now changed and the need to be able to access any of our data quickly is crucial for certain requests that may be asked of us. A prime example of this could be a particular session ID that we want to investigate further and understand customer behaviour using flow / fallout charts etc but if it ends up falling into the low traffic bucket then this is no longer possible. Now I now you can use Data Warehouse to export this data by creating the segment but this doesn't then allow you to use all the dynamic functionality of workspace. Is there ever a plan to either remove low traffic or if we do want to filter / segment for data that falls into this bucket the reporting features would actually find the data as expected? ThanksMatthew

It would be useful to be able to create a combined proof from 2 or more document objects that are already uploaded in the same documents tab? I know proofs can be created from uploaded documents in a project's document tab, but it would be great to be able to do this with more than one document to create a combined proof.I have a situation where our vendors upload multiple documents that need to be proofed and it would be nice if we could make one combined proof from the multiple files they uploaded to each project.

For auditing purposes and when exporting the Custom Form (via screenshot at the moment) to file the information in an Employee folder it would be great to have a Digital Signature to proof of the request by the Employee. Currently all the data for audit purpose is in orbit, which isn't ideal if you export the Custom Form to be stored else where outside of the system

Here is what I would like to see that a less expensive competitor offers: https://www.wrike.com/apps/file-storage/document-editing/

We have teams who tend to work specifically in one folder within a project, they like to host copies of documents in this folder for easy access, however, if the main document hosted in the main project folder is updated their document is out of date. We can obviously update teams to make them aware of any updates but it would be good if it were possible to instead create document shortcuts that can be hosted elsewhere for simple access but which are linked to the main host document.

When assigning tasks to users, if the user is assigned a schedule that has a holiday blocked off (ex. Chinese New Year) and the task falls on some of that blocked time, a warning should show to the project manager. Right now, the planned dates of the task change automatically without notifying the project manager.

Within DTM - all users of a property were notified when a change went live.  This gave the ability to create a user whose email was a slack channel notification and inform the developers when a change was made in a form which they prefer.Now in Adobe Launch, a change is made and there are no more notification.  For us, this is a security hazard that anyone could make a change and no one will know unless they go into each property and check when the last publish date was.  I would like to reintroduce the ability to notify all users of a property when a published change took place.

It would be helpful if the deletion dialog window indicated the property name(s) so the user will make sure that only the expected property(ies) will be deleted upon confirmation. This is helpful for the accounts with high number of properties where accidentally more than one checkbox may be selected. Ideally, the deletion workflow should be improved to avoid situation when somebody deletes a property another team member did not want to lose. The deletion workflow may look as:1) the deletion marks the property Archived (like in AT). The archived properties may not be shown by default (like hidden report suites in AA).2) the next action may be the actual deletion from the account (the user has to again check the box and delete) 

It would be great if in the context of mobile apps, Launch was able to replace Adobe Analytics processing rules.   e.g. allow server side processing of the metrics calls, mapping context data variables to data elements and then mapping data elements to analytics variables using rules, ideally with the ability to execute server side JavaScript to maximise flexibility - all through the launch interface/workflow I was hoping the launch server side road map stuff would deliver this, but is seems to be more about 3rd party integrations/forwarding (or have I got that wrong? 🙂 )  

When a user fills in the project schedule dialog and enters the email address that is not whitelisted in the Company Settings, no any notification appears. After clicking on the Schedule button, nothing happens either, no any notification about failure is displayed. Please display a notification when a list of recipients contains an email address the project can't be delivered to. This warning will help AA users to understand that the project will be schedule only if the email will be whitelisted or removed from the recipients list.

Issues are very much like Requests, at least the way we use them. And just like Requests, it would really help if we could Save as Draft for Issues, just as we have that ability with Requests.I see there is already an Idea posted for the same ability for Projects. This is a much-needed feature!

It would be useful to be able to save a draft of a project form the same you can now do with request forms

In a recent update, reports no longer open with default filters, saving users from having to filter each time. Would love to see this capability applied to dashboards as well. Thank you!

I've joined a new company that uses Marketo after previously using Iterable and sorely miss Handlebars functionality. Handlebars allows much more powerful control of what content is shown, so you can better personalize and don't have to create multiple versions of your email for different audiences.   https://support.iterable.com/hc/en-us/articles/205480365-Personalizing-Templates-with-Handlebars-

Currently there is no way to bulk edit Kanban items once they are on the board (despite the fact that you can bulk edit items in the backlog and do the same for Scrum Iterations). It would be great to be able to see the Kanban board as a list to be able to: bulk move items from the board to the backlogbulk change the colors of each cardbulk edit custom formsbulk edit assignmentsetc. these feature upgrades would make the Kanban board so much more user friendly and i think would increase usage (at least in my company).

In our billing custom forms, within the Classic view, we are allowed four decimal places. However within the New Experience we are only allowed two decimal places. The different between the four decimal and two decimal can effect our exact billing price that is needed for our customers. Can the New Experience allow forms to have a four place decimal?

I think the ability to proof sketch design files would be a great addition to Workfront's Proofing tool.GitLab has recently made a lot of progress on their version control for sketch and ai files.I would like to see the ability to click on objects in a sketch file within a proof and pull up information such as CSS or location (from top, from left, etc)Some examples:https://gitlab-org.gitlab.io/gitlab-design/https://gitlab-org.gitlab.io/gitlab-design/hosted/chris/ee%236898__member-counts-billing-areas-spec-previews/#artboard1

For most of us, we'd like to lock a stage after a decision is made so that new comments are not entered as the proof moves through its stages. However, there are a lot of cases when someone replies to a comment with a question (or it is clear they didn't understand the comment) and someone in a locked stage needs to reply back. Would like a new stage setting of "No New Comments" which is like Locked but allows them to reply to comments.