Description - Why is this feature important to you - Implementation issues can sometimes lead to event metric set wrongly. In order to improve data quality, we need a solution to repair/delete custom events for data collected historically. How would you like the feature to work - We would like Data repair API to repair custom events. Current Behaviour - Data Repair API only supports repairing dimensions (eVars, props, activity map variables, etc)
Description - workPerDate field is currently under list of "Unsupported" API versions, this field is part of ASSIGN/TASK/OPTASK object types. It stores the "Planned Hours" per day per task/project. It allows us to do weekly allocation, availability reporting, as you can track users scheduled hours vs allocated hours to several projects and remaining availability on Weekly/Monthly basis. Why is this feature important to you - Allows team to view Planned Hours per day per task/project and build User level allocation/availability report. We could also use the "Resource Management" - Planner feature for this but unfortunately the Planner module is non-customizable, i.e. you can not add custom fields from User/Task/Project objects. How would you like the feature to work - Make the "workPerDate" under supported API version, as we will build downstream reporting functionality to fetch data from Workfront API fields and build additional reporting views and dashboards. Current Behaviour - "workPerDate" is under API unsupported version, which flags risks as we continue to build our dashboards, as the field has no support from Workfront and it could get discontinued unannounced.
The ability to duplicate a task across 2 projects would be really helpful. We have instances where we need the task in Project A to be in Project B and automatically update when anything changes (specifically dates and percent complete) in either place.
Description - The payload for patch call in the Update Segment Definition needs entire definition of the segment. It would be time taking and copy paste process to extract the definition of the segment and make the changes to the payload and resubmit as the patch. Instead, the patch solution should have been like Field Group "Patch" API call. Just what property we need to replace and the corresponding value. Why is this feature important to you - This feature helps to update only the relevant property of a segment definition without copying the complex PQL of the segment. How would you like the feature to work - The patch solution should have been like Field Group "Patch" API call. Just what property we need to replace and the corresponding value. { "op": "replace", "path": "/mergePolicyId", "value": "<revised Merge Policy ID>" } Current Behaviour - The Update API call requires entire definition of the segment along with PQL and other properties to be part of payload while changing the properties like merge policy etc.
Description - When using an Automate Worklflow in WF Proof, it would be more useful for a user to be added to current stage instead of a new WF Stage with no parameters on it. Why is this feature important to you - When users are added to the WF stage, the use of stage deadlines becomes useless and the proof remians open for them beyond what other users assigned to the proof are allowed. How would you like the feature to work - Current enters a proof through Workfront and could only be assigned to the stages that are present in the workflow. It would even better if you could limit them to a certain stage. For instance, if there were 3 stages in a workflow, someone may only be allowed in stage 1, where as other may only be allowed in Stage 2 and so on. If the deadline has passed for that stage then they could only have read only/reviewer access until the next version was added. This would keep the integrity of the review process in place and avoid comments being added and not reviewed by certain individuals in a stage that may have passed. Current Behaviour -If a user navigate to a proof and opens it via WF they are added to a random Workfront Stage with no deadline driven by the workflow.
Right now, there is no option to search or sort by folders in the filter tree in marketing activities. This is particularly frustrating when trying to identify shared folders. It would be nice to have a "folders" option in the filter tree, with the sub-option of "shared folders." There may be other sub-options that would be helpful as well - if you think of one feel free to comment it below!
I'd love the ability to drag/reorder column rules in a report, similar to how you can reorder custom forms on an object. Since the order of column rules is important to making them work when there is more than 1 rule in a column, like below example, often I have to play with them to order them the specific way I need. I currently have to trash the rules and create them again in a new order, I can't just drag them to reorder. It would be really helpful to just be able to easily reorder them without having to recreate them!
Description - Add HTTP API feature to external account Why is this feature important to you - More vendors are recommending and pushing HTTP API. More capabilities
Would be nice to have a lock on documents. This area for a certain project is for view only as reference on monthly basis and project manager does not want documents altered or deleted but view only. Instead of having to create difference access levels for Work license, it would beneficial if project owner could upload the necessary documents and lock them for view only no matter what license level.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: We noticed recently the new warning message added to AEM bulk edit scenario, where user attempt to “Select all” and edit these sub-pages in separate tabs. The warning message says that “Bulk action not supported, The selected action Edit(e) will only have effect X selected items currently loaded…”. As we understand, the justification for that warning message is to let user know that not all sub pages might have been lazy-loaded, and that’s fine. That also explains why the massage doesn’t need to appear when pages have been selected manually. The point is that the mentioned logic might be confusing when there are only few sub-pages to be selected by “select all”. In that case lazy logic is not the case and user can be sure that “select all” picks all the sub pages we have on the screen. Please consider extending that logic, because our customers feels uncomfortable with new behavior and confusing warning. (More detail you can find in thread for Case #E-000797571) Use-case: Changing this behavior will lead to better user experience. Also if some users often use Select all and Edit options together for smaller lists of sites it won't be that annoying. Current/Experienced Behavior: Open Sites Go to list of Pages where you have 6 elements Choose Select all elements Click Edit Warning about Selecting only visible items is displayed Improved/Expected Behavior: Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM OnPrem 6.5.15.0 Customer-name/Organization name: Robert Kmieciak/ Wunderman Thompson Technology Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Due to a recently discovered vulnerability in some browsers, password input fields and iframes loading external content must now set the spellcheck attribute to false. Some browsers with an enhanced spellcheck feature send password data to unintended sources if password unmasking is enabled (the “show password” checkbox next to a password box). To avoid accidental disclosure, the best practice is to disable spellcheck for all password fields and iframes regardless of "Show password" options. A team consuming our self-hosted visitor API package was issued an internal application security ticket because there were insecure iframe elements detected on their web pages that were actually being created by the package. To fix it, we added a new attribute to the iframe spellcheck and set it to false. The scope of this post is to recommend that iframes be sanitized with a `spellcheck="false"` flag in visitor API package. Background: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_attributes/spellcheck https://www.otto-js.com/news/article/chrome-and-edge-enhanced-spellcheck-features-expose-pii-even-your-passwords
In the new interface for email performance report setup, the selector/filter for emails has poor contrast against a white background (as in the image below). Can I suggest making the contrast of the highlighted/selected emails starker, so visually impaired users can navigate this with more ease?
I'm a studio/traffic manager overseeing a team of creatives with over x80 projects. We've created a report which lists all of the projects so we have an overview of them. Be great to be able to have a Kanban board view of all projects not just a project and task within that project. I can't be the only person to ask for this. Thx V
Many of our users find the My Updates area to be a great place for quickly reviewing things that require their attention. However, we have found that for some users, the Mentions area is not functioning as needed. Ideally, this area could be filtered or set to show only the conversations in which the user has been tagged or directly mentioned. Upon review of available documentation, we understand that conversations will be displayed if the user has been included. However, in addition to conversations in which the user has been tagged, this will also display conversations on objects that the user has created or assigned. We have designed our processes such that many of our users initiate work that flows between teams. Even though the work may leave their respective team, the conversations on those objects continue to fill their Mentions section, making the area useless. If filtering/settings are not possible at the user level, having a system setting that allows us to limit conversations in the Mentions section to direct mentions only would be very helpful!
For the Notifications box, we need to have an "Inbox" that works more like Outlook so you can archive messages once things are addressed, so the list gets shorter and you can focus better on things that need your attention or what needs action. Currently, all messages stay there forever (either bold as unread or unbold for read status), which is just overwhelming and not super useful. Asana provides a good example of this capability. If you have archiving capability, you will also want the ability to unarchive if you made a mistake.Also, need to have the ability to view the "update" notifications as a thread within the notifiation Inbox, silimar to how you can group Outlook by conversations if you choose.Just overall, need to have a way to organize, sort, group your notifications by type, action, etc, for further action, follow ups or reference at a later time.As it stands now, this feature is unusable and is causing more frustration for our users; also causing users to bounce between different tools to complicate things further.
Description - A ready-to-use (or "out of box") easy-to-implement generic SMS connector, similar to the existing EMAIL connector found in Adobe Workfront Fusion. Why is this feature important to you - SMS is more expeditious than EMAIL. Additionally, it's a great additional add-on better aligned with communication in 2023. How would you like the feature to work - Similar to the EMAIL connector, the end-user could select from a list of providers (i.e. SendGrid) and complete the process to establish a connection. Current Behaviour - This connector does not exist "out the box" within Adobe Workfront Fusion at this time.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add 3D asset viewer to the Brand Portal, similar to the one in AEM Assets Use-case: People who view, download and share assets should be able to make use of the 3D viewer functionality on 3D assets. Similar to the functionality that is available in AEM Assets. Current/Experienced Behavior: The 3D asset is not recognized as a 3D asset and cannot be viewed Improved/Expected Behavior: The 3D asset will be recognized as a 3D asset Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Signify Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Our authors are facing a problem with Asset authoring in AEM Page. Use-case: When Authors are trying to add a featured image (in page properties of a page), they just get a pathPicker where they have to manually browse through the asset hierarchy & select the image. Current/Experienced Behavior: Pathpicker doesn't provide ability to search for the asset before picking it as featured image. This is difficult for authors to navigate through multiple folders & select the image Improved/Expected Behavior: There should be an option to search for asset in this page properties screen while authoring any asset. Or if the siderail is enabled (which already has assets listed there) in this page properties screen that should help. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service Customer-name/Organization name: Cognizant Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Basically the idea is to have a report that shows the exact number of subscription and unsubscription events (not only the clicks) so that customer data is still anonymized but you have a whole process understanding (i.e., where users effectively unsubscribe)
It would be really nice to allow the possibility of selecting specific hour ranges of day for alertsFor example, I set an hourly alert when page views below 1000, but it concerns me only if it happens during the day time (from 8am to 8pm). It’s normal that page views decrease during the night, while every morning I have to delete the 12 meaningless alerts received. Hopefully we could make the alert activated only for a specific hour ranges of each day !!!!I’ve seen some post about activating alerts only on certain days of week, same idea.Thanks
As it stands right now the Status Update field on the report clears all of the formatting (bullets, indents, hyperlinks, bolding, underlining etc.) that was added using the native text editor when a status update is posted on an item. Instead a basic block of text is shown in shown within the Status Update column on the report, the only remnant of formatting that persists is the "new line" separator. It would be great if the Status Update field on the reports would retain the formatting added by the user with the native text editor when posting status updates.
Update Marketo Sales Insights for Dynamics 365 so that the dates can be displayed in the Tennant Date format - Australia is DD/MM/YYYY, while they only format available is MM/DD/YYYY
It seems like marketo logs the last 10 email aliases used to send test emails to. Would like the ability to remove these as sometimes we send test emails to 3rd party partners we work with and they don't need to be on the list; don't want to accidentally send them an email.
Description - Allow System Admins to update custom fields on closed projects. Why is this feature important to you - We occasionally create new custom fields & forms and want to apply them to say a year's worth of projects to get a solid timeframe of new data. How would you like the feature to work - When Sys Admin attempts to update fields/form on a closed project, get a warning that the project is closed but will allow sys admin to save the updates to the project if select yes/continue. Current Behaviour - System Admin creates new custom fields on a new form...say on a task level. Admin needs to move complete projects to planning, select tasks, attach custom form and recalc expressions. When there are hundreds of projects that this needs to be applied to, it's is very time consuming.
It would be really helpful if we could set up notifications on custom fields. Specifically an upcoming deadline based on a date field on a custom form. We have many different date fields we use on our custom forms to track deadlines. We can't rely on our users to constantly check reports to find the dates so sending notifications when a given date is approaching would be huge. How would you like the feature to work - when setting up a custom form field, giving us the option on a date field to specify the user(s) (likely, the request owner) to get notified and when the notification gets sent (1 month out, 1 week out, day of).
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.
