Skip to main content

Ideas

Filter by idea status

10000+ Ideas

New Asset Relationship Type for Release/LicenseNeeds Information

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: One of our primary business cases for related assets is to relate talent releases (model releases, etc) or creative licenses to the asset to show that we have the right to use images, music and other creative materials. We would like to be able to clearly call out when an asset relationship is for this pupose to drive compliance with intellectual property laws and guidelines. Use-case: A user creates an asset relationship between an asset like a photo or video and the model release provided by a person whose likeness is used in the aset, and relates the model release as an asset reference, with the type of "Release", rather than "Other". Current/Experienced Behavior: A user loads a new photography asset into AEM Assets that has a recognizable face in it. The user uploads a PDF version of a model release from the person whose likeness appears in the image, and from the original image, creates a relationship type of "Other" from the image to the PDF model release. Future viewers of the image asset see a relationship type of "Other" and need to rely on the asset title of the model release, or viewing the model release itself, to understand if there is a release related to the photo. Improved/Expected Behavior: A user loads a new photography asset into AEM Assets that has a recognizable face in it. The user uploads a PDF version of a model release from the person whose likeness appears in the image, and from the original image, creates a relationship type of "Other" from the image to the PDF model release. Future viewers of the image asset see a relationship type of "Other" and need to rely on the asset title of the model release, or viewing the model release itself, to understand if there is a release related to the photo. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5, SP9 Customer-name/Organization name: 3M Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

BDx
BDxLevel 4

Email Enhancement - Automatic Inlining of CSS RulesNew

Making emails work consistently across clients is notoriously difficult, and one of the most popular platforms, Google App / GMail, only allows for inline CSS (CSS style rules embedded directly in each HTML element).This can be very difficult to maintain, especially if you have CSS rules for links and have non-technical people editing your emails who might just copy and paste into an editable filed, versus editing the link href and text values. This scenario and many others can disturb, change or remove your inline styles that exist as children of the marketo editable HTML nodes.The solution is to have the option to have Marketo automatically inline all CSS rules prior to any send. This could be a checkbox in the email settings for an email item.This is not difficult and infact I believe it already exists in other platforms. There are definitely working examples out there in the wild, so this should be pretty easy from an engineering standpoint. The UX work is drop dead simple -- just add a checkbox to settings.Here's one example from MailChimp:beaker.mailchimp.com/inline-cssHere's another example:premailer.dialect.ca/Here's another example in PHP:https://github.com/tijsverkoyen/CssToInlineStylesThis change would literally save us hours and hours of work each month, plus allow us to deliver a more consistent and high quality customer experience to our subscribers. Other enterprise email vendors already do this. Marketo, please prioritize this -- you seem to be behind the times in this department.

Compare Interactive Proof versions / Keep each version of an Interactive Proof static for historical purposesNew

Description -Workfront provides functionality to compare static proofs side by side with each other. Workfront also provides the ability to see the previous version of the proof. There's no equivalent for any of this in interactive proofing/Desktop Proofing Viewer.  Current Behaviour -There is no way to compare --side by side-- what an interactive proof USED to look like vs what it looks like now.It is also annoying/confusing how you can add one (or multiple) markups to one snapshot but if you return to that snapshot later, you can't add more markups without generating another snapshot.Additionally, each snapshot is only part of the whole picture -- literally allowing you to take something out of context.Lastly, when clicking to open an interactive proof, there's no way to see the previous version. How would you like the feature to work -1) When marking up an interactive proof, you should be able to return to the same snapshot to add more comments. Additionally why can't you use an app like Go Full Page (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gofullpage-full-page-scre/fdpohaocaechififmbbbbbknoalclacl) to take a snapshot of the page and let everyone markup the same snapshot. 2) in the same way, I would like there to be a way to choose to generate these snapshots on a first page of the interactive proof to serve as the historical version -- our use case is one-page web proofs so this would be ideal for us. Why is this feature important to you -"Feature parity" -- why did we think this was important for a static proof but not that important for an interactive proof? 

Customize Desktop Proofing Viewer Display Size options dropdownNew

Description -Display sizes: this is a dropdown at the bottom of the Desktop Proofing Viewer that allows you to select a size format you want your interactive proof to display at. Our creative teams work in 4 different display sizes: Desktop = 1280x720 or 1440x810Mobile = 400x711 or 375x667Current Behaviour -The dropdown currently displays 22 different sizes, none of which are what we want, and only one is configurable, and that one doesn't "save", you can just input the same size over and over every time you review a proof. Moreover, several of the sizes, are... a little dated. (for example, I just did a quick google and Apple apparently will stop supporting iPhone X -- anyway, don't want to spend my time doing market research but you get the picture hopefully) How would you like the feature to work -If there’s a way to customize the list of default display sizes (per instance), so that we show the ones that are meaningful to us rather than a bunch of sizes that Workfront thought would be helpful (and are not), this would really help save some time. I would simply configure 4 size settings, and only 4 options would show up in the viewer. Why is this feature important to you -There are no pre-populated options to select that match what we design for. The main issue with users not viewing at the desired dimensions is that text can wrap in odd spots or cut off images where not intended. By not having these as an option, it’s unlikely that the users are looking at the content with the dimensions that were intended. I know people can hand type them in -- we had to create instructions to get our users to review using the display sizes above -- but it’s very unlikely that is happening because 1st they would have to go dig up the dimensions and then type them in. Usually people are in too much of a hurry for that.