Provide your Review & Approve (ProofHQ) feedback to the Workfront UX Team!

Thanks, @Richard Carlson , @Emily Pandzik I was speaking of Custom Fields inside of PHQ. If you are using proofing inside of Workfront you may not be aware that it exists, because simply it doesn't exist inside of Workfront....yet. To ask it in a different way, are custom fields something you would like (or need) to see inside or Workfront? Skylar Sanford Workfront

I scrolled through the article that Richard linked to earlier in the thread (Thanks for that, btw!), but it doesn't appear to be something we would use. Most of our communication either goes in the body of the notification email, within Update Status or in the comments on the proof. Of course, I could wake up in the middle of the night with a Eureka for that, but off hand I don't think so. Emily Pandzik Staples, Inc.

@Barbara Sedlack Thanks for your golden feedback! The current experience of creating proof workflows is... a messy endeavor to say the least. It's quite clunky. For the past 8+ months, my team has been building a completely refreshed look and experience for this to make it more understandable and streamlined. Step 2, for me, is what you are talking about. Making the flow for designers to attached template workflows only a couple clicks. Not a couple dozen. Especially with teams like yours where your approval process seems rather consistent, the value of this would be hours saved each week. Barbara, I would be very interested in talking to you more directly about your team's process. And gain some more insight from you to shape our shortterm road map to meet the needs of teams like yours. Direct Message me if this is something you would be interested in doing ans we'll set something up. thanks! Skylar Sanford Workfront

@Skyler Hansen I would like to see further development of reporting ability regarding PHQ from within WF Richard Carlson Behr Process Corporation

Thanks, @Richard Carlson I would love to hear more specifics around how we could develop that can better solve your flows and processes. But it seems like the overall general feedback is for more visibility and data around the approval reporting. Thanks for your comments! Skylar Sanford Workfront

Responding to @Barbara Sedlack "We are also using proofing inside Workfront and document approvals. To be honest, I find the two separate approval choices and ProofHQ in general confusing so I have only done high level investigation into using PHQ advanced proofing." I agree! We did a deeper dive into PHQ Standalone and Advanced Proofing Options earlier this year, as mentioned in my previous post. When we realized we might have made a mistake by upgrading to PHQ Premium all together, I've kind of gone on pretending ProofHQ Premium doesn't exist. Kinda..sad! :( "I agree with everything Sydney mentions. Additionally for us, it's the responsibility of our designers to upload documents and assign approvers so the process to either create a proof workflow or even to attach a template is way too complex: There are too many options, the interface is confusing and the language differs from what they're already used to in Workfront." Our designers also upload documents and assign approvers. The last thing we want to do is crush their creative spirit with too many clicks, messages, settings, drop-downs, etc. It's okay if I, on the admin side, have to do a little more of this to set my team up for success, but I certainly don't want the responsibility to fall on our designers. I would also like to see consistent language, I'm all for setting up templated anything in Workfront instead of a one-off approach! My job essentially is Workfront....all day, every day. I'm constantly looking at how we're using the WHOLE system & reflecting on myself how we can use it better. I don't want ProofHQ Premium to be a missed opportunity but, @Skylar Sanford - I do feel better having participated in this Q&A - at least knowing how hard your team is working to improve the experience. I'm so excited to hear more about what the future of ProofHQ will look like! Sydney Peterson Diversified Communications, Inc.