Adobe Workfront

Description - it is currently too cumbersome to commit to a new date. Users have to open the task to commit to a new date.Why is this feature important to you - users commit to new dates often so streamlined functionality is importantHow would you like the feature to work - from the My Tasks widget, open the summary area under quick actions and see the commit date field. OR have a commit date field as a column in the My tasks widget. Current Behaviour - Users have to open the task and select a new date from the commit date field.

Description - We would like the option to be able to somehow setup repeatable deliverables in Workfront Planning. As it is now, if you want to repeat a campaign, etc. you need to manually copy any relevant record or develop something using Fusion or the API.    Why is this feature important to you - Many of the initiatives that use Planning are inherently repeatable, from annual product launches to repeatable ad-spots, but there is no way to replicate a specific plan in order to be re-used for future plans.    How would you like the feature to work - We would like to be able to either copy/ clone a record type and have all connected records also copy or the ability to create a Planning template from a specified record.   Current Behaviour - Currently you can copy individual records but connections are not maintained so if you have an involved plan, you will need to manually copy each relevant record and add the connections or you would have you use Fusion or t

In the new unified approvals, you can't see the what was selected once a new version goes up.  You have to flip back to the previous version to see who 'rejected' (needs work).  You used to be able to see the approvals without having to flip between versions. Can be time consuming with a ton of documents to proof.

Companies typically update exchange rates annually. At present, Workfront does not support multi-year exchange rates. For instance, revising the exchange rates for FY25 impacts the financials of projects completed in FY24 and prior. While this may not influence projects with minor budgets, it becomes significant for those with larger budgets.Request: Implement custom exchange rates that include a year parameter.

Currently in the New Request Experience Beta when you filter by status (see first screenshot below), the options are:CompletedIn ProgressRejectedIn reviewPending ReviewOut of these statuses, we only use Completed and In Progress, and there are many statuses that we use that are missing. Additionally, new Requests are shown as "In Progress", even when the Requests are not yet in an In Progress status. This causes confusion for our users when there is a status mismatch between the Request itself and the Requests page. See the example below in screenshot 2 and 3 where it shows my test request as "In Progress" on the Requests screen, but when you go into the Request, the status is "New". Ideally, the filter options for the Requests page would include all of the active Issue status options, similar to what is available when filtering Issue status in a Report. The status shown in the status column on the Requests page should match the status that the Request is currently in. D

Description - Currently document proofs open in a new tab. We'd like for document proofs to open in the same tab. This feature is important to us because our team frequently opens and reviews proofs and they would like to toggle between the project and the proof in the same window. Proofs opening in a new tab is creating excessive amounts of open tabs for the team. Thank you

Description - Need to be able to see which user adds/removes custom forms on an objectWhy is this feature important to you - Fusion troubleshooting and investigation supportHow would you like the feature to work - Identify the user that made the update, identify the name of the form, and identify the timestampCurrent Behaviour - Addition/Removal of custom forms are not tracked in the update feeds as is stands today

When submitting a Adobe support ticket there is a selection of 129 time zones to choose from and it is difficult to find the one I need. There is a lot of scrolling through this long list because they are in not in alphabetic order.  Perhaps you could offer up time zones in an easier way to navigate when submitting a ticket. Even better, having the system remember what I selected last time or what is linked in my profile would make this a much easier experience.

This idea proposal addresses a critical data integrity and reporting inconsistency in the existing Journal Entry Report related to Date custom fields. The report currently fails to correctly apply the user's time zone offset, resulting in dates that are one day off from the actual user-entered value displayed elsewhere in the platform. Description - The "New Date Value" column in a Journal Entry Report tracking edits to a Date-Only custom field (i.e., not a Date/Time field) often displays an incorrect date. This date is shifted by the user's UTC offset, resulting in a day mismatch compared to the date displayed in the Custom Form and the System Activity Log. This inconsistency arises because the report is not correctly translating the stored UTC date (which defaults to 12:00 AM UTC) into the viewing user's local time zone, causing the date to prematurely roll over to the previous day. Why is this feature important to you - Accurate reporting is fundamental to trusti

Currently, the closest thing in Fusion to a Loop is the Repeater Module with hardcoded i and n variables. A loop module in Workfront fusion is greatly needed with the following capabilities.Ability to set i and n for loop.Ability to update i real time during loopAbility to escape loop once case is metAdding all types of loops... for each, do while etc. would be a home run.Fusion 1.0 had this type of logic and hoping we can get some of it back again.Current functionality does not allow for escaping the loop when certain condition is achieve so the loop is optimal. Now we are forced to indicate the number of iterations to a max number which is suboptimal from a processing point of view.