Build better products with our product team
My organization uses Workfront Planning to manage our Enterprise Strategic Plan. Initially, users submit very early stage Strategic Plan Requests for initial review. If it is determined by leadership that it aligns with the organization's strategic goals, they are approved to begin discovery. The Request itself is not approved at this time, it is just moved to a different status, indicating they can move forward with discovery. Once discovery is complete, it is reviewed again, and only then if approved does it move over to Workfront Proper to become a full project.This discovery could take years in some cases, and is occurring while the item is still a Request in Planning. We need a way for these users to track their time contributed to the discovery process.
My organization uses Workfront Planning to manage our Enterprise Strategic Plan. Through the use of structured taxonomies, we’re able to create a timeline view that allows for the breakdown Strategic Theme -> Strategic Sub-Theme -> Strategic Statements -> Projects, showing where each project falls on the timeline that impacts its associated strategy.We'd like to break it down a step further and be able to expand each Project associated with a Strategic Statement within that timeline view to show the Milestones within the Project, or specifically labeled Parent Tasks, allowing teams to view where each phase of any given Initiative then falls within the overall project timeline all in one view.Currently we're unable to do so as the only available Workfront Object Types to connect to in Planning are Project, Portfolio, Program, Company, Group and Original Request.
When updating the panel date ranges, the Comparison Dates stay the same. This means we as users have to delete the old comp dates and percentage change metrics, then create new ones. On bigger “recycled” dashboards, this takes FOREVER! This one improvement would save me hours and hours and hours every year.Thanks! RR
Right now, we can only export meta data on a folder level. This is impractical if you need to edit only meta data for 30 assets, but then wait hours for a folder meta data report because there are 5k assets in a folder. And no, smaller folder is not an option here. So what would be preferrable is that you simply select any assets you want and click “export metadata”. The upload of meta data should support this, so that you can add the meta data e.g. for the top folder and it will be applied to all assets in the csv, regardless of their sub folder location (not tested in current environment - maybe this works already?).
Currently, the meta data export csv does not contain the asset ID. This is a real problem because the asset ID (“urn:aaid:aem:”) is the unique identifier and with this ID, you can easily compare, consolidate or edit meta data import sheets or locate a specific asset in the csv, even if some assets have identical titles etc.. This is a feature that I would expect of ANY DAM, not a nice to have, but a must-have. Support asked me to send in an idea, but I feel the product is lacking a standard feature here.
Hello! We would like to propose that when using a Workflow Template for Proofing that the V2 (Version 2) of that document would follow the deadline days and time as formatted in the initial template set up. Thank you!
Our enterprise application development services cover everything from legacy system modernization to custom workflow automation. We focus on secure architecture, smooth integrations, and long-term maintainability, so your applications keep working reliably as your teams, data, and business requirements continue to grow over time.
There is an important option missing in the date rage panel.We can select the current period but not the selected period of the workspace. So it's not possible to create dynamic comparison to the current time range users set in the workspace.In other words we absolutely need these options:- current day- current week- current month- current quarter- current year- current date range
It is a huge inefficiency that we cannot bulk edit like items on template tasks in multiple templates. For example, I want to bulk edit a value on the same task custom form in multiple template tasks/across multiple templates. I pull all of the tasks in a template task report, select the several I want to change, all of which have the same task custom form, and you cannot do this. You get the error below. You can bulk edit tasks across projects, why can we not bulk edit tasks across multiple templates?
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Content Hub Display Use-case: Current/Experienced Behavior: Content Hub Display Labels on Filters Improved/Expected Behavior: The filter list in Content Hub currently shows technical values instead of display labels. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Attached/below. Keen to hear counterpoints and other considerations for use.
When creating a report, you have the Report Default view that is naturally created which works great for a lot of specific reports, but we find creating reporting for multiple teams challenging as they want to see different data elements (different columns) based on their role; looking for options to avoid creating multiple reports for basically the same thing and also increase the ease of using reports without having to team users which views go with which reports and also which ones simply are used potentially in project list views or somewhere else. Idea: Have the ability to create or associate specific views (columns/formatting) and tag them to a report. Ideally, this would be available in a section on top with predefined reporting views that users can quickly navigate between. Bonus: Have the option to select a view based off simple rules such as If TeamID = Leader then present the Leadership view (configured when creating the report!)
The standard endpoints used to export results do not support returning the specific test variant details for A/B-tested emails. When an email is part of an A/B test, the API returns the generic value "Whole Emails Test."This value identifies that the email belongs to an A/B test group, but it does not indicate whether the email was Variant A or Variant B. As a result, the specific variant cannot be determined using the results.I understand that this information is important for your use case. However, at the moment, we do not have an API endpoint that can identify whether an email belongs to Variant A or Variant B.
We would like to be able to determine how many times a webhook is called in past 30/60/90 days. We can get the people that were affected by the webhook, but because the webhook could process more than one person, the two are not equal. We want to see this to determine how frequently these webhooks are being called.
I find where I spend most of my time utilizing the log in as feature is on testing new reports - specifically ones where $$USER.ID is involved.I think it would be super helpful if there was a button for admins on the Report Actions to have a “View Report As” feature that allows admin’s to preview a report as a specific user to save all of the clicks between setup and reports.
I get an error in the Journey canvas about missing opt out link in the email body. Se attached image. This is not correct - since there is a opt out link present in a Footer fragment in the same template. The opt out link i coded in the fragment, and are present in the same way with the same ID-s that is needed for the link to work. But for some reason this manually coded link is not recognized as a out out link when AJO checks the code/template. Se picture of the code with the link. It would be nice if manually placed code also could be recognized when it is actually the same code that AJO is creating. This is an unnecessary error message that cases a lot of confusion.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.