Build better products with our product team
When we try to send emails from AJO we get this alert. Saying that the opt-out link is missing in the body.But his is not entirely true. The link is there, but is placed inside a fragment. To us it seems like AJO is not able to see this link when it is inside a fragment, and then returns a alert. We have placed the link inside a footer fragment, that is not broken before sending the email. We are also using if/or logic controlled by variables to show the right language for that link. This also might be a reason for AJO is not able to recognize the link. But it is there, and it is working. Could the code checker that looks for this opt-out link also try to look for this code inside fragments?
機能改善要求（RFE）概要： When editing a live-copied Content Fragment, please enable breaking inheritance directly in the New Editor. ユースケース： The author localizes the values of the live-copied Content Fragment. 現在／体験した動作： We have to switch editing modes to break inheritance, which is very inefficient. 改善／期待される動作： In the New Editor, I would like all the features covered by the traditional editor to be available, with additional new features added. 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 As a Cloud Services 顧客名／組織名 Kyocera 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）
In multi-brand Adobe Experience Platform implementations, consent information is often captured as event data, with each brand emitting its own consent events.These consent signals are then elevated to the profile level using Computed Attributes, so they can be reused consistently across audiences, consent policies, and activation use cases.However, Computed Attributes currently have a maximum lookback period of 6 months. If no qualifying events are present within that window, the computed attribute value is nullified, even when no explicit consent change or withdrawal has occurred.This behavior creates challenges when modeling consent, which is inherently a stateful attribute, not a time-bound behavioral signal. Suggested EnhancementProvide an option for Computed Attributes to retain the last known value beyond the lookback window, unless:A new qualifying event updates the value, orAn explicit revocation / change event is received.This could be implemented as:A configuration option such as “Persist last value until updated” Other profile attributes in AEP naturally persist until explicitly updated. Introducing similar persistence semantics for state-based computed attributes would improve consistency across the platform.
We often run into all kind of problems with the email designer during a AJO upgrade/release. Created content disappears, variable settings used in fragments changes/disappears, Image sizes changes etc etc. All this things come back from the users as bug reports. When investigating the issues, we often need to conclude that the error/experienced behavior most come from hickup in the code during the code upgrade. Suddenly all is back to normal again, the day after, without changing anything. Out theory is that a AJO upgrade/code change possible has some impacted on the use of the email designer during the code upgrade. Maybe it is hard or difficult to store things at the same time the source code is been updated. At least we experience that it might be a challenge here. We would therefor like to have the option to “lock” the email editor and other components that creates things in AJO during an update . The lock could explain that this feature is temporary locked caused by an code upgrade that will take xxxxx minutes/hours. That would probably cause less frustration and reduced feedback about strange behavior reported as a bug. It might also be other parts of the platform that suffers the same, like creation of audiences and offers.
Hi Team,Maybe it is nice to have an “Attach Template” function under the TASK. the same with Project. so the form that is associated with a template will go directly under “task details” instead under “Project details”Thanks,
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Assigning Product Profiles to IMS User Groups Use-case: We are currently assigning Product Profiles individually to IMS Users. These users are grouped under IMS Groups. These groups have access to different Adobe Cloud Products. Assigning Product Profiles to IMS Groups should be a quicker solution. Current/Experienced Behavior: AEM currently does not support assigning groups to profiles. Users should be added individually instead. Improved/Expected Behavior: Adding User Groups to Product Profiles should be allowed to enable quicker access. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Release 2023.4.12142.20230526T152858Z Customer-name/Organization name: TA Digital Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): @kautuk_sahni
In the Old Report Builder if I shared a report which included a segment that someone does not have access to the UI shows a warning that the report contains segments not currently available to that userPlease add this functionality to the new Report Builder UI.
I don’t believe this exists so I’m going to throw this out there:It would be nice if we can add custom filters on a user profile that would kick in when that user is looking at the report automatically. Making it easier to create more basic reports that are unique for that user based on custom fields. For examples, if your team is divided into Line of Businesses members serve, we can create a report that is $$HomeTeam, but your user custom filters may say you only see the LOB you serve. A co-worker would have their LOB as what they see only, though it’s the same report. So, we do not have to do so many versioning of the same report.
Having a form performance report where completions could be viewed by day, week or month would be of great benefit to users that embed forms on their web pages vs. using Marketo landing pages. This would allow allow users to analyze form completions week-over-week, month-over-month or year-over-year without having to build smart lists for each time frame. It could also be used to see number of form completions over the course of the year by month.Furthermore, smart lists only report unique people that filled out the form within the defined time period, making it incredibly challenging to account for multiple submissions by the same person within that given time period. This report could have two option 1) to report by unique people that completed the form and attribute the most recent completion to its time frame or 2) to report total form completions.
I love the agility of boards, being able to move things around swiftly - would it be possible to have a ‘Resource’ board for traffic managers to use that has the same feature?The board would be a Team - i.e. Creative Studio. Each Team member has its own column with a list of all their assigned tasks - in the first column there would be all the unassigned work. The cards would need to show duration, planned hours and planned start and completion date. Each card would be grouped by date. From the unassigned column, the traffice manager can move the task to the available person to work on it.
For sandbox refreshes: We noticed the refresh resets the AEM Workflow config in the project templates. This means we have to manually configure it after each refresh. We'd appreciate it if this workflow would remain unchanged for the project templates because we use it for the AEM linked folders upon project creation. Second, for the environment package promotions: When we promote a project template there is no way to promote the document folders within it. This is another manual configuration we must do every time for each project template. It would be very helpful if these would not reset or if there was a way to edit multiple project templates all at once.
Hi everyone, One common issue I see often in Adobe Campaign is how risky it is to make schema changes—especially on core tables like nms:recipient.Changing things like primary keys or data types can break references, cause data loss, or even crash the system.It’d be super helpful if ACC had a Smart Schema Change Guard feature that could:1. Warn you before making risky changes Show the full impact on related tables, logs, and workflows2. Suggest safe migration steps or fixes3. Allow easy rollback if something goes wrongThis would save a lot of headaches, prevent downtime, and help teams evolve their data models safely.Has anyone else run into this? Would love to hear your thoughts or if you’ve found good workarounds! Thanks!
Today in MSI our sales team can create modified list views for Best Bets using basic "AND" statement logic . In many cases the team would like to be able to configure this list using more advanced logic such as "OR" statements and logic groupings. A AND (B OR C)
The Photoshop plugin seems to have no capability of downloading documents from Workfront directly into Photoshop using the plugin panel. It is very much a one way street which only allows files to be saved/uploaded from photoshop into Workfront, but not the otherway around.It would be very helpful if this capability was added as currently still requires manual intervention in downloading the file spearately and manually opening within photshop, which I feel defeats the point of having such an integration.
In a task report when pulling completed tasks, it doesn't filter out tasks with multiple assignees that have completed 'their part' - it will still show for the users that have marked their part complete until everyone marks the task complete. We need a way to remove tasks in which which multiple users are assigned, but have completed their portion of the task (using a $$USER.ID filter for assignment users/assigned to).There have been multiple questions/threads about this over the years but never an Idea - please upvote!
When simulating an email in Marketo and trying to add people as recipients, the list of available people is empty. Users can only add recipients if they already know the exact email address and search for it explicitly.This behavior is extremely cumbersome and inefficient, especially for testing purposes. It would be much more user-friendly if existing people records were displayed in the list, allowing users to simply select recipients instead of having to manually search by email address.Additionally, if an audience (e.g. a Smart List or static list) is already defined within the program, it would be very helpful if those audience members could be shown and selected directly during email simulation.Displaying available people and/or program audiences would significantly improve usability, save time, and reduce friction when testing emails.
The idea here is to strengthen the impact and visibility of important announcements. Administratively, there are many times that announcements really need to be marked as important and displayed with more emphasis to users. Idea: Add an "Important Announcements" section somewhere that would display important announcements that otherwise might get lost and overlooked. This could be the home page or potentially somewhere up top to account for layouts that maybe don't use a home page landing area. Current Behavior: Announcements are sent out via email and displayed in the announcements area which is great! Let's build on that!Benefits of this idea: Adds value by displaying important messages up front to your users. Provides immediate impact through more visible messaging.Expiration date of important message display allows easy administrative management.Utilizes existing announcement setup to take advantage of targeted audiences and external communications that users have come to expect.Take a look! Here is my mocked-up example of this idea:
While being able to list out individual Program cost line items is a useful feature, it's limited by a few things: namely, the ability to only parse certain types of budget information based on information in the note. I would like to build a more robust approach for budget measurement and compliance in Marketo by providing a standardized set of custom fields that could provide more detail in budget analysis. While I would expect to have some of these as fully custom, I think others are widely applicable and may make sense to be in the core product. Some examples of these would include: - Spend Type: Categorizes the primary expense of the campaign (e.g., 'Media Spend', 'Agency Fees', 'Content Creation', 'Sponsorship'). This allows for a more granular analysis of where the budget is going and the ROI on different types of spend.- Budget Source / Team: Tracks which team's budget is funding the campaign (e.g., 'Corporate Marketing', 'Product Marketing', 'Field Marketing'). This is essential for leaders to see how different teams are performing with their allocated spend. - Vendor / Payee: A field to specify the vendor who will receive the payment (e.g., 'Google', 'LinkedIn', 'Gartner', 'Acme Agency'). This allows you to run reports on your total spend by vendor across all campaigns, which is invaluable for negotiating contracts. - Invoice / PO Number: A text field to record the associated invoice or Purchase Order number for the expense. This creates a direct link between your marketing plan and the financial transaction records, making audits and expense verification straightforward. Implementing these sorts of additional fields would turn Program Costs from a legacy piece of information to one that's more central to Marketo setup and ROI; please consider expanding out the feature in this way or with similar functionality.
With companies becoming more security-aware and device manufacturers blocking requests to certain domains, people are looking for opportunities to bring their marketing tools in a first-party context. With Launch, we can either host the library on Adobe's domain or our own webserver, but not behind a transparent reverse-proxy. After some experimentation, I have found that the individual extensions and files are still loaded from Adobe's domain, even if the initial Launch library is hidden behind a proxy. Conceptually it should be an easy addition to allow users to hide the adobedtm Domain behind their company's proxy. From a feature perspective, I would like to specify both a domain and a path from where Launch should attempt to load files instead of the standard Adobe domain and path. The files should still be pushed to Akamai and be available there, but should not reference files from the Adobe domain. This would make it significantly easier for companies like my own to bring Launch into a first-party context (a bit like Googles Server Side GTM) and harden it against blocked third-party domains.
Description:The Scenario planner feels like a forgotten function of the tool. It’s very convenient for quickly getting projects added to Workfront as initiatives and moving them around, but it falls short in how it can be made more useful during project roadmap planning. The function would need to include:Project-to-project dependencies The ability to tie the start date of an initiative to the end date of another. This would be great for regular projects as well versus having to associate tasks within them.Custom form editingThe ability to associate custom form data at the initiative level that would carry over after publishing.Project summary view within the scenario plannerIf an initiative is tied to a project, you can more easily see the project details without leaving the page. More initiative dates optionsThe ability to sync resync my initiative dates with project dates.More specific dates - monthly increments can be too broad Reveal the Scenario Planner’s initiative rank as a valueCurrently this isn’t reportable like the portfolio optimizer rank, but it would help if it was. Merge or better integrate with the workload balancerThe current hours/FTE tracking of the current Scenario function is confusing and unusable. You can extend this same frustration with the disparate Calendar feature that is also useful in its own way, but disconnected from the way the rest of the tool functions. These features feel like they were designed for one company in mind, but don’t apply to everyone else. The use case that involves the scenario planner is:A marketing team of creatives begin to develop initiatives (project ideas) that align to the goals set by leadershipThe team adds these project ideas QUICKLY onto a roadmap view (Scenario Planner). They can move the initiatives around quickly and in correlation with actual projects. They can associate form data like objectives/goals, status, and relationship to other initiatives/projects with the initiatives in the planner.They can publish to create or update projects, but also sync project changes back to the initiatives in the planner.
Description - I would like Frame.io to be a default/native option in the "Link from" popup that appears when a user is adding a document to a request. Why is this feature important to you - My customer has had to rework their current workflow using a custom form to allow end users to submit content . Expectations - The hope here would be to have Frame.IO included in the “link from” option for platform consistency, visibility and ease of use.
Announcement Center:I would like to have the option to make the announcements appear as "pop-up windows" the same way we as WF users get messages from WF.
Description - Being able to create a table with multiple dimensions side-by-side on a panel.Why is this feature important to you - It's visually more simple to track than comparing the breakdowns of your various primary dimensions across every dimension. You also then have no way to easily sort the top combinations to the top of your view without exporting the data and manipulating in Excel.How would you like the feature to work - Be able to drag multiple dimensions side-by-side, just the same as you can metrics.Current Behavior - You can only have one dimension in a table (unless the other dimensions are breakdowns). I can't create a flat table of multiple dimensions in the Analytics Workspace view.
Currently, FIFO is not guaranteed when ingesting data to Profile, even if you have a timestamp available. This has been confirmed, both theoretically and practically, by external Adobe consultants. My feature request is to have the option to enforce FIFO upon profile ingestion. It could be a toggle, that would be off by default, when configuration Base connection and/or dataflows. It will, potentially, have processing time implication, but from my business standpoint, I would rather have correctly updated profiles, a bit slower, than fast updates that are potentially incorrect. This would be a massive product improvement in terms of functionality, personalization and data activation in general.
Currently, it seems that even though the data prep UI suggests this is possible, that mapping a nested data structure to a target field as a calculated field is not supported and ends up in a stalled data ingestion. Example: I have a nested source data structure, from which I want to extract a specific email address from index 0 of an array. This will always be the same index.Source dataNow, when I try to use data prep functions, the green checkmark appears, as well as the desired email address in the preview.Real mapping exampleSo far, everything looks as it should work. Until you start the workflow and it never ends.Now, I was 99% done creating my support ticket, when I read the AI-suggested ticket solutionAI suggested response.Possible solutionsbest case: Adobe integrates support for this deterministic path. acceptable case: fix the UI to not show the false positive and maybe instead point out the issue. worst case: nothing changes, and I won’t be the last to scratch his head about thisThis surely has potential performance implications for even more complex data structures, but either way, I think 1. is the way to go for an enterprise grade solution like the RT-CDP since Adobe cannot expect everyone to have full flexibility about the delivered data structure or have intermediate tools to modify the incoming data as needed.
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.
