Product Communities

Hi guys,we are using the Workfront AEM Native Connector to link asset between Workfront and AEM.As soon as the Native Connector is in place and configured it is possible to configure a project template in the "Experience Manager" area to automatically create a linked folder as soon as the project template is used.This works well using the UI. The API / Fusion up to now ignores this feature even though a template is applied in the project creation command.It would be appreciated if the same behaviour given via UI would be available in the API / Fusion as well, as this is a process which is desired to automated.Thanks and have a good day,Christian

Description - Allow moving around tables and visualizations inside of panels Why is this feature important to you - The current auto-snap/-arranging of components is sometimes too limitingHow would you like the feature to work - Have a "snap to grid" or "auto arrange" default setting that can be disabledCurrent Behaviour - moving elements around will try to snap into place which hinders some layouts

"FTE" and "Work Time" fields on our user objects can be more than 2 decimals places (e.g: work time  = 0.8108). However, standard user reporting will not display the full number, the best achieved is "0.81” as none of the available value format options achieve the desired result.This can be achieved in text mode by applying the format code "doubleAsString".It would be beneficial if the valueformat "doubleAsString" could applied to a field format option in standard mode to allow us to display full numerical values including all decimal places.

Description - AEP Permissions need better granularity added since there is only View and Manage. Create, Edit, and Deletion rights should all be segregated to prevent accidental deletions by limiting the people, roles, and groups that are given Delete rightsWhy is this feature important to you - We have had to recreate things several times in our new environment as people get used to the platform, but in order to do their jobs they need Create and Edit rights. They do not need Delete rights.How would you like the feature to work - Like any standard system granular rights settings are intended to workCurrent Behaviour - We can give people view or we can give them manage thereby giving them too much access.

Description - Today I learned from the Grant access to projects | Adobe Workfront article that you can create rules based on when a user of that Access Level creates a project. It would be amazing to have a comparable function for Tasks.Why is this feature important to you - When working with vendors that are represented by multiple users, it would be helpful to automate allowing all of users associated with that vendor to at least see what the rest of the vendor users are working on. Fusion can accomplish this, but the rest of us are stuck with either sharing by template configurations or individually by project. In our case, we "collect" vendor users by company, therefore we would like to give visibility to all projects the vendor touches by sharing projects to the company.How would you like the feature to work - In Access Levels settings, allow admins to create rules for Tasks along the lines of "When a user is assigned to a task, grant x access to their team/group/company."Cur

There seems to be an irony to the fact that Adobe Analytics doesn't provide analytics on how Adobe Analytics is being used As an organisation we have massively bought in to using Workspace to drive the self-service of data/insight throughout our business.As a result we are centrally managing a large quantity of workspace projects, segments, dimensions, calculated metrics for a significant number of Analytics users.In order to manage these effectively with Workspace, we desperately need to be able to understand things such as:how many times are components actively used (e.g. Segment X has been used 200 time in the last 30 days to retrieve data)which workspace projects a given component is associated with (e.g. Segment X is used in project A, project B and project C)what projects a given analytics user is accessing (user X has access Project A ten times in the last 30 days)Please can you consider giving us a decent level on Analytics on the Analytics?

Allow projects to be colour coded statically (set once and stay that colour) in the Workload balancer. This would be set at the project level or alternatively an automated rule could be added to the Workload balancer looking at who the assigned project manager is and colour coding accordingly. Or colour code conditionally based on another parameter in the project (from core fields or custom form fields).This will allow for a quick visual way to view the spread of work across all people assigned to a project within the Workload balancer.Scenario 1: All project being managed by Person ‚ÄòA’ are blue and all project managed by Person ‚ÄòB’ are green. But all projects that have no project manager assigned are grey.-OR-Scenario 2: All projects in the portfolio of “Information Technology” are purple and all projects within the portfolio of “Marketing” are pink.

We were testing the new Environment Promotion Beta.It's a great now tool to bring data to another systemAs we have a 2nd PROD system for performance testing using a different domain, we would highly appreciate to use the new feature here as well. Unfortunately this is currently not possible crossdomain.Therefore we have to always manually or via Kickstarts move the data, on top of that we lose all IDs by this and have to adjust a lot. Overall there is quite some effort for this data migration, and crossdomain Environment Promotion would help here massively.We already created a support case related to this: Case #00399884

When trying to create a report filter, Rich Text fields do not show up as options to filter on. So for example if you have a rich text field called "Challenges", you can't set up a report that filters for projects where the Challenges field is not blank.

 For all the "non developers" or people who do not have access to a web developer in their teamCan we have the option to exclude some web pages on a "global rule" for a form. For example, we get leads who provided their @gmail, @hotmail, @yahoo or another free email address to us at events or sales reps sneak them into Salesforce. We prefer to collect company email addresses for our company.We send the lead promotional emails, although when this lead wants to unsubscribe, the unsubscribe form won't accept their @gmail, @hotmail, @yahoo or another free email address. The lead can then say we are not conforming to GDPR rules or spam laws for their county, or they can make a complaint to our legal team.I want to exclude some forms from the global validation rule.OR if there is a solution that is native to Marketo (ie don't need a web developer to create a piece of code) please let me know!

Description - Once User Management is within Admin Console, all Users should be set-up here. However, currently the ability to add new Users will still be within Workfront. This creates a risk of profiles not being set-up properly and being out-of-sync with what is in Admin Console. There should be an ability to de-activate new user adds in WF (once moving to Admin Console) and instead, if someone navigates to the 'new user' section, it should show a note with a direct link indicating New User Management needs to be done in Admin Console. Why is this feature important to you - User management is core to product management & we do not want 2 different places for setting up users that could cause out-of-sync information. When a user is created in WF and automatically pushed to Admin Console, it pulls the users email name as their Username. This creates an Incorrect profile for our company in Admin Console, because our Admin Console user names need to be set up with SSO (Fed

Description:We need be able to identify irregularities/defects in our ecommerce business (declines in web traffic/sales/conversion).Using Alerts (both daily and hourly) with segments applied helps our teams triage in root cause analysis and investigations.Some of our hourly alerts trigger frequently if the criteria are met, most often during hours of the day where a large portion of our website/app visitors and purchasers are not browsing or purchasing. Why is this feature important to youWe are receiving specific hourly alerts for certain use cases more often then we would like.We have leadership and other stakeholders that have requested to receive these alerts, but we do not want to add them to the distribution until we can control the frequency to exclude these known instances from firing. We want to prevent the integrity of the Alerts tool from being deemed inaccurate and irrelevant as a result of this. How we would like the feature to workWe would like to have

Hi All.  I hope things are going well.  I had an idea I was hoping you could consider. It seems that the OOTB functionality of the AEP data processing from a Web SDK implementation includes converting the user's IP address into the Designated Marketing Area Identifier (DMA ID).  This identifier is part of the Web SDK Experience Event Field Group and again is provided by Adobe automatically, meaning this is NOT something we set or configure within the Web SDK itself (if you exclude "turning the feature on" within the Data stream and Web SDK extension). The values within this field look like numbers - for the US based visitors505, 506, 507, etc The problem with this field is it's data type.  It's set up as an "integer" field, not a text string For example, ID = 505 is actually the Detroit MI area.  but there is no 'DMA Name' field in AEP, just the DMA ID.  So running a report in AEP Query Services or CJA and getting a 505 number is not he

I would like to be able to customize the label of a field on each form but keep the back end for reporting.  Similar to how we can customize statuses per group but the 3 letter code can remain the same.  We can then manage the same pick list and back end data but have the label (aka user facing) make sense to each group.  

Description - Enable reviewers providing feedback on docs / proofs to be anonymous, so the feedback can be seen but not their name. Even though the feedback is anonymous, still want to be able to report on the specific users engagement (eg: User 1 reviewed 4 proofs) but the feedback they provided should be anonymous outside of System Admin level.  Why is this feature important to you - We have certain processes (like DE&I) that require anonymity for feedback providers, in order to create a safe space for their feedback & increase comfortably with providing feedback. Since WF currently doesn't enable this, we are going to build their process flow in AirTable. We How would you like the feature to work - Be able to select if the feedback being provided should be anonymous or not. If yes, have it turned on for a full process/proofs. Still ensure the engagement can be tracked via reporting however for each user.  Current Behaviour - Shows everyones name whos

Description - Create a way to pull or use data from Fusion operations."How many times has a scenario/module been run?""Can I use runID to track and check against operations in an integrated system?""Who is triggering the scenarios the most?""Did Fusion even exist before 30 days ago?"  Why is this feature important to you? - This would help us optimize existing scenarios through usage data and build better solutions with integrated systems.  How would you like the feature to work? - It would be great if it was as straightforward as Workfront's reporting, but no specific implementation requirements. Just having access to the data would be extremely helpful.  Current Behaviour - We can manually check runs that have happened in the past 30 days. Checking this way is very manual and tedious at best, and only shows data from the specific run. Any sort of aggregate data would have to be manually tallied and synthesized. 

Description - Allow PDF layer functionality to be available in ProofingWhy is this feature important to you - Users who go to the effort of incorporating layers into their PDF's don't want their final audience to not be able to use them.How would you like the feature to work - Retain more of the original PDF structure to allow layers throughCurrent Behaviour - Workfront flattens the PDF to view in proofing, thus removing the layer functionality.

Description -Why is this feature important to you - it was extremely beneficial to see the unassigned work on the same page as assigned work, this was allocation was much simpler to see who could take on work.How would you like the feature to work - just as it had beforeCurrent Behaviour - you're not able to review the team report for workload balancer for both unassigned work and assigned work. Unassigned work is not visible by job role.

Description - The ability for a workspace owner or editor to hide/unhide selected panels in workspace.Why is this feature important to you - Would allow me to condense what is visible for users that only requires a certain area of a template or workspace without outright removing panels. Would also allow for a space to workout a thought or a theory without muddying the report.How would you like the feature to work - Function should be the same as hidden tabs in excel Right click on a panel header to find the option to hide/unhide panels. Current Behavior - Panels can be minimized but anything you don't want shown needs to be in another report or deleted from the workspace.

Description - Have Workload Balancer free up hours for users if not usedWhy is this feature important to you – Right now if a user estimates 20 hour on a request, logs 5 hours and the request is either cancelled or completed, the user is still allocated for 20 hours even though 15 hours have freed up. Doing that over multiple requests could free up much time as estimated is always off some.How would you like the feature to work – If a user estimates 20 hours and logs 5 hours and the request is complete or cancelled, then the remaining 15 hours availability should be freed up for that user to be able to assign additional work.

Description - I would love to see consistency when I'm applying same choices from multi-select dropdown to an item listed in a report (e.g. task). Let's say dropdown has 3 options: 1,2,3. Depending on in which order they will be applied against task they may appear in random order: 1,3,2;   3,2,1;   3,1,2 etc. According to WF support randomness is per design.   Why is this feature important to you - Consistency in listing items makes it easier to read field values How would you like the feature to work - Regardless of the order in which I select dropdown values, if I select the same values I would like to see them display consistently, as 1,2,3. Keep it consistent. Current Behaviour - randomness

Description - Our users would like to be able to 'lock' fields on projects and make them only editable by certain users. Right now there doesn't appear to be any functionality that accomplishes this. For example, the PM may want to 'lock' the Duration field so only specified users can update that field. Right now, anyone with Contribute or Manage access to the project is able to adjust those values. Or anyone with View access that has a Task level assignment. These permissions vary from project to project so we would like to be able to set these permissions on the object itself, and not as an Enterprise level rule. Why is this feature important to you - This is important for data integrity. Not all users should have access to edit all fields just because they have access to a project.  How would you like the feature to work - I envision some type of 'lock' or 'share' button on the field that allows us to set permissions for that particular field. This would supersede any

Be able to generate timeline view in detail for the entire project. I want to be able to color code each task on the timeline. I want to be able to see subtasks within the larger task on the timeline. I want to be able to see milestones and a marker for today's date on the timeline. MS project has these functionalities.

Description - Our custom form fields were created 11 years ago and over the years things have changed and several field formats need to be changed, however, as of right now, there is not an easy way to change the format of a custom form fields without losing historical data (ex: changing a field from a drop down to a free text field)Why is this feature important to you - allows users to adapt new workflows or changes in workflows without losing historical dataHow would you like the feature to work - Allow field format to be changed without losing historical dataCurrent Behaviour - currently a form field format cannot be changed once it is created.

Hello,  This is a feature request to add annotations in all trended displays in AA and CJA.  Right now, I believe I can only see annotations in "line" charts.  But I can see that it would be also valuable to see annotations in: combo displaysarea displaysbar displaysetc.Sorry if this is in the wrong spot.  Will move this if needed.