Adobe Workfront

A user is unable to see the deadline in the report. I have raised this ticket multiple times, but the issue still persists.Upon checking, I found that this is related to how the stage deadlines are configured. For example, if there are two stages and the user is a reviewer only in Stage 1 (with no involvement in Stage 2), Adobe Workfront appears to consider only the overall (final) deadline rather than the stage-specific deadline. As a result, the relevant deadline is not visible to the user in the report.Could you please confirm:Is there an option to display stage-specific deadlines for users based on their assigned stage within reports?If not, is there any recommended workaround to achieve this?Looking forward to your guidance on this.

I’m hoping someone can help me understand why reviewers/approvers on a proof are receiving two different approval experiences. In some cases, reviewers are prompted to “make a decision,” while in other cases they are only given the options “Approve,” “Approve with Changes,” or “Needs Work,” which is the workflow we want to use consistently. Because the options presented are not the same for all reviewers/approvers, it creates confusion in our review and approval process. Could you clarify what causes these different approval methods to be sent, and whether there is a setting or configuration that controls this behavior?I’m also seeing what appears to be a related issue when I upload a new document to a project. I automatically receive an approval notice in my Home widget, even though these documents do not actually require my approval. Note: when we upload documents, they automatically create a proof.   In this situation, I am consistently asked to ‘Make a Decision’.   This clutters th

Hello Community! Has anyone successfully used the “Create Record” automation available within Planning and been able to get linked fields to transfer between record types? The only options for creating record between record types is Name, Start Date, and End Date (we use a taxonomy workspace and link picklist there).

We have several product fields (multi-select dropdown) on custom forms used by different groups. One group would like to adjust the fields by adding new choices on them that won’t apply to the other groups. No deletion or renaming of existing choices is needed. These fields have been used on thousands of requests and projects by the group, and I’d like to keep that data intact for them. I know that changing the fields will change them on all the other groups’ forms. I’ve tried making copies of the fields in Preview to see if the copy carries over the original field’s selection, but it didn’t work. Is there a way to copy the existing fields for this group’s forms (requests and projects) so that the copies retain all of the previous entered data while also allowing me to add the new choices they requested?

Currently, setting the default filters and groups in a Layout Template > “Home” > “Widget Settings”, changes the default filter for all areas of Workfront. IE if a user is on a layout template where the default grouping for the “My Tasks” widget is set to “Project”, all areas of Workfront where the user views tasks will be grouped by project. This is simply a poor UI choice - these settings should either only affect the home widgets, or they should be moved to a section of the UI that indicates they affect the entire system.

This morning, I did a proof of concept of "Targeted Auditing" and would like to share it with the Community. I thought of the idea years ago but never made time for until my unsatisfying response to this thread twigged my memory. As below, my example records the changes to a particular "Target" custom text parameter in its "Target History" custom calculated parameter counter part...and to my delight, actually works! The formula turned out to be why-didn't-I-try-this-sooner? simple: LEFT(IF(LEFT(Target History,LEN(IF(ISBLANK({Target}),"-",{Target})))={Target},Target History,CONCAT(IF(ISBLANK({Target}),"-",{Target})," (",$$NOW,") | ",{Target History})),2000) And does the following: - limits the Target History to the most recent 2000 characters (staying within the Workfront database limit)- checks if the current Target value (treating it as "-" if it is blank) matches the front of the Target History value- if they match, leaves the Target History "as is"- if they don't match, replaces the

I have an existing WF user who has been using the program for years and has never had an issue with logging in before. Today however when she goes to log in she gets the following error message"You don't have access to the linked application for that organization an have been redirected to the Experience Cloud home page" I had her close wf and clear her cashe and now when she tries to log back in she is getting another error message"This username may be incorrect. Make sure you typed it correctly. Otherwise, contact your admin"I checked and her username is correct. Has anyone had this happen to them before and how did you fix it? Attached screenshots of the error messages."

As the Workfront Second Quarter Release is scheduled for next week (April 16 - Quarterly Release, April 15 - Monthly/Fast Release), this webinar highlighted a handful of enhancements coming to Advanced Enterprise Operations, Unified Approvals (the future of proofing in Workfront), Reporting, Fusion, and Workfront Planning. There are several demos in the on-demand recording, so it’s a bit longer than usual - plan for 75 minutes unless you watch on 2x speed.  If you weren't able to attend - no worries! The links to the slide deck, recording, and Q&A are listed below. Be sure to review the release notes on Experience League, as not all feature enhancements were covered in the webinar today!  Webinar Recording  Slide Deck PDF - note that the videos cannot be replayed in the slide deck PDF, so I’ve included links to those below  All videos from the section, Advanced Enterprise Operations Enhancements, can be found here - Financial Management (slide 18), Enhanced Layout Templates (sl

If you just got back from Adobe Summit 2026 (or wished you had), this is the event you don't want to miss. The Workfront WUG – Southern California is hosting a virtual after party on May 12, 2026 — and we're skipping the polished recaps in favor of the real conversation.What announcements will actually change how your team works? What's worth bringing back to your org — and what's just hype? Our expert panelists are ready to give you their unfiltered takes on Workfront, content supply chain innovation, and AI. No fluff. Just clarity, candor, and a little healthy debate.🗓️ May 12, 2026 | VirtualAll chapters, members, and guests welcomeRegister here: https://workfront-augs.adobe.com/events/details/adobe-workfront-wug-southern-california-presents-spill-the-tea-adobe-summit-2026-after-party/Mega-WUGs are special virtual events where all Workfront User Group (WUG) chapters are invited. Not familiar with WUG?  Learn more here.

I’m curious who is using Priorities and whether it’s working well for your team. I’ve been playing around with it for a while and really like the UI and overall functionality, but it still feels a bit too “clicky” for me to comfortably roll out to our teams.For example, our Creative team lives in their assigned tasks and frequently jumps into the project custom form to view requirements/details. In Priorities, it seems like they need to click into the project name and then click “Go to details” from the side panel to get there. Am I missing an easier way to navigate this?Would love to hear how others are using Priorities in similar workflows/scenarios.

We have Workfront contributors that will view a monthly report that contains a proof link, where they can view a document proof. For these users, all User notification settings set to off. However, when they click to view the Document Proof, Workfront is adding them as a “Reviewer” to the Document Proof and automatically subscribing them to receive Daily Summaries for that project. We tested resolution by keeping them as Reviewer with Proof notification settings disable. However, next month when they view the report again, it auto-defaults to start sending Daily Summaries. This is an issue, as these particular users cannot get bogged down with the details within those daily summaries for each project, and we need to control this scenario to protect their inbox.Has anyone else experienced this and/or found a resolution? I saw a past post in Experience League, but it was marked as “resolved” due to inactivity on comments, but with no resolution.

Is it possible using custom form validation to only allow a particular field to be edited by only 2 users?I tried it on 1 user but it isn’t a valid expression. IF($USER!="609974980022b44f8ff9fc5e51b8516f", "You are not authorized to edit this field.") or maybeIF {$$USER}.{emailAddr} = "john.Doe@mscdirect.com", true)Any help is appreciated.  

Why is this feature important to you -My PMO manages projects for a Creative Studio Resource. At any given time there are more than 100 projects open. When we are looking at that teams Workload Balancer we can't tell easily which projects are running ahead or behind as there is no way to see the Priority. The Priority is a field in the Overview section on a Project under Basic Information that is an out of the box field. Today we utilize Flexible and Firm Deadline to know if the Creative Studio has more time or not for their task. They appear in green (Flexible) and red (Firm Deadline). How would you like the feature to work -If Priority was added as one of the Color Theme, then it would color code the projects on the Workload Balancer - green (Flexible) and red (Firm Deadline). Benefits - Team members can see which projects are most critical (green and red), fostering alignment and urgency. Color-coded priorities help visualize workload distribution and plan for capacity more effectiv

Hi everyone - I’m building a task report for my team. Most of the fields I am referencing are related to the project and task however there are a few fields I need to reference from the converted request. I haven’t been able to figure out how to pull in the converted request reference number. The best I can do is the request name. I tried to see if I could pull it in by tweaking text mode but I’m still learning and don’t really know what I’m doing.  Any assitance or guidance is appreciated. 

I built a document report that includes the Current Version » Proof Decision field.  I added a filter to include only those documents where this decision field is not blank.In addition to the expected decision values--approved, approved with changes, changes required, pending--I’m also seeing a “-” value:  Does anyone know what exactly this “-” value reflects?  I don’t work a lot with proofs themselves (I’m just reporting on them), so I’m not sure what conditions might produce this value.The API Explorer just lists the field as a non-groupable string, but it doesn’t specify possible values.Thanks.