Build better products with our product team
Description - Currently, when an issue is converted to a project, for any screen captures that are added to updates in the issue, only the image data transfers to the created project, and not the image itself. Why is this feature important to you - Users must manually add the image to the project after conversion, which is tedious and can easily be forgotten by the user during conversion. How would you like the feature to work - the images should transfer to the converted project, within the same update, along with the update data and image data. Current Behaviour - Image is not transferred as part of the project conversion process (refer to Adobe Support Ticket #E-001837945)
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Ability to Search pipeline in AEM Cloud Manger Use-case: With growing number of pipelines for Front end with several environments it hard to find and run the pipeline form cloud manger Current/Experienced Behavior: No Search functionality available Improved/Expected Behavior: Search functionality to search pipelines in Cloud manger Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Cloud Manger Pipeline screen Customer-name/Organization name: Unilever Account Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description:We would like to see update on Trade Desk connector to connect directly on a partner level rather then on advertiser level. It would be great to have both. Why is this feature important for us: We work with several countries and therefore we have a lot of advertisers. As we can not connect on a partner level - it means we have to manually configer destinaiton with mayn different adverticer rather then just configur it once with the partner. How would you like the feature to work:The same as Trade desk connectro works now, but would have possibility to chose between advertiser or partner. Current Behaviour:Only Trade Desk Adverticer ID connections are possible.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Content Hub Use-case: Granular Permissions: Introduce granular permissions control in content hub to allow more precise access management at the user, group and asset level Public Sharing Enhancements: Enable public sharing of collections in Content Hub to simplify external access and collaboration through enhanced public sharing link sharing functionality Current/Experienced Behavior: No public sharing for collections available Improved/Expected Behavior: Enabling sharing of collections Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5 Customer-name/Organization name: Barclays Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - Allow New Microsoft Teams to Integrate with WorkfrontWhy is this feature important to you - Classic Microsoft Teams is being retired on the 30th June 2025 and we have uses who spend a lot of time in teams and find the functionality very useful.How would you like the feature to work - Transfer the functionality of Classic Teams onto New Teams which will allows you to interact with notifications / approvals from WF and add new requests into WF.Current Behaviour - It connects but no interactions to or from WF are possible. WF support confirm there is no current plan to get this working.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: lease enable support for modern package managers in the Frontend Deployment Pipeline. Currently the pipeline only supports NPM, which although widely adopted is also generally known as the slowest solution for package management within the nodejs ecosystem. Consider support for yarn or pnpm, both of which outperform NPM from a CI/CD perspective. Use-case: We currently use Yarn on Managed Services to deploy full stack code. However, when migrating to Cloud Services and wanting to take advantage of the Front End (FED) pipeline, NPM is assumed and only the version can be altered via pipeline variables. We use Yarn as it has additional features and builds/deploys faster than NPM. Similarly, pnmp and Yarn PnP deploy about twice as fast as npm in our benchmark tests. Current/Experienced Behavior: Customers must use NPM and package-lock.json as the deployment package manager Improved/Expected Behavior: Customers can customize the FED deployment pipline to usee the package manager of their choice. This could be either an explicit selection, a pipeline variable, or the pipeline could lockfile detection (npm uses package-lock.json, yarn uses yarn.lock, pnpm uses pnpm-lock.yaml) Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): This request is for AEM Cloud Service, current version. Customer-name/Organization name: Toyota Motors North America (TMNA) Screenshot (if applicable) Code package (if applicable):
Description - While creating a new audience by combining existing audiences, we can only add upto 20 segments and add upto 2 containers one with in another.Why is this feature important to you - In some cases we want to add more than 20 segments and create complex audiences making use of profile scripts and add 3 or more containersHow would you like the feature to work - Just as the regular segment creation, with updated max limits.
機能改善要求（RFE）概要： I would like ease the technical requirements for AEM 6.5 LTS to be support "Java 11" and "Linux kernel 4" be added. ユースケース： I am considering AEM 6.5 LTS(On Premise). 現在／体験した動作： AEM 6.5 LTS support Java17 and Linux kernel 5. If AEM6.5LTS were to be applied at this time, the customer environment would require an update to the Linux OS and Java version.As there are currently no customer environments that have Java 17 and Linux kernel 5 installed,it is expected that application and approval will take time. In the worst case scenario, business could be lost when support for the AEM6.5 ends. 改善／期待される動作： Because, we would like to avoid the worst case scenario by supporting Java11 Linux kernel4 in AEM6.5 LTS, just like AEM6.5. 環境の詳細（AEM バージョン／サービスパック、もしあればその他の詳細）： AEM 6.5 SP19 and AEM 6.5 LTS 顧客名／組織名 スクリーンショット（ある場合） コードパッケージ（ある場合）
Description - Bulk upload of IP addresses to block via the datastreamWhy is this feature important to you - We have more than 10K IP addresses we need to add to our bot rules via the APE data stream, today we are having to manually add these IPs. We would like to avoid this data in our connections as it eats into our CJA rows- data budgetHow would you like the feature to work - Allow a bulk upload option via a csv fileCurrent Behaviour - Today the tool allows only one IP address/ range upload condition at a time.
The new Priorities view has really caught on with our team. The GUI is attractive and the recent release brings a lot of functionality that helps the team have a singular place to go in order to manage work assigned to them. But it could be perfect! Please add the same "edit allocations" functionality as is available in the Workload Balancer (within the Resource Management section) that allows a user to specify planned hours for a task on a day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month basis. Currently, the Priorities view only allows a user to change the total planned hours of a task over the entire duration of the task.The ability for a working team member to specify the exact amount of hours they will spend on the remainder of a task gives managers a more specific view from week to week. We do not have access restrictions of the Workload Balancer on our team and have found it very useful to use during our meetings when discussing what will be worked on during a given week and each member has the autonomy to update the planned hours for all tasks that are either in progress or about to start. This granularity that the Workload Balancer provides would make the Priorities view the ONLY view that a team would need in order to make quick, simple changes without having to jump to a different part of Workfront. Perhaps the Log Time pop-up (image attached) could be used to enter in allocations? Thanks!
Description - Why is this feature important to you - We have a field that are frequently referenced, and highly relevant to a large audience of users. Presently, in order to get a glance at that information, users need to drill in to a custom form and scroll to the relevant field.How would you like the feature to work - In addition to the 5 standard fields presently available at the top of the layout template, there would be a couple of custom field slots.Current Behaviour - There are only slots for 5 standard fields.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: As an Author,I want to have an image search option in Page propertiesSo that I can author pages with more ease Use-case: Current/Experienced Behavior: PFA for more details Improved/Expected Behavior: Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Cloud Manager AEM Release: 2024.11.18751.20241128T090041Z Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): @manikandan.murugan@ey.com @aberdane@adobe.com
Hi, I think it would be great if we have a multi-select option to select more than one tag value for a specific tag in the system. ex: Lets say i have a tag named Vertical and I would like to select more than one picklist value during the program creation step. Currently, we either have to select one or come up with a specific tag value that could accommodate this specific need as we are unable to select more than one value from the picklist. Thanks, vineela.
Description - The Print Summary PDF download within Workfront’s Proofing tool creates a flat image of the proof with any comments and markups, and is used if the marked up proof needs to be circulated outside of the proofing tool itself. The reason the originally uploaded pdf with any markups made in the proofing tool needs to be extracted from Workfront, rather than viewed in the tool itself by the agencies making amends as a result of these mark ups, is the agencies often use other Adobe products and comparison tools which contain scripted (coded) elements to compare the original pdf to the marked up pdf, and amend original files where possible in a more automated way. Given Workfront is an Adobe product, it would be preferable to have a high quality Adobe PDF output which is compatible with other Adobe products to ensure consistency and ease of use. The rasterising of the marked up proof and addition of wide margins / summary page changes the structure of the file so much from the original that it makes it impossible to be run through scripting tools when comparing to the original document / pdf. Why is this feature important to you - Having integrated Workfront into the organisation, we now have major issues in our in-house agency being able to use the system fully in the way we intended them to, i.e. collaborating with comms teams via the system, being able to download a marked up PDF once this has gone through the system, and then re-upload the amended document. We’d also like the agency to be able to use their comparison tools and quality check tools in order to negate risk in sending customer communications out incorrectly, and keep their working processes as automated as possible. How would you like the feature to work - If a pdf is uploaded as a document to Workfront, then made into a proof, then circulated to reviewers & approvers for comment, we would like these comments to be applied to the original pdf as if they had been made by the reviewer in Adobe Acrobat or Reader, and make these comments available on the (original) downloaded pdf, without changing the way the original file looks or inflating the filesize (the print summary PDF screenshot / rasterization process can inflate the filesize by upwards of 20x). Ultimately we need multiple reviewers to be able to comment / collaborate / review one file in a similar way to how several users can on a shared PDF in document cloud, but from within the WF application and also allowing them the ability to record an approval decision. Current Behaviour - As it stands, the proofing tool produces a flat image file containing mark ups. Our agencies cannot work with this in terms of using it in their comparison tool and quality checking tools. The PDF print summary therefore cannot be used due to it not being the original Adobe PDF. As such, users now have to use a workaround process in which they go offline and mark up the original PDF to send to the agency, even though they use the proofing tool for reviewer comment and approval.
Description - When a project owner is reviewing a project and find a task marked as Complete Pending Approval and review to find the task needs to have more work done on it, but they are not one of the approvers, when they change the status of the task to either In Progress or New, the user assigned to the task gets no notification and the task does not show on their My Work. This is because the assigned user still has the checkmark of complete on the task. This makes the project owner take additional steps of having to tag the assigned person to let them know they have to click the "not done yet" or unassign the person and reassign them to the task. Why is this feature important to you - This causes confusion for the project owner and if they forget to tag the assigned user or do the unassign reassign steps the task will be delayed. How would you like the feature to work - When the status of a task is changed from Complete or Complete Pending Approval to either New or In Progress the "done" indication for the assigned user should be removed and the task should appear on their My Work. Current Behavior - When a user marks a task as "work on it" then completes the task, it marks them as "done" and adds a Checkmark next to their icon that shows they are assigned to the task. If the task is then moved back to in progress by someone else, the checkmark remains and since the user completed what they needed to do.
Description -Currently to target a triggerView() call, widely used in SPAs you have to use the VEC. This can be very cumbersome and the VEC is not always supported by user's website setups, making it difficult or impossible to build activities with triggerView. Ideally we would be able to select view names in the Location dropdown of a form based activity so that we can target views without having to manually reach them in the VEC. This would also be useful for tests which span multiple locations and cover both mboxes and views. Why is this feature important to you - A large part of my website is a React SPA, in order to build tests for some components I have to go through my entire SPA which can take upwards of ten minutes to trigger the view I want to target. I only use target as a code delivery tool rather than using the VEC, so form based activities are much more suitable, but can't be used at the moment with views. Also, the VEC is fairly unreliable and often breaks my site so that I can't progress to the view in the first place, making it impossible to test certain components which massively increases frustration and decreases usability.How would you like the feature to work - In form based activities when you add a location, simply add user's view names to the Location dropdown as well as mboxes. Then a user can target both or either of mboxes and views in a single form based activity while avoiding the VEC.Current Behaviour - Users have to use the visual editor to target views, which is clunky, unreliable, and adds frustration as the user is required to manually trigger the view through the VEC window even if they are not making an edit in the visual editor. Form based activities can only target mboxes.
Description: Currently, Adobe Experience Platform does not provide detailed visualization of where customers drop off within a journey. While we can track engagement, identifying exact weak points in a journey requires manual analysis. Why is this feature important to you: Having automated drop-off insights would help us quickly identify bottlenecks, improve personalization, and increase conversion without spending hours on manual reports. How would you like the feature to work: The system should automatically highlight drop-off points in journeys and suggest optimization actions (similar to how Adobe Target suggests winning variations). Current Behaviour: AEP provides engagement data, but it does not proactively surface drop-off insights or next-best-action recommendations.
Description - Currently, you need a username and password with System Administration access to Workfront in order to create a connection to Workfront. Would like to use an OAuth machine to machine app credentials. Why is this feature important to you - Most IT security offices we work with are reluctant or refuse to create a service account with username and password that isn't tied to an individual person as it's a security risk. How would you like the feature to work - Able to use either the Workfront OAuth Application (Workfront -> Setup) client ID/secret to create a connection, or create a Project (in developer.adobe.com) using Workfront API to generate client ID/secret, and use that in Workfront Modules to create a connection as outlined in this article https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/workfront-fusion/using/references/apps-and-their-modules/adobe-connectors/workfront-modules. Current Behaviour - When trying to do the following steps to use the advanced settings in the Fusion Workfront Module , we get an error and were told by Adobe Support that it's 'working as expected'1. Can create a OAuth App in Workfront (machine to machine - https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/workfront/using/administration-and-setup/configure-integrations/manage-custom-oauth2-apps)2. Can NOT use the Client ID and Secret to make a new Connection in a Fusion Workfront Module (https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/workfront-fusion/using/references/apps-and-their-modules/adobe-connectors/workfront-modules). ERROR after you enter the information into the connection details and click "Continue", after the Oauth window pops up, and after you enter the Workfront instance that reads "https://app.workfrontfusion.com/oauth/cb/workfront-workfront is not allowed"
Description:Our organization relies heavily on Workfront for document collaboration and approval workflows. One consistent limitation we've encountered is the inability to reposition the system-defined document-level approval field within the document panel. While custom forms can be layered above this field, the approval section itself remains fixed in place, which restricts layout flexibility and user experience optimization.Why is this feature important to you:I’ve observed that the fixed placement of the approval field often leads to confusion—especially when custom forms are used to capture additional metadata or context. This limitation impacts usability, and reduces the ability to tailor Workfront to our internal workflows. Allowing repositioning would improve clarity, streamline processes, and enhance alignment with team-specific needs.How would you like the feature to work:We propose that the document-level approval field be made configurable within layout templates—similar to how custom form fields can be arranged. Administrators should be able to drag and drop the approval field to a preferred location within the document view, allowing for better integration with custom forms and other workflow elements.Current Behavior:The document-level approval field is currently fixed in its placement and cannot be moved. It always appears in the same location within the document panel, regardless of layout template or custom form configuration. This limits flexibility and can lead to a disjointed user experience when additional fields are added above it.
DescriptionThe Site Data Reference (SDR) is constantly evolving as new analytics needs come up. Right now, every change is handled manually — reviewing requests, mapping fields, and updating the schema one by one. It works, but it’s slow and makes it hard to keep different divisions aligned.Why is this feature important to youI’m responsible for tagging governance across multiple teams. The challenge is balancing speed with consistency. When requests pile up, there’s pressure to implement one-offs, which leads to fragmentation and extra rework later. Having a smarter way to spot repeat needs and streamline approvals would save a lot of time and prevent drift.How would you like the feature to workIdeally, the system could scan incoming requests, flag patterns that show up across teams, and propose new standardized fields for the SDR. From there, it should feed into an approval workflow so governance owners can decide what gets added. That way, divisions move faster but we still keep a single, trusted standard.Current BehaviorAt the moment, updates only happen when someone notices overlap and manually edits the SDR. There’s no automated way to surface common needs or manage approvals.
Is there a way to share a request/brief with someone prior to submitting it? We have users that would like to share their briefs with someone else - to review them - before submitting them.
オーディットレールの情報は、最大直近6か月分しか管理画面でエクスポートが出来ず、また手動作業でのみしかエクスポートが出来ない。Marketo上のデータは、個人情報（氏名、メールアドレスなど）を含む情報を取り扱っているため、その操作ログ（オーディットレールの情報）を6ヵ月以上保持（最低3年間は保管）を社内ルールとして求められている場合に、都度、手作業での個人情報を扱う作業はリスクが高い（漏洩事故につながりやすい）ため、Marketo内に蓄積されているオーディットレールの情報をシステム間連携で、保存できるよう仕組み化したく、オーディットレールの情報を取得するAPI機能の追加をお願いしたいです。
Why is this feature important to you:This feature is important because we are unable to customize or control notifications at the group or subgroup level. As a result, stakeholders (such as my VP) are receiving irrelevant messages that do not pertain to our specific project, which causes confusion and impacts communication effectiveness.How would you like the feature to work:Ideally, we would like the ability to configure notifications at the subgroup level independently of the parent group. While the system currently allows notification settings at the parent group level, it does not support differentiated configurations for subgroups or nested groups. The feature should allow for subgroup-specific notification settings to meet the needs of different project teams using the same structure.Current Behaviour:Currently, the system only allows notification configuration at the parent group level. It is not possible to set different notification rules for individual subgroups, which limits flexibility across multiple projects sharing the same group structure.
Description - It would be ideal if you were to specify, at project template level, that planned hours can be front or rear loaded (in addition to being spread evenly across the task duration) when assigned to a user. Why is this feature important to you - This would help our project managers to schedule resource more accurately, it will allow them to schedule tasks on the same day, get get the most for the available resource on a granular level. The assignees would also benefit, they can concentrate on one task at a time, moving onto the next once the fist has finished. How would you like the feature to work - If a task has a two day duration and 8 planned hours and is assigned to a user who has a capacity of 7 hours per day, WF would allocate 7 hours in day 1 and 1 hour in day two. The task would be set to start at 9am and finish at 5pm which is inline with our default schedule. If the assignee has 2 hours available on day 1 and 7 available in day 2, the task would be spread accordingly, 2 and 6 hours. If an assignee has less than the required amount of capacity across the 2 day duration, an error message should be displayed when trying to assign the task or they are not available to assign when selecting. (similar to the plane icon when they are on leave during the task duration. If the assignee has a different schedule, eg they start at 11am, the task will schedule to start at that time rather than 9am, the same would be done if the assignee has a task finishing at 3pm on day 1. Current Behaviour - Currently the above is a manually process and has to be adjusted on each task as WF distributes the planned hours evenly across the duration days.
Description -The current "My Request" widget in the New Experience only displays requests created through the New Experience’s Request section. This creates a fragmented experience for users who submit requests. To provide a unified and consistent user experience, the widget should be enhanced to display all requests submitted by the user, regardless of how or where they were created.Current Behaviour -The My Request widget displays only requests submitted through the New Experience UI’s request intake form.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
