Product Communities

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Have an ability to add a suffix or prefix for the title tag for all the pages within EDS Sites Use-case: We wanted to add " | CVS Group " for all the title tags automatically within HTML. However, it seems like we do not have access to the script/code that generates the title tags. Current/Experienced Behavior: You need to add the prefix or suffix manually for all the pages which consumes a lot of time.Especially if the suffix changes and you have a lot of pages.  Improved/Expected Behavior: There will be an ability to add a prefix/suffix for all the pages within a site all at once or add it within the title tag directly.  Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): EDS, AEM Cloud as a Service Customer-name/Organization name:   Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: New Content Fragment Editor does not honor JCR locking Use-case:  In the new Content Fragment editor, JCR locks applied to CF nodes (jcr:lockOwner, jcr:lockIsDeep) are ignored. This allows other users to open, edit, and save CFs even when another user has locked the CF — breaking workflow integrity and increasing risk of data loss. Current/Experienced Behavior: Lock applied on CF node via workflow or API is respected in the old editor (UI prevents edits). In the new editor, the same CF is still editable by all users. No lock icon or warning shown to other users. Improved/Expected Behavior: The new CF editor must respect JCR-level locks like the classic editor. CFs should: Display a lock indicator with username. Prevent edits and saves by users other than the lock owner. Show a warning like “This CF is locked by [user]” Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Lock CF via

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: AEM sites Rollout and publication issue Use-case: When a editor rollout and publishes a master page, the publication process start publishing the live copies in random order and fails when it encounters any market page that is locked to a user. This results in inconsistencies leaving the page changes published to few random markets. Ideally this should have completely stopped or skip the locked page, deploy to rest and notify about skipped page. Current/Experienced Behavior: The rollout/publication does not follow a predictable sequence and succeed for markets until it encounters locked pages then silently fails making it difficult to track progress There is no summary or report indicating which locales were successfully published and which were skipped. This results in inconsistent rollout and makes it hard to identify which pages need manual intervention Improved   Before initiating rollout publication,

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Request to add an option to set a password when generating a Share Link in Content Hub, similar to the existing functionality in LG DAM (AEM Asset) environment. This will enhance security and prevent unauthorized access to brand assets. Use-case: When users generate a Share Link in Content Hub, the link is currently public and can be accessed by anyone with the URL. Adding a password requirement would allow secure distribution of brand assets, ensuring only intended recipients can access the files. Current/Experienced Behavior: Share Links generated in Content Hub are public by default and have no password protection, making them accessible to anyone who obtains the link—intentionally or unintentionally. Improved/Expected Behavior: Provide an optional password protection feature when creating a Share Link. Recipients would be required to enter the password before accessing shared files, similar to the current LG DAM environment.

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Request for enhanced Share Link features in Content Hub to improve security, tracking, and management capabilities for enterprise use. Use-case: Enterprise users, such as brand managers or asset owners, need to securely share assets with internal and external stakeholders while maintaining control and visibility. This includes tracking link usage, invalidating links when needed, and enforcing authentication for recipients. Current/Experienced Behavior:   There is no built-in feature to: Track who accessed or downloaded the shared assets (IP, download count). View or manage all Share Links created by the user. Invalidate an existing Share Link. Require authentication/OTP for specific recipients. Improved/Expected Behavior: Usage Tracking via Dashboard – Ability to see who accessed a specific Share Link, IP address, and download count. Share Link Management – Ability for the creator to view all their Share

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary:   Use-case: We have built a taxonomy in our AEM DAM based on custom fields for search, filtering and reporting. We are using a namespace to bucket all of these tags as a top level bucket. Under that we have built out the tag structure for the rest of our taxonomy. The first level of those tags is a category which pairs up to a custom field used for search. These tags are technically "buckets" as well. We would like to set these up as namespaces as well but have them be children of the overarching namespace for our organization? So the structure would look like this:organization-namespace:category:tag-level-1/tag-level-2 Current/Experienced Behavior: We have a namespace to bucket all of our custom tags as a top level bucket. Under that we have built out the tag structure for the rest of our taxonomy. However, the first level of those tags is a category which pairs up to a custom field used for search. Improved/Expected Behavio

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Sonar ruleset significantly influence BMW's development workflows. To ensure smooth integration and minimal disruption, it is essential that any changes to these rules—including minor adjustments—are communicated in advance. Developer teams require early access to updated rule definitions so they can validate their code against them before the changes are enforced in Cloud Manager pipelines. Use-case: BMW experienced a situation where a previously successful pipeline began failing overnight due to newly detected Sonar vulnerabilities, despite being based on the same commit. This indicates that the Sonar ruleset had changed unexpectedly from one day to the next. Given BMW’s multi-project setup—comprising around 10 interdependent projects managed by different development teams—each project is built through its own pipeline. As a result, a Sonar scan failure in any one pipeline can have a significant ripple effect across the entire deve

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: I would like to see more of a separation in how assets and folders are managed in AEM. They are both managed the same way in 2 separate spaces, the assets pane and teh content tree. I would like to see the content tree be the space for managing folders and the assets pane be the space to manage assets. Use-case: Admin users managing assets are creating a folder structure with multiple nested folders to keep things organized. In this use case we'll use brands and lines of business. We have assets that are are for a specific brand Current/Experienced Behavior: Admin users managing assets are creating a folder structure with multiple nested folders to keep things organized. There are folder based profiles added to those folders including tags that are applied to any assets added to those. We also created a workflow that will copy tags down from parent to child so those tags aren't overridden by subfolder tagging.   In this use ca

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add option to sort by page navigation sorting for path/link chooser components. additionally to sort by alphabet.Page structure should follow the site's navigation hierarchy consistently — both in the Sites panel and when selecting internal links within components. The current alphabetical sorting in link dialogs should be replaced with the same hierarchical order used for page editing.Acceptance CriteriaPage structure follows navigation hierarchy across all AEM interfacesApplies to all linkable components (e.g., teaser, button)Same page order as in the Sites panel Use-case: Selecting a path to a Page Current/Experienced Behavior: pathlist is sorted by alphabet Improved/Expected Behavior: sorting can be selected. sorting by sitestructure, maybee sorting by any other criteria Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Sanitas Screenshot (if app

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: When working in smaller or half-screen viewports in AEM, key page actions such as Delete and Move become hidden within the “more actions” (three dots) menu, often requiring scrolling to the very bottom to locate them. Maybee show only Icons and remove the text. Save some space. Show the text with hover effect. Use-case: ContentManager want to work fast Current/Experienced Behavior: Button is hidden Improved/Expected Behavior: Button should be visible Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Sanitas Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Currently, unpublishing a page requires using Manage Publication, which is useful for scheduling but slow for immediate removals. Adding a Quick Unpublish button, similar to Quick Publish, would allow fast unpublishing while keeping Manage Publication for advanced options. Use-case: ContentManagers want to work fast. Current/Experienced Behavior: Unpublish a page needs multiple navigation steps Improved/Expected Behavior: Unpublish should be faster by having a button for it in reach. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Sanitas Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: The inability to tag a group (e.g. “user group”) in the new CF editor comments appears to be a known limitation based on the current design of the tagging functionality. Use-case: Our business uses the comments feature to review and approve. we have use case where we have a lot of user working at the same time.  Current/Experienced Behavior: We can tag a user, or user's not a group Improved/Expected Behavior: we need ability to tag a IMS group or AEM group  Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Cloud New Editor Customer-name/Organization name: JNJ Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: The CF picker that was in the old CF editor is not available in the new CF editor, so I would like it to be added. Use-case: A modal can be launched to allow category and product selection. Current/Experienced Behavior: The new CF editor does not have a CF picker. Improved/Expected Behavior: The new CF editor has a CF picker. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 2025.7.21772.20250730T182007Z Customer-name/Organization name: IBM Digital Service Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: I would like the new CF editor to be able to specify the full path when specifying the link destination, just like the old CF editor. Use-case: Specify an external site in the link path. Current/Experienced Behavior: Cannot specify anything other than the content path within AEM. Improved/Expected Behavior: Full path specification possible, including external sites. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 2025.7.21772.20250730T182007Z Customer-name/Organization name: IBM Digital Service Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: In Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), when promoting a Launch back to the source page, certain page properties—such as title, description, alias, and tags—are not being promoted as expected. This behavior appears to be a limitation (or bug) in the default roll out configuration and affects both customized and fresh AEM instances (e.g., 6.5.22 with We.Retail content). Use-case: A content author creates a Launch to prepare updates for a press release page. They modify several page properties in the Launch version, including metadata and visibility settings. Upon promoting the Launch, the content updates are applied, but many of the page properties revert or are lost—leading to inconsistencies and manual rework. Current/Experienced Behavior: Current Behavior Launch promotion excludes certain page properties due to default rollout configuration. The configuration at /libs/msm/launches/rolloutconfigs/launch/contentUpdate&nb

  Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Provide a way for the "Asset Compute microservice extensibility"/Asset Compute workers to access the default renditions for an Asset so the custom worker can use those as a baseline for further conversions. Either: Pass a default rendition to the worker (instead of, or in addition to, the original). Or: Defer worker invocation until default renditions are generated (opt-in), so the worker can fetch them reliably. Or: Allow non ARM64 containers and installation of custom binaries like imagemagick for the Asset Compute microservice Use-case: We need to generate custom renditions (e.g., square JPEGs with white borders) from assets like .ai (Adobe Illustrator), .psd (Adobe Photoshop), .svg, .eps, etc. These file types are already supported by AEM’s default rendition generation, but not by Asset Compute workers directly (see below for reasons). If workers could use AEM’s default renditions as inputs, they could reliably

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Word doc re upload option not updating sub assets folder Use-case: When we are changing/removing the images from the word doc and re upload with create version option then sub assets folder is not updating with latest images used in word document. Due to this there is mismatch in the images in word document and sub assets folder.This is a priority issue and we need to resolve on urgent. Could you please check and let us know on this issue.1. Navigate to Assets console, files option2. Upload a document with some images. update metadata.3. Change the images/remove one or two images in the word document.4. Upload word document with Create Version option5. Check the sub assets folder , observe mismatch with source word document . Current/Experienced Behavior: When we are changing/removing the images from the word doc and re upload with create version option then sub assets folder is not updating with latest images used in word docume

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary:   Use-case: ChatGPT and most AI crawlers do not support JavaScript. The Dynamic Media viewers are all built relying on JavaScript. Given the end user market is going to continue to grow and adopt the usage of AI tools as their primary source of information, Adobe should plan for the future and figure out some way to have some measure of support for AI.   If you give ChatGPT this question for this Adobe URL, then it demonstrates the issue:   I want you to evaluate one URL: https://s7d9.scene7.com/s7viewers/html5/FlyoutViewer.html?asset=Scene7SharedAssets/ImageSet-Views-Sample Is there an image on this URL? Current/Experienced Behavior:   Improved/Expected Behavior:   Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable):   Customer-name/Organization name:   Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: RTE support for <strong> and <em> tags Use-case: We are running an accessibility improvements project right now and our 3rd party a11y consultants reported some issues with they way RTE work.Right now RTE has an option to bolden a part of a text or to make it italic style. For that purpose it is using <b> and <i> standard HTML elements and this is perfectly fine. We have learnt that in some cases instead of these tags it is advisable to use <strong> or <em> tags as they also bring more context for a screen readers so that they can emphasise how to read that section of text.The <strong> tag is read by screen readers as an indication that the text enclosed within it carries strong importance. When a screen reader encounters a <strong> tag, it typically emphasizes the text, often by changing the tone or pitch of the voice, or by adding a pause before and after reading the text. This helps u