Product Communities

Description - Currently, Launch/Tags does not support a tagging nor folder functionality, especially in big projects leaving it to the implementer to use naming conventions to keep things tidy Why is this feature important to you - especially big projects easily get messy How would you like the feature to work - add a tagging + filtering and/or folder creation possibility, similar to what GTM provides Current Behaviour - nothing similar

Description - Allow Workload Balancer's "Sort Project By" be sorted in reverse. For example, Priorities sort low to high. Allow it to sort from high to low, with high on top. Why is this feature important to you - The team is getting confused by having "low priority" on top of the list and "high priority" on the bottom. It would be more intuitive to sort the other way. How would you like the feature to work - An up/down arrow next to the Sort By field to dictate which direction it should go. Current Behaviour - There is no such feature at this time.

Description -  Publishing Flow > [Development Environment] > Edit Library - Add a  "Update all/selected to latest Revision" button. Why is this feature important to you - To more easily update everything in an existing build. How would you like the feature to work - Within Publish flow, a given Development Environment build, where I have Data Elements, Rules, Extensions I have added to the build, where I can edit/save/build environment (The "Edit Library" view). I would like a "Update all/selected to latest Revision" button, where I can select all/multiselect all Resources currently listed and press the button and it automatically selects the latest revision.   In principle, this is similar to the "Add All Changed Resources" link at the bottom of the view, except only affect what is currently in the build or selected from checkboxes.  Current Behaviour - There is no such functionality, other than the "Add

Within Experience Cloud Data Collection (Launch), In the Publishing flow, I may have multiple Development Environment builds. I would like to have ability to either merge two existing builds to a single build. I imagine this to be on a Publishing flow level, with checkboxes on each build, and a "Merge" button at the top of the Development column. This would allow me to easily move everything from one or more builds into a single build. In addition, within a given build (where you can add/remove rules/DE's, Extensions, etc.) I would like to be able to select any/all existing items in the build and copy to another build. This would effectively me allow me to also do the first ask, but would still be nice to have both options.  .josh  

Description -  The option from the analytics workspace to share a report with anyone has improved the end-user experience, one can easily interrogate the report by using dynamic filters, date range, etc. However, it might also be a good idea to have an option to download the data as CSV or save it as a PDF.Why is this feature important to you - This will improve intuitiveness.How would you like the feature to work - Just the same way as it works within the analytics workspaceCurrent Behaviour - Feature not available

I would like to be able to create a report that only shows data for projects I have favorited. This list would be dynamic as projects are added and removed from favorites over time. I don't own my projects, and I'm a resource on some projects that I'm not interested in tracking in detail. My favorites list is the list of projects I would like to appear in some of my reports.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: With AEM 6.4 SP8, Adobe introduced restriction that only members of the AEM administrator group could publish to the Brand Portal. This request is to align publishing permission for the Brand Portal with the standard replicate ACL. Use-case: An AEM Assets user--i.e. a designer or a marketer--completes work on an asset and would like to publish the asset to the Brand Portal. The administrator for AEM would like to be able to grant that user the permission to publish their assets to the Brand Portal without making them an administrator (and granting many permissions which are inappropriate for their role). Current/Experienced Behavior: Only members of the AEM administrators group can publish to the Brand Portal Improved/Expected Behavior: Users with replicate permissions on the asset or folder can publish to the Brand Portal Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): This is applicable since

Hi! Something that would be beneficial in my company would be an added version to locking proofs.Here is the scenario for me specifically:I send out a proof to a huge list of people (Stage 1)It automatically locks when the next stage starts.Stage 2 are the designers who review comments from Stage 1.I need Stage 2 to also be locked at the start of the stage (2). Stage 1 still needs to be able to review the proof at all times. Stage 2 doesn't need to make comments/approve anything. They want it locked so the designers don't accidentally change or delete anything. Having different locking variations would be really helpful in this situation.

It would be very helpful if someone has commented on a proof, then deletes their comment because it's not need anymore or they were mistaken, that the comment does not show up in the updates section OR has a line through it, something to show it was deleted. We have had a few times where people have left comments on a proof and then decided they weren't need anymore so they delete the comment, it doesn't show up on the proof, but it still shows up in the updates section. Without going into proofing activities, we have no way of knowing that the comment was deleted and think it still pertains to the current proof. It would be really nice if the comments are deleted, they are deleted everywhere, but if not possible, they have a red checkmark, line through them or something that would show in the updates, that this was deleted as well. 

We have had a lot of issues troubleshooting a recent issue experienced in IE. Having an Adobe Experience Cloud Debugger for other browsers would have allowed us to be more efficient in our troubleshooting. This would also be helpful from an Analytics perspective.

I would like to be able to use Marketo's REST API to move Program(s) from Folder A (current) to Folder B (desired).Currently, there is no available API endpoint to do this operation, but it is crucial to a fully automated Archive process which maintains Program Member Data.I think this Marketo Nation post does a good job of describing the issue as well: https://nation.marketo.com/t5/product-discussions/rest-api-to-move-assets-move-email-program-frrom-folder-a-to/td-p/300009Ideally, I'd like there to be a POST "Move Programs" endpoint, but it might also be possible to accomplish this with the POST "Update Program Metadata" endpoint as well if a query parameter for "Folder" was added.Thanks for considering!

Description - Would like to have the availability to see the blocklist for email notifications from Workfront.Why is this feature important to you - recently I have been on a back and forth confirming emails are being sent through and getting the right SMTP request, however the problem was they were just on the blocklist and having the availability to that would make a quick fix.How would you like the feature to work - Availability to the block list to my instances and also the ability to add or remove user to that depending on my criteria for that instance as a system admin.Current Behaviour - Have to ask to check and edit that list from customer support

Description -We are interested in setting up the Sharepoint/Workfront integration. Instead of using the first 3 delegated permissions listed below, is it possible for Adobe to update their application to use just one delegated Microsoft Graph API permission called Sites.Selected? Have full access to your filesRead items in all site collectionsEdit or delete items in all site collectionsMaintain access to data you have given it access toView your basic profile Why is this feature important to you This would better adhere to the principle of least privileged access and would allow us to specify one or more SharePoint sites to use with the integration rather than allowing access to all files and sites that the signed-in user has access to. How would you like the feature to work To use just one delegated Microsoft Graph API permission called Sites.Selected?  Current Behaviour Requires using all the permissions. 

There seems to be a one-way interaction between the tasks in a project and the cards that represent tasks in Boards. The primary issue is that there does not seem to be a way to add cards to a board and have them show up back in projects. Having a hybrid way of managing tasks would be extremely beneficial. Limited options for visibility of data on cards The “auto” statuses that can be configured on columns don't include Group statuses - only global.Only have access to a limited set of filtersCan’t see Duration as a custom field to add within a cardExample form Project view editing: Example from Boards: How do boards show up in views and reports?The only thing I could find resulted in this:  This button didn’t do anything useful.Looking at the project view is even more of mess: Why does it show me those fields if they’re supposed to be turned off?The view is “sticky” so it applies to whatever project you’re looking at even if you don’t want that view f

Current Behaviour / Description - Both the project and individual user settings have an option to select a schedule. If you select the project setting to have option A (no holidays) and the individual user setting to have option B (company holidays), the project will not use the project setting option A if an individual user is assigned a task. If two or more people are assigned a task however, then the task will default to the project setting of option A. The reason the project setting works is due to the system project preferences: When multiple users are assigned to a task, use the schedule of the....Project. How would you like the feature to work - We should be able to use the project setting to override the individual user's setting.  Why is this feature important to you - Users work on different types of projects. Some are more time sensitive that others so we should be able to select the schedule that works best for the project type. Additional Note

Have hover over text on the Drill-Down Tab stating to "select a row to Drill-Down"

In the Workload Balancer, although time off appears as diagonal lines in the box, the hours are not calculated/included in the resources' overall planned hours for a given day. It would be helpful as a Resource Manager to see the cumulated hours (which includes ie 1 or more hours). Right now, I have to go into the Resources' time off to confirm the hours they are taking and then account for that when assigning tasks.

Within our Salesforce-Marketo Sync, we sometimes need to resync a custom object. Sometimes it is because we've added a new field and need to populate it for every record, and sometimes it is because there are records active on the object in Marketo that have been deleted in Salesforce (and the sync somehow missed the deletion). To resync an object currently, you have to disconnect that object from every asset within Marketo where is has been referenced (smart list filters, campaign flow steps, etc.). This can mean going into hundreds of assets one-by-one and essentially breaking the logic by removing the relevant filters. This is not only time and resource intensive, but also very destructive. Once the object has been resynced, one has to go back to all of those assets, or at least those that are still in use, and add the relevant filters back. There should be a way to resync a SFDC custom object without disconnecting it from every asset.

On a frequent basis we often find that because we have so many segments and calculated metrics, we use them in so many different places and we change them so often it can become a bit of a nightmare to manage. A bit part of that is on us to find processes to manage them effectively however something did occur to me which would make this 1,000 times easier... versioning!Similar to the file control you have on One Drive or Dropbox the ability to see the history / changes that have been made and revert to them if you want. It would mean when we change a segment and something breaks we can chose to revert or create a new segment based on the old one. Currently that version of the segment is just overwritten and we can find ourselves scratching our heads and wasting time testing to work out what it was before.

A project should be able to reference a previously existing Request Queue to use as its own structure for requests made within the project. Currently, each project has its own Queue Details, Queue Topics, and Routing Rules. A project that already exists should be able to lean on the Queues that already exist and house the new requests when created. This would be convenient when requesting a new task within a project.

Description - When converting a request to a task or project, the user would see the documents section that is typically available to the requester during form submission. This would allow the user to quickly drag and drop any additional files that were not uploaded when the Request was first submitted. They could do this after the Project is created, but that involves a few more clicks around the interface and this would be faster.  Why is this feature important to you - It would reduce the number of clicks needed to add documents either before or after. My process would be more efficient. How would you like the feature to work - This would work exactly like adding a Task to a Project using the "+ New Task" button and clicking "More Options." Picture attached. 

The Workload Balancer is really the only part of the Resource Manager that our teams use. The other features have not proven to work for us. The Scenario Planner (which seems unfinished) needs more of a connection between its features and the Workload Balancer. Combining the two would unify the planning of possible initiatives with the reality of a team’s capacity. They are currently disparate and fall short in how much they can be used to roadmap work quickly and efficiently. If you were able to quickly work on new initiatives and broadly assign users to those initiatives on the fly, that would be an extremely useful feature. Another disparate feature is the relationship between the Workload Balancer and the Work Effort columns in a project view. I should be able to update this percentage in the Work Effort column from within a project view and have this be reflected in the Workload Balancer. Right now it is only the “small, medium, large” shortcut, but it should be specific

This would be helpful for when using a prompt in a report and the filters are worth saving as a new, non-prompted report. 

Description:The Scenario planner feels like a forgotten function of the tool. It’s very convenient for quickly getting projects added to Workfront as initiatives and moving them around, but it falls short in how it can be made more useful during project roadmap planning.  The function would need to include:Project-to-project dependencies The ability to tie the start date of an initiative to the end date of another. This would be great for regular projects as well versus having to associate tasks within them.Custom form editingThe ability to associate custom form data at the initiative level that would carry over after publishing.Project summary view within the scenario plannerIf an initiative is tied to a project, you can more easily see the project details without leaving the page.  More initiative dates optionsThe ability to sync resync my initiative dates with project dates.More specific dates - monthly increments can be too broad  Reveal the Scena

Description - We would like all custom fields to have a check box that denotes "System Admin Only" can update. We want this to appear on existing and future fields created. We want to be able to select this during and after a new custom field is created. We want a System Admin to go into a custom field and select "System Admin Only". Why is this feature important to you - We have approximately 60 key custom fields that we only want System Admins to be able to modify. Yes, we educate and enable System Admins and Group Admins on how custom forms/fields work. We ask that any requests to modify these 60 key fields be brought to Governance Board. We have a custom form with these fields on it that we ask users to refer to. We also have a google sheet with these fields listed. We have learned (the hard way) that people forget. We need to add in a level of checks and balances to these key fields. This monitoring becomes even more important as we integrate into new applications in the futu