Build better products with our product team
In large Workfront instances, Global Search / Advanced Search becomes inefficient because results are displayed in pages capped to a fixed batch size (e.g., 2,000 items per page). When an organization has thousands of objects (Projects, Documents, Users, Templates, etc.), searching for something specific may not appear on the first page—forcing users to manually click through multiple pages to find a known item. This creates friction for everyday navigation and slows down work, especially for admins and power users who need to locate records quickly. Workfront search is meant to help users “easily locate items” across many object types, but the current paging behavior undermines that goal at enterprise scale. Why this feature is importantTime savings & adoption: Users lose minutes per search when they must page through thousands of results, which hurts adoption and confidence in Workfront as the “source of truth.” Enterprise-scale usability: Many customers have 8,000+ projects/documents/users, and the search experience should scale accordingly. Reduces errors: Manual paging increases the risk of selecting the wrong object or assuming something “doesn’t exist” because it wasn’t in the first result set. Search is core navigation: Since search behavior already varies by permissions, missing items due to paging limits adds another avoidable obstacle.How I would like the feature to workOption A (Preferred – best UX): “Search first, then limit.”When a user enters a search term, Workfront should query the entire searchable index for that object type and return the most relevant matches even if they would have been beyond the first 2,000 items in the underlying list. In other words: apply the search filter to the full dataset first, then display results.Option B: “Show all results / larger page size.”Add a user option (or admin-controlled setting) to increase “results per page” (e.g., 2,000 / 5,000 / 10,000) or provide a “Show all matches” mode for searches.Option C: “Find within results across all pages.”If Workfront must keep paging for performance, add a “Search within results” that searches across all pages and jumps directly to the matching items—without the user clicking Next/Next/Next.(Any of the above would dramatically improve navigation for large environments. Current behaviorWhen searching objects (Projects, Documents, Users, etc.), the results are shown in batches (example: 2,000 per page). If the item I need is in page 2/3/4, I must manually navigate across pages to find it. This is especially painful when I already know the name/ID and just need Workfront to take me to the correct object quickly. Acceptance criteria (what “done” looks like)A search term returns results from the full dataset for the selected object type, not just the first batch. Exact matches (or strongly relevant matches) appear in the results even if the object would otherwise be beyond the first page. Users can locate a known object without manually paging through results. Performance is maintained (e.g., via indexing/relevance ranking), but completeness of matching is preserved.
We are facing a editorial challenge when users are creating emails in the email designer. This is regarding the use of email fragments. We have created many different fragments as design elements/modules, and in all of this fragments we are using variables to control how the fragment should look like. F ex we use variables to choose between pre defines background colors, we use variables to set the alignment of the content (can vary from mobile to desktop), we have different styling of CTAs etc. Today this settings needs to be done before the fragment is broken, and the content can be edited. The challenge is after the fragment is broken we cant change the variable settings from the interface.But there is a work around, and this is not user friendly. From the code editor we can access the fragment code, and by finding the right place in the code we can manually change the chosen value of the variable. And this is reflected in the template when we save the change.It would be very helpful if it would be able to change the variable values after the fragments is broken. We see that this can manually be done since the values is already present in the code, we just need the interface to do it -and not manually from the code editor.
In our daily work we are facing a challenge when it comes to maintaince of email templates build from fragments. We are using different pre-defined templates that is built from fragments. And the fragments again contains just dummy images and lorum ipsum texts. The users changes the content in the fragments when they create there Journeys with there emails. The issue we are facing is when a content designer wants to change the template that is in use in an running Journey – there will be a problem. The content designer could have ordered a total new template, with a new look that he wants to use (a new framwork) or simply just want to change to another existing template (could be seasonal variations in the design). When you use the “change design” feature in the email, and changes to another template – you use all your created content in that email you are changing design too. It should have been possible to keep your content when you change the underlaying template.Maybe it could be solved buy having a export content feature, that takes all HTML code from the “Drag and Drop” container, and make this possible to import into the new template you have selected. The code is there, it is just to move it into the new selected template -and store it. That could have been an option when changing the design – move the content true or false, when you make your change.With an option like that it would be much easier to play around with templates and make changes seamless without any boundaries or risking loosing your created content by mistake.
Hello Marketo Community, We are currently operating a large Marketo instance and are facing scaling challenges related to program membership data extraction via the REST/Bulk APIs. Current Limitation At present: There is no API-exposed field that identifies whether a Program is archived. Archiving a program in the UI (e.g., moving it to an archived folder) does not translate into a machine-readable “archived” flag via the REST API. The Program Membership Bulk API requires filtering by Program ID. There is no supported endpoint to retrieve program membership changes between two timestamps without iterating through individual Program IDs. Because of this, integrations must iterate across all program IDs to ensure no membership changes are missed — even for programs that are long archived and no longer operational. Business Impact For instances with thousands of programs: API calls increase significantly as program volume grows. Sync runtimes increase over time, even if most programs are inactive. There is no supported way to exclude archived/inactive programs from recurring membership checks. This creates scaling and performance constraints for downstream data integrations and analytics platforms. Requested Enhancements We would like to request consideration for one (or more) of the following improvements: Expose an “archived” (or equivalent) boolean flag via the REST API This would allow integrations to safely exclude archived programs from ongoing membership syncs (assuming archived programs cannot have membership updates). Allow bulk program membership export without requiring Program ID filters For example, enabling exports based purely on time windows (start/end timestamps) rather than per-program iteration. Introduce an endpoint to retrieve program membership changes between two timestamps This would dramatically reduce the need to scan all program IDs during each integration cycle. Why This Matters As program volume grows over years of usage, performance and API efficiency become critical. These enhancements would: Improve scalability for enterprise customers Reduce unnecessary API consumption Improve sync performance for data warehouse integrations Enable better architectural patterns for reporting and analytics
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Content managers need an ability to "Replace a file" from the asset's properties. We implemented an override for them (pictures attached). In future we'd like to have this feature as Out-of-the-box functionality. Use-case: Content manager creates an asset's language copy, then "Reveal in Asset", then goes to the asset's properties and need to Replace the original file by translated version of file, having stored it on local computer with different name. Current/Experienced Behavior: Content manager can update an asset's file by one of the 2 ways: Create a Version: Open the folder in the DAM. Find his/her asset file. Select it and click on the "+ Create" button, then select "Version" button. Replace an original file OR Create a version:Save a future image with the SAME name as an original asset's file in the DAM. Drag and drop the future image to the DAM. System suggests "Create a version" or "Replace". Improved/Expected Behavior: User Story: As a Content manager, I want to be able to "Replace a file" from the asset's properties to avoid walking through assets listing and files renaming. Acceptance criteria: Content manager can update an asset's file from the asset's properties by uploading the file from his/her local computer. Content manager can choose 2 options: "Create version" or "Replace". If "Replace" option is selected, AEM saves the file to the same directory and automatically rename uploaded file to the same name as the original asset (original file is deleted). If "Create version" option is selected, AEM creates a version of the file (original file is saved). Uploading file with different extension than original asset is not uploaded and the error is displayed. The button "Replace file" is displayed on menu above asset properties page. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Managed Services, v6.5.14 Customer-name/Organization name: Veeam Software Screenshot (if applicable): We implemented an override for Content managers: Code package (if applicable):
Description:All admins are currently receiving the notifications: Contributor user limit reached or Guest user limit reached. Why is this feature important to you:We do not need all admins to receive every notification. This can lead to unnecessary distractions and clutter in their inboxes. How would you like the feature to work:Implement a feature that allows selective notification settings, where we can choose which admins receive specific notifications based on their roles or responsibilities. Current Behavior:All admins receive all notifications without the option to selectively choose recipients.
Description - With the new license structure every time a user goes over their approval limit an email notification is sent to all system admins. Ideally these notifications can be managed like other notifications. Why is this feature important to you - It creates unnecessary confusion / urgency / internal correspondence every time a notification comes through. And it's only relevant to the Admin who is responsible for user / license management. How would you like the feature to work - The ability to turn on / off the notification for individual system admins and limit only to the person/persons responsible for user/license management. OR that there isn't an email every time this happens and it's managed under Setup (e.g. keeps a log of overages / # of approvals for users that go over) for admins to reference/manage. Current Behaviour - Every system admin receives an email notification for every user that goes over their approval limit.
In order to be able to better utilize the data and integrate report data in other systems, being able to email reports as a CSV attachment instead just a PDF would be a nice feature.
I would like to be able to create a dashboard where I can monitor active scenarios and operations, I would like to see all at once with its stats. Would be nice to have a more meaningful error message, and have the msg displayed in dashboard for the corresponding scenario where error ocurred, ability to know how many times scenario has run during a range of time, know number of failures, display the running total count of operations against the total ie 50% of operactions or 400,000 of 800,000 have been executed.thank you 😊
Undo button available for system admins when designing/creating within a custom form, layout template, reporting, text mode. Please make this available when designing scenarios in Workfront Fusion as well. Why is this feature important to you - Eliminate unnecessary rework.How would you like the feature to work - Start by adding the undo button in custom forms, so if you delete a field by accident you can undo the action.Current Behavior - There is no undo button
If you clone a program where an - say - Email Performance Report lives, and that Email Performance Report is set up to report on all emails in that program, the cloning process should update that reference to the clone. That functionality existed before the Sky UI refresh. Please bring it back.
What I’ve found as we’re working with Dynamic Chat is that the conversations that are occurring on our site do not show up in real time (unless they engage with our live chat, but then even if the live chat gets missed by the team it won’t show up!) It’s a real headache for our team since we cannot monitor the live chats that get missed easily or even if we get questions from someone around a chat, it’s not showing. There are definitely workarounds for seeing who had a live chat that day and the transcripts are available in real time in MSI for our sales team, but as the marketing team & our BDR management, we want a one stop shop to see these. It also puts Marketo behind other chat tools that have everything in real time.
The current max update object limit is 100 on Workfront’s api calls. I’ve ran into the issue where there are more than 100 hourids to attach to a billing record. Updating the billing record with the next batch of 100 hourids just overwrites the initial 100 hourids on the billing record. Updating the billingRecordID field directly on the Hour object via API returns a success response but does not reliably associate the hour with the billing record which is a bug so can’t go that route either. It seems that the only way to get it somehow working for the future is either they fix the Hour/billingrecordID update or they increase the max update object to 500 or something like that.
It would be very helpful to have an on/off toggle to allow default schedule exceptions (holidays) to populate on the time off calendars for users who are assigned to that default schedule. Holidays would appear in one color, and user personal time off in a different color, distinguishing the two. This would prevent users from requesting time off on days that were already holidays, as well as giving users a quick and easy way to see the company holidays without having to set up a holiday “project” and a separate calendar as others have mentioned as a workaround.
I know Adobe has this feature in other platforms. It would be great to get to multiselect existing uploaded documents already in the documents tab and create a multipage proof directly from there. Thank you!
Workfront’s design excludes deactivated users from team-based report filters, which leads to missing historical hour data unless you manually include those users. The only way to include deactivated users’ historical hours in team-based reports is to manually add each former employee to the report filters. We can build custom reports that include deactivated users by filtering on user IDs or explicitly including deactivated users in the filter criteria, but this still requires manual maintenance. This is a known pain point for many organizationsIt would be a huge improvement if Adobe Workfront Production and Dev team select this idea and work on it for future releases.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Adobe provides monthly twice updates to AEMaaCS Environments. Even better, Adobe introduced Non-Intrusive Updates. But the updates are happening only to Prod and non-prod environments. No ability for RDE to update. Developers have to trash RDE and spin new RDE to receive latest updates. Use-case: Extend the ability to update AEM servers to RDE environments as well. Current/Experienced Behavior: RDE Environment cannot be updated to latest AEM version. Needs to be trashed and recreated new. This mandates redeploy to code, configuration, content and is time consuming. Improved/Expected Behavior: RDE provides Update option similar to Non-prod environments Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): RDE on AEMaaCS Customer-name/Organization name: SGWS Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description -Adobe Workfront allows for setting up complex webhook trigger conditions, including "OR" comparison. This allows for triggering webhooks for cases like "Field 1 OR Field 2 Changed". The "Watch Event" module in Fusion, however, only allows for "AND" conditions. This results in cases where we either need to (1) duplicate scenarios for each of the "OR" cases so that our admins can see the actual trigger conditions or (2) setup the complex webhook trigger using the Workfront API but lose visibility into the conditions within Fusion, meaning our admins are in the dark. Why is this feature important to you -We want to both ensure our admins have (1) clarity on each of the scenarios' setup and (2) not duplicating effort and (3) are empowered without specialty knowledge like having to use Workfront APIs via Postman/curl/etc. How would you like the feature to work -Whatever filter criteria expressions are supported by the Workfront API should be reflected in the Fusion "Watch Events" UI. Certainly, the ability to do an "OR" is one of those essential things. Current Behaviour -See description above.
Description - Until very recently the Auto-Align button was on the main screen. Now it is hidden under the More (...) button.Why is this feature important to you - When I'm building I use this button dozens of times per day...possibly even hundreds of times. Now with it hidden underneath the More (...) button it is doubling my mouse-clicks....very frustrating.How would you like the feature to work - Please put it back on the main screen.
UI Description:The current Fusion UI does not prompt for confirmation before deleting a scenario. Additionally, there is no visual indication of which scenario is selected for deletion, and deleted scenarios cannot be restored via the UI.Why this feature is important:Accidental deletion of scenarios can result in lost work and require significant time to rebuild. Without a confirmation prompt or a visual highlight, it’s easy to misclick and remove the wrong scenario. Since the UI offers no recovery option, this can lead to irreversible loss.How this feature would work:When a user clicks the delete icon for a scenario, a confirmation modal should appear asking, "Are you sure you want to delete this scenario?" The scenario line item should be highlighted when hovered over or selected for deletion, so the user clearly sees which scenario is being targeted. Optionally, an "Undo" notification or a soft-delete feature (trash bin or restore option) would add an extra layer of protection.Current behavior:Clicking the delete icon immediately removes the scenario with no warning or visual confirmation of which scenario is being deleted. There is no way to restore a deleted scenario through the UI.
The Fusion tab and filter for Active/Inactive scenarios was recently removed for Workfront Ultimate users. This filter is a key indicator for companies on whether or not their complete Fusion environment is functional. Regardless of if an org has an unlimited license, they should still be able to filter between their active/inactive Fusion scenarios and know at a glance the state of their environments.
Description - Enable a module that can call another scenario directlyWhy is this feature important to you - This would enable a more modular design of our workflow by having common functionality in one scenario that can be called by other scenarios without having to duplicate the functionality across all of the scenarios.How would you like the feature to work - A simple module that provides the input of the scenario name to call and the inputs to pass.Current Behaviour - Have to code custom webhooks to call scenarios
Description - While using the HTTP Fusion module with the Basic Auth feature, the system creates a key (in the Keys section) for the credentials added. There is no option to update an existing key which was created in a case where the credentials were changed. We use many such connections to our internal services where the credentials are rotated periodically and to update them in Fusion, someone needs to find the usage of the credentials in the whole list of scenarios and update them manually after creating a new key.Why is this feature important to you - It takes a lot of manual effort to find and update every scenario, even with the use of the connection switch tool within the Fusion dev tools where a person needs to look through all the scenarios and update the HTTP modules.How would you like the feature to work - It would be nice to have an option to update an existing key from the Keys section where the users cannot see the existing credentials but are able to provide and save new ones. With that, the system should be able to switch to new credentials on every scenario instead of needing to do it manually.Current Behavior - The system only allows you to delete an existing key, and not update it. To change a credential for an HTTP module, the user has to create a new one and update all the scenarios manually.
There is no easy way to know if someone has deleted a scenario and who deleted the scenario ...or a way to restore it back. There is also no easy way to run a report or even copy/paste the scenario names into a spreadsheet to try and compare against. This is an urgent need, because someone could really mess things up the way the product works currently.
Within projects, functionality exists to make tasks and subtasks dependent on completion of other tasks. This allows projects to move forward in the optimal order and timeframe. What about allowing the same type of dependencies to exist for Programs?As a project manager, I often work on multiple projects within an overarching Program (which itself exists within a Portfolio.) There may be multiple projects within a portfolio which depend on one another in order to move forward. Currently, there is no logical connector between the health or completion of a project and starting another project. Example Program: Spring Campaign. Below are examples of projects which might exist within the Program. These are not in order, but there IS an order to them. Project: Campaign StrategyProject: Content StrategyProject: Approved Marketing CopyProject: PhotoshootProject: Video ShootProject: Social AdsProject: Web BannersProject: Campaign Web PagesProject: Pitch DeckProject: Sales Enablement MaterialsProject: Partner VersioningProject: Localization Across Regions Creating functionality which allows dependencies between Projects in a Program has the potential to elevate the interconnected nature of all of the work required to accomplish a project to a level which allows visualization across stakeholders. The visualization could be a game changer in articulation of what is possible given resources, budget, and timeline to accomplish a large multi-faceted goal. The implications for conveying reality to Executive Level Stakeholders allows the vision to be seen in the light of reality. Accountability is underscored by the clear understanding of ALL that is involved. Silos are removed.
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.
