It would be very helpful if someone has commented on a proof, then deletes their comment because it's not need anymore or they were mistaken, that the comment does not show up in the updates section OR has a line through it, something to show it was deleted. We have had a few times where people have left comments on a proof and then decided they weren't need anymore so they delete the comment, it doesn't show up on the proof, but it still shows up in the updates section. Without going into proofing activities, we have no way of knowing that the comment was deleted and think it still pertains to the current proof. It would be really nice if the comments are deleted, they are deleted everywhere, but if not possible, they have a red checkmark, line through them or something that would show in the updates, that this was deleted as well.
We have had a lot of issues troubleshooting a recent issue experienced in IE. Having an Adobe Experience Cloud Debugger for other browsers would have allowed us to be more efficient in our troubleshooting. This would also be helpful from an Analytics perspective.
I would like to be able to use Marketo's REST API to move Program(s) from Folder A (current) to Folder B (desired).Currently, there is no available API endpoint to do this operation, but it is crucial to a fully automated Archive process which maintains Program Member Data.I think this Marketo Nation post does a good job of describing the issue as well: https://nation.marketo.com/t5/product-discussions/rest-api-to-move-assets-move-email-program-frrom-folder-a-to/td-p/300009Ideally, I'd like there to be a POST "Move Programs" endpoint, but it might also be possible to accomplish this with the POST "Update Program Metadata" endpoint as well if a query parameter for "Folder" was added.Thanks for considering!
Description - Would like to have the availability to see the blocklist for email notifications from Workfront.Why is this feature important to you - recently I have been on a back and forth confirming emails are being sent through and getting the right SMTP request, however the problem was they were just on the blocklist and having the availability to that would make a quick fix.How would you like the feature to work - Availability to the block list to my instances and also the ability to add or remove user to that depending on my criteria for that instance as a system admin.Current Behaviour - Have to ask to check and edit that list from customer support
Description -We are interested in setting up the Sharepoint/Workfront integration. Instead of using the first 3 delegated permissions listed below, is it possible for Adobe to update their application to use just one delegated Microsoft Graph API permission called Sites.Selected? Have full access to your filesRead items in all site collectionsEdit or delete items in all site collectionsMaintain access to data you have given it access toView your basic profile Why is this feature important to you This would better adhere to the principle of least privileged access and would allow us to specify one or more SharePoint sites to use with the integration rather than allowing access to all files and sites that the signed-in user has access to. How would you like the feature to work To use just one delegated Microsoft Graph API permission called Sites.Selected? Current Behaviour Requires using all the permissions.
There seems to be a one-way interaction between the tasks in a project and the cards that represent tasks in Boards. The primary issue is that there does not seem to be a way to add cards to a board and have them show up back in projects. Having a hybrid way of managing tasks would be extremely beneficial. Limited options for visibility of data on cards The “auto” statuses that can be configured on columns don't include Group statuses - only global.Only have access to a limited set of filtersCan’t see Duration as a custom field to add within a cardExample form Project view editing: Example from Boards: How do boards show up in views and reports?The only thing I could find resulted in this: This button didn’t do anything useful.Looking at the project view is even more of mess: Why does it show me those fields if they’re supposed to be turned off?The view is “sticky” so it applies to whatever project you’re looking at even if you don’t want that view for that particular project. Switching the view back and forth is not an option when switching between projects.
Current Behaviour / Description - Both the project and individual user settings have an option to select a schedule. If you select the project setting to have option A (no holidays) and the individual user setting to have option B (company holidays), the project will not use the project setting option A if an individual user is assigned a task. If two or more people are assigned a task however, then the task will default to the project setting of option A. The reason the project setting works is due to the system project preferences: When multiple users are assigned to a task, use the schedule of the....Project. How would you like the feature to work - We should be able to use the project setting to override the individual user's setting. Why is this feature important to you - Users work on different types of projects. Some are more time sensitive that others so we should be able to select the schedule that works best for the project type. Additional Notes: This really becomes a problem with you have predecessors with long lag times or durations. Tasks can get pushed out pretty far from all the vacation and time off. Another idea would be to have the project exclude holidays and time off when calculating duration / lag time but avoid scheduling the actual due date on a holiday. For additional information, refer to: Case Number 00406587 - Schedule functionality not working as expected [ ref:!00D3006HBH.!5004X01z7BqB:ref ]
Have hover over text on the Drill-Down Tab stating to "select a row to Drill-Down"
In the Workload Balancer, although time off appears as diagonal lines in the box, the hours are not calculated/included in the resources' overall planned hours for a given day. It would be helpful as a Resource Manager to see the cumulated hours (which includes ie 1 or more hours). Right now, I have to go into the Resources' time off to confirm the hours they are taking and then account for that when assigning tasks.
Within our Salesforce-Marketo Sync, we sometimes need to resync a custom object. Sometimes it is because we've added a new field and need to populate it for every record, and sometimes it is because there are records active on the object in Marketo that have been deleted in Salesforce (and the sync somehow missed the deletion). To resync an object currently, you have to disconnect that object from every asset within Marketo where is has been referenced (smart list filters, campaign flow steps, etc.). This can mean going into hundreds of assets one-by-one and essentially breaking the logic by removing the relevant filters. This is not only time and resource intensive, but also very destructive. Once the object has been resynced, one has to go back to all of those assets, or at least those that are still in use, and add the relevant filters back. There should be a way to resync a SFDC custom object without disconnecting it from every asset.
On a frequent basis we often find that because we have so many segments and calculated metrics, we use them in so many different places and we change them so often it can become a bit of a nightmare to manage. A bit part of that is on us to find processes to manage them effectively however something did occur to me which would make this 1,000 times easier... versioning!Similar to the file control you have on One Drive or Dropbox the ability to see the history / changes that have been made and revert to them if you want. It would mean when we change a segment and something breaks we can chose to revert or create a new segment based on the old one. Currently that version of the segment is just overwritten and we can find ourselves scratching our heads and wasting time testing to work out what it was before.
A project should be able to reference a previously existing Request Queue to use as its own structure for requests made within the project. Currently, each project has its own Queue Details, Queue Topics, and Routing Rules. A project that already exists should be able to lean on the Queues that already exist and house the new requests when created. This would be convenient when requesting a new task within a project.
Description - When converting a request to a task or project, the user would see the documents section that is typically available to the requester during form submission. This would allow the user to quickly drag and drop any additional files that were not uploaded when the Request was first submitted. They could do this after the Project is created, but that involves a few more clicks around the interface and this would be faster. Why is this feature important to you - It would reduce the number of clicks needed to add documents either before or after. My process would be more efficient. How would you like the feature to work - This would work exactly like adding a Task to a Project using the "+ New Task" button and clicking "More Options." Picture attached.
The Workload Balancer is really the only part of the Resource Manager that our teams use. The other features have not proven to work for us. The Scenario Planner (which seems unfinished) needs more of a connection between its features and the Workload Balancer. Combining the two would unify the planning of possible initiatives with the reality of a team’s capacity. They are currently disparate and fall short in how much they can be used to roadmap work quickly and efficiently. If you were able to quickly work on new initiatives and broadly assign users to those initiatives on the fly, that would be an extremely useful feature. Another disparate feature is the relationship between the Workload Balancer and the Work Effort columns in a project view. I should be able to update this percentage in the Work Effort column from within a project view and have this be reflected in the Workload Balancer. Right now it is only the “small, medium, large” shortcut, but it should be specific percentages like the allocation feature in the Workload Balancer allows. It takes too much time to click away from a Task view and into the Workload Balancer view from inside the project. The new filters GUI should allow you to switch between to a text edit view.The 3 month view should still split the allocations up by weeks. The current distribution of hours is very confusing when applying a single percentage to an entire 3 month period. It’s hardly ever used because of this. The tool should show Task status colors in Workload Balancer. Currently, you can only choose to color code the items in the Workload Balancer based on the project status, but this is misleading if the project is in-progress (green), but the task is on hold (red) because all tasks would show as green. It would be helpful to visualize the Tasks by their individual statuses.The Utilization feature is not used because it is only month-to-month, the filter system is yet another method of configuring, and it doesn’t describe actual user assignment. This is another example of a feature that should be more integrated with the Workload Balancer and not a separate view. Anytime the tool only shows “FTE” instead of the actual % is confusing. As an example. This can be seen in the Planner view. [4/22/2024] The ability to move/shift task dates would be a HUGE time saver. It’s understandable that doing this is difficult because of the various task constraints and dependencies of the tasks within the project. However, you have options if you auto-set the tasks to fixed dates once you move and the original task constraint doesn’t work with the change you’ve made. Another option would be to treat these if you took the approach of the Scenario Planner and treated the
This would be helpful for when using a prompt in a report and the filters are worth saving as a new, non-prompted report.
Description - We would like all custom fields to have a check box that denotes "System Admin Only" can update. We want this to appear on existing and future fields created. We want to be able to select this during and after a new custom field is created. We want a System Admin to go into a custom field and select "System Admin Only". Why is this feature important to you - We have approximately 60 key custom fields that we only want System Admins to be able to modify. Yes, we educate and enable System Admins and Group Admins on how custom forms/fields work. We ask that any requests to modify these 60 key fields be brought to Governance Board. We have a custom form with these fields on it that we ask users to refer to. We also have a google sheet with these fields listed. We have learned (the hard way) that people forget. We need to add in a level of checks and balances to these key fields. This monitoring becomes even more important as we integrate into new applications in the future. We are currently integrated into AEM, and have active fusion scenerios. How would you like the feature to work - We want all existing and future custom fields to have a checkbox titled "System Admin Only can update". This should appear at the top of the field. There would be in information text that would advise the user that only a system administrator can update this field, please reach out to them directlyCurrent Behaviour - Group and Sys admins can create and edit key fields that require governance before creation or editing. Realize this would require existing fields to be reviewed by Governance Board, which is fine. Also acknowledge ongoing governance would be needed to identify future key fields that require the "Sys Admin" only updates.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: If someone is migrating to AEM and now want to add whole folder in assets without choosing single files. So, to reduce production time there should be option to upload a folder in AEM assets. Use-case: It will help to upload folder in assets and helpful in bulk assets upload. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently there is no option for uploading folder in AEM assets while we upload DAM assets to AEM Assets. Improved/Expected Behavior: It will be helpful to upload a complete folder of assets instead of single assets file. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): All Versions. Customer-name/Organization name: Bhavi Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
We would like to be able to create a portfolio, only accessible by the senior executive within out company, so they are able to create programmes of work incorporating sensitive projects. We do not want Sys admins to have access to these portfolios/programmes/projects, as the the work will be very sensitive.
Description - Currently when building many stages in Automated Proof Workflows and using the option "When previous stage deadline passes" to start the next stage, you have the option only to add days but not hours or minutes. There's a missing granularity for workflows that need to flow faster (e.g. in a day or a few hours), or when the same stage needs to be split into several stages due to the amount of users and start within 10 minutes between each other.Why is this feature important to you - We have workflows that have many users and stages and we need the stages to get activated automatically vs. how it's done now, when someone needs to manually activate each stage.How would you like the feature to work - to have minimum 10 minutes periods instead of 1 day to activate next stage.Current Behaviour - You only have the option to add days but not hours or minutes, or set specific time when the stages will be activated, which means the proofs need to be created at specific time only.
Idea is to have an Approval Path for incoming requests, and for approved requests to automatically update to "Approved" Status. For example, we set up a new request queue to build a Project Roadmap. These are potential projects that will be coming later in the year. We created a basic form to gather info for our VPs to review and make an informed decision to move forward. Workflow is as follows: Step 1: Request Received Step 2: “VP Approver” (Job Role) to Approve Request (via Approval Path)If Approved, Request should show as “Approved” If Rejected, Request should show as “Rejected” In testing, a new request comes in as "New - Pending Approval". However, when the request is approved, it changes the status to "New" vs "Approved". We need another field in the Approval Path to identify the status based on the parameters. (See Case #00411357)
Description - Previously when someone signed in as you and sent and update or made project changes or completed a task it showed the "Bob" Did this on behalf of "Priti"Why is this feature important to you - Other Admins may make mistakes in error (hopefully not on purpose) and it doesn't show who it was actually done by. Also, our admins cover each other on vacation and it looks like we were working on vacation. How would you like the feature to work - Bring back the previous way when someone signed in as you and sent and update or made project changes or completed a task it showed the "Bob" Did this on behalf of "Priti"Current Behaviour - Doesn't show who actually did the update or changes.
Description - It is a known issue that the Recommendations UI cannot be trusted. This is problematic. Why is this feature important to you - Without accurate data, troubleshooting and set-up is incredibly difficult.How would you like the feature to work - The counts and data should be accurate.Current Behaviour - It shows incorrect counts, it shows expired products, the data is mismatched. At a minimum, it should be made known that the UI is incorrect in the solution. Target can be used to put banners on websites, how about a banner on the catalog page that the data can't be trusted?
It would be really helpful if it would be possible to copy text from the proof. For example: During our production process we have to compare a lot of article numbers. Which you normally can easy copy from a pdf and paste into the tool for checking. But Workfront does not allow to copy text so we have to type it manually everytime. It would be really helpful if it would be possible to copy from the file directly as you can do it in every PDF.
There is no native integration between Marketo and Instagram. Marketo Engage should either provide a native integration or enhance the Facebook integration to also support Instagram requests.
How many times a trackAction is activated with an ID that is not registered or is entered incorrectly within the native app code.Taking into account that the development cycles for the deployment of applications within the different STORES (Android & IOS) can take months, these trackActions are dirtying the data and can sometimes increase the useless consumption of SERVER CALLS in your company.This can cause unwanted SERVER CALLS billing.Currently, the "CONTEXT DATA" data in the event we want can be modified through Adobe Launch, enriching the event from "Adobe Launch", but we cannot prevent a "SERVER CALL" from being executed even if we do not need it in our implementation. How would you like the function to work?Ideally, to avoid unwanted "SERVER CALLS", we would include an option in the "MOBILE CORE" where we could prevent the execution of a "trackAction" or a "trackState", conditioning based on its "action name" and/or contextData (in Adobe Launch UI). Current behaviorThere is no way to prevent a "SERVER CALL" from being consumed and counted, even if it is not controlled, or has been included by mistake within the source code of the mobile application through the "trackAction" / "trackState" events. There are some issues in the community regarding this that are quite old.This feature should be a "MUST" to better control the data that reaches the Report Suites, it would give a lot of flexibility and control over the data.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
