Build better products with our product team
Description - The limitation of 2,000 returns on the external look up field prevents us from being able to use master data for client names in WorkfrontWhy is this feature important to you - Using an external look up field to allow users to choose from a golden record for our client names would provide more robust reports in Workfront.How would you like the feature to work - We would like Adobe to increase this threshold as 2,000 returns is very limiting. A query search allowing more options would support our use of golden records for robust filtering.Current Behaviour - the look up field returns the first 2,000 lines only and ignores anything after that. Our master data platform can return up over 16,000 records in 1.8 seconds but they cannot be accessed beyond the first 2,000.
Integration with Microsoft Word and Workfront. We would like to have tracked changes inside of WF or to have the ability to edit documents within the proofing tool.
Currently, the REST API only facilitates running a batch campaign immediately or once at some time in the future: https://developers.marketo.com/rest-api/assets/smart-campaigns/#batch This idea proposes that the schedule request be modified to allow setting of a recurring schedule for the batch campaign, as can currently be done with the GUI as shown in the attached image.
FEATURE : As a light/contributor/standard user (Reviewer and/or Approver), I want to be able to tag in a comment another user who is not in the workflow. This person should then be able to comment the proof but not make any decision Currently, in Adobe Workfront Proofs, users can only tag (@mention) individuals who are already explicitly added to the workflow (as a Reviewer or Approver).If a project team member needs quick input, clarification, or a second opinion from a colleague who is not part of the pre-defined workflow, they cannot bring them into the proof directly via a comment. Instead, the user has to manually reach out via email/chat, export screenshots, or request an administrator to modify the workflow and assign permissions—all of which creates friction, delays feedback loops, and disrupts collaboration. Business Impact & BenefitsAccelerated Review Cycles: Eliminates bottlenecks caused by rigid workflows, allowing ad-hoc subject matter experts to weigh in quickly without administrative overhead. Improved Cross-Functional Collaboration: Bridges the gap between core project teams and wider stakeholders who only need visibility or light input. Maintained Governance: Preserves the integrity of the formal approval process since non-workflow invitees can only comment and cannot make binding decisions. Enhanced User Experience: Reduces manual workarounds (like screenshots and external messaging), keeping all feedback centralized within Workfront.
Our users have been getting these marketing popups quite regularly in Workfront. A lot of these events are aimed at Admins or users who have very different roles in Workfront. Is there a way we can disable these messages? If not, can a toggle be added?
The older version of the API, 1.4, allowed us to download a JSON of the processing rules in a suite. Since these are instrumental in transforming data into eVars, Props, and Events, they are an essential part of maintaining the data quality of a suite. The newest version of the API, 2.0, does not currently support accessing the processing rules, and it's been stated on Github that, as of this idea submission, processing rules access is not even on the roadmap. Unless Adobe is going to eliminate these rules (and the eVars and Props that are driven by them), a mature multi-site installation of Adobe Analytics, esp. across mobile and web, relies on a constant overview of processing rules for maintenance, QA, and to aid site and mobile app developers.Please make sure that processing rules are accessible via the APIs, not just in version 2.0, but in all future versions. Leaving 1.4 up is not a complete solution, as Adobe may deprecate it at any point.
A way to bulk unpublish or publish Marketo emails to MSI would be very useful. I see similar ideas over 12 years old, so creating a new idea here. I am trying to clean up MSI folders for our SFDC users. I have over 125 emails that I need to unpublish and i need to do the unpublishing manually, one-by-one. Would be great if Marketo would let me bulk check emails to publish or un-publish.
As global platform administrators, we are responsible for creating Developer Console credentials and distributing them to each sandbox administrator. These credentials are intentionally configured with the minimum permissions required to perform the requested action.Today, when a sandbox administrator requests access to a capability such as Data Ingestion, we can find the API documentation that explains the available endpoints and how to use them. However, we cannot find clear information in either the API documentation or Experience League about which specific permissions are required for each operation.For example, the documentation may describe a method such as POST – Create a new batch, including the request format and usage, but it does not indicate which AEP permissions must be assigned to the Developer Console credential in order to execute that operation successfully.Requested improvement:Please add, within each API method or endpoint documentation page, a small highlighted section that clearly states the required permissions/roles/scopes needed to use that operation.Example:For POST – Create a new batch, include a note or box indicating the exact AEP permissions that must be granted to the credential in Developer Console.Why this is important:Helps administrators assign the correct minimum permissions from the start Reduces trial and error when configuring credentials Speeds up onboarding for sandbox administrator and teams consuming the APIs Improves security by reinforcing least-privilege access Reduces support requests caused by missing or unclear permission requirements
I think the new “Assets” Tab now looks much nicer than the classic view.Having said that, I do miss the old icons that showed whether the trigger campaigns were activated versus not. It was also helpful for the batch ones to see which ones are actively scheduled, previously ran, never ran, etc. Food for thought!
OverviewData Distiller Accelerators help users move faster from raw data to repeatable analysis by providing Adobe-authored SQL templates for common business, industry, and technical use cases. Accelerators are available in the Queries workspace and can be used to analyze areas such as customer segmentation, campaign performance, commerce behavior, audience overlap, fraud detection, retention, product reviews, attribution, and more. Access and PermissionsAccelerators are available to organizations with Data Distiller entitlements. Users can access them from the Accelerators tab in the Queries workspace. Viewing Available AcceleratorsGo to Queries in the left navigation, then open the Accelerators tab.The accelerator catalog displays available templates with a name and description, making it easy to identify the right starting point for your use case. Using an AcceleratorSelect an accelerator to open it in Query Editor.The SQL is preloaded and read-only by default. Users can provide the required parameters, run the query, and review the results directly in the Results tab. Saving or Scheduling ResultsAfter validating the output, users can persist results into a dataset using CTAS or schedule the accelerator to run on a recurring basis with fixed parameter values.This helps teams turn one-time analysis into repeatable workflows. Customizing AcceleratorsAccelerators are maintained by Adobe and cannot be edited directly.To modify the SQL, users can create a custom template from an accelerator. The cloned version becomes editable and can be saved, scheduled, or adapted to fit organization-specific business logic. SummaryData Distiller Accelerators provide trusted SQL starting points across a broad range of use cases. They reduce manual SQL authoring, help standardize repeatable analysis, and give teams the flexibility to operationalize or customize workflows as needed.Author: @Sameeksha
While it is currently possible to select multiple assets within the UI, the available filters do not provide an option to view assets located exclusively in archived folders. At present, users can only choose to include archived folders in their search results, which means archived and active assets are returned together.It would be valuable to have the ability to filter for archived folders only.Use CaseDuring instance clean-up and governance activities, teams often need to review assets that have already been archived. Being able to isolate assets within archived folders would make it easier to distinguish them from live, in-use assets, reducing the risk of accidentally unapproving, modifying, or deleting active assets. This functionality would improve efficiency, support better instance management, and help ensure that clean-up efforts are focused only on retired content.
DescriptionImprove Timesheet Behavior for Manually Pinned TasksWhy is this feature important to youCurrently, manually pinned tasks remain on a user's timesheet even after being marked as Completed or Cancelled. This can lead to confusion, as users may continue logging hours on tasks that are no longer active. It also affects data accuracy and time tracking consistency.How would you like the feature to workWe suggest enhancing the timesheet functionality to better handle manually pinned tasks by:Automatically removing pinned tasks from the timesheet once they are marked as Completed or CancelledPreventing time entry on tasks that are no longer active, regardless of manual pinningIntroducing configuration options to restrict manual pinning based on task statusAllowing system administrators to disable the manual pinning feature (Alt+P) for specific user profiles or globallyCurrent BehaviourUsers can manually pin tasks to their timesheet using Alt+P or the pin iconPinned tasks remain visible on the timesheet even after being marked as Completed or CancelledUsers can continue logging hours on these tasksThe existing setting “Pre-populate timesheets with completed or cancelled tasks” does not affect manually pinned tasks
In Assets Essentials view, when I open an asset in a collection, it opens in the file's location, so if I try to page through the assets using the arrows at the bottom, it goes to other assets in the asset's folder instead of the assets in the collection. Ideally, when in a collection, we could page through assets within the collection. Users are confused when viewing assets in collections. This behavior is different in the admin/touch UI.Users should be able to page through assets in a collection. Ideally, this would be the default behavior, but it should at least be an option.
Sometimes we need to create report on something - some area of interest - that is just too ungainly in a single report.The report freezes and crashes. It is hard to read and navigate, and it very slow to load and update.So in general on the platform, I would like a way to do have multiple reports grouped together.I have thought maybe a widget, that acts as a navigation point to link multiple reports grouped together might be something like the TABS you have in an excel spreadsheet. Applicable to Adobe Analytics and Customer Journey Analytcis.
Description - It would be helpful to have an On Hold (ONH) status for Tasks like there are for Projects and Requests. Why is this feature important to you - Sometimes tasks need to be put on hold as priorities change, etc. We'd like to indicate the true status because it's not New, In Progress, or Complete.How would you like the feature to work - Choose On Hold from the Status dropdown menu and remove it from being factored into the Project Condition. Current Behaviour - Tasks have three options New, In Progress, or Complete. We created a custom On Hold status, but it affects the Project Condition, so we adjust the dates repeatedly until the task is re-engaged and changed to In Progress or Cancelled (another custom status created.) For Cancelled Tasks, we can delete the task but it's useful to show the task was considered for the project. We remove dates and planned duration/hours for it so it will not impact the Project Condition. We don't want to remove them from On Hold tasks so the stakeholders know the effort needed should it be decided to move forward.
Attached/below. Keen to hear counterpoints and other considerations for use.
CNIL has created a need to add the logic to send an email with disabled tracking for France leads. The same would be true for Italy soon, but this also means that we are modifying all “Send Email” steps with a choice, or replacing it with a requested/executable campaign. If this conditional setting and the ability to modify it is inbuilt into the email, that would help enable/disable tracking in a dynamic manner for the emails which are already in use. The parameters may extend to beyond tracking pixels as compliance landscape evolves and the settings could be beyond pixel tracking overtime.
Description - After a thorough implementation, we decided to use the Request Queues built directly in the projects. The functionality is great. We have a project template set up with Queue Topics, Groups, Forms etc. The issue is that when creating requests directly in a project there is no Autosave or Drafting functionality that we know of. Our users are becoming increasingly agitated by having complex requests easily deleted at the unfortunate click out of the request window or accidental refresh of the page. Why is this feature SO VERY important to you - Our current solution is to submit requests without auto-routing to a traffic team so the work can be saved. Leading to needing to save as you go, something that is antiquated in this day and age, especially knowing that autosave exists in many other places in Workfront, including the Global Request Queues area. How would you like the feature to work - simply autosave as you go with a Drafts section built into the Request area of the Project. Or a new section called Request Drafts. Draft autosaves until the Submit Request button is clicked. Current Behaviour - User begins a request, fills out info and has to Submit the Request in order to save it and continue working on the request, and they must click save as they progress. If users haven't submitted the request yet or haven't recently saved, it is very common for users to accidentally click out of the window, closing the request and clearing all the info. Leading them to have to painstakingly recreate the request they could have spent many hours on. Please prioritize this, WF.
Meta data creation is THE key step when feeding new assets into a DAM. Especially when uploading multiple assets, the creation of meaningful titles, descriptions and tags takes a long time or needs to be done with an excel sheet. An AI agent/tool that helps creates this data by reading/viewing the file and it’s content or what an image shows, would be extremely helpful.The agent should ideally also be able to do other things as well, e.g. translate the description and enter it into a specified field (e.g. translating the EN description to FR and adding it into the “French description” field).The Bulk Rename feature in Assets View already works pretty good, but it’s only for the actual file names, not for titles. This is like a mini version of what I’m imagining. Other DAMs already have this, if required, I can provide an example.The AI generated titles and descriptions are well noted, alas, there is no easy way to copy them to the actual title field with just a click or to see a suggestion when entering meta data.
Tracking approver decision counts across proofs (in Workfront AND in ProofHQ/Proofing Tool) to manage the 6-decision/month threshold before contributors shift to light access — that’s a genuine reporting gap.Currently, there is no visibility into Proofs that were generated in Workfront Poof Tool. We need to be able to report from Workfront on the user level to track/count decisions that will count towards a user’s decision threshold before they are automatically moved from a contributor to a light user.
A new feature that would be great to have is the ability to test marketing channel rules as you’re creating/saving them. Similar to what we have for classifications, where you can put in a test string and it will show how that string would be classified. It would be great to have this with marketing channels. How it should work:There should be an option to run a test where you can manually put in a URL, referrer, and other components (based on what components you’ve used to set up your rules). Either have it show up with all of the fields you’ve used and the option to populate them/leave them blank, or have dropdowns where you can select which fields you want to enter info for.Then have it run what you’ve entered against all of your rules and tell you which marketing channel it would get classified into. Why it’s important:Right now when making marketing channel processing rules, there isn’t currently a way to test them. It can be hard to mentally go through all of the rules and figure out how a hit would get classified, especially if you have a lot of rules. The value of being able to test specific types of hits can let users know if their rules are working correctly or not. Especially for Adobe Analytics, where retroactive changes are not possible, this could save data from getting misclassified after rules are set up.
In Adobe Analytics Segments we can use "equals" and "does not equal" to compare a variable against specific values.i.e. Page Name (evar1) does not equal “test”This is fine when you only have a few specific values to compare against. It would also be useful be able to compare the values of dimensions as a whole. The specific scenario that comes to mind is segmenting page views where Page Name and Previous Page name are not the same, but this could also work for a number of other scenarios.I.e. a segment that saysHitPage Name (evar1) does not equal Previous Page Name (evar2)
Current problemMy organisation uses centrally managed Analysis Workspace projects that are shared with a large population of Adobe Analytics users. These projects are commonly shared with broad product-profile groups using Edit copy, allowing users to work from a governed starting point without changing the original project.Within the Share dialogue, there is a checkbox labelled “Set as landing page for recipients”.If a project is shared with a large product-profile group, selecting this option and clicking Update can make that project the default landing page for every recipient in the group.This is a potentially high-impact action, but it is presented as a standard checkbox alongside lower-impact project-sharing settings. The interface does not provide a prominent warning explaining the scale of the change, clearly confirm which users will be affected, or offer an effective organisation-level method of reversing the action. Why this creates a governance riskIn a large organisation, Analytics users perform different roles and use different Analysis Workspace projects. A single workspace is therefore unlikely to be an appropriate landing page for every user.The feature itself can be useful where an organisation deliberately wants to give a specific audience a common landing page. However, when a workspace is shared with a broad product-profile group, the same setting can accidentally change the experience for hundreds or potentially thousands of users.Users can individually change their own landing-page preference after the change has been applied. However, requiring every affected user to correct the setting individually is not an efficient or scalable recovery mechanism. It may also generate avoidable user confusion, support requests and internal communications.The current design therefore creates an imbalance:One project owner can apply the change to a large recipient group in a single action. Each affected recipient may then need to correct the change individually. The project owner or Analytics administrator does not appear to have an equivalent central action to restore the normal Projects list landing page for everyone affected. You cannot untick the box once the feature has been ticked and updated, therefore there is no clear way to reverse the previously applied landing-page change.This is particularly risky for organisations using centrally managed workspace projects and broad product-profile groups to support governed self-service analytics. Suggested improvements1. Add a high-impact confirmation dialogueWhen Set as landing page for recipients is selected, Adobe Analytics should display a confirmation dialogue before applying the change.2. Introduce permission-based access to the featureAdobe should provide a dedicated permission such as: “Manage landing pages for other users”Analytics administrators could control which users or product profiles receive this permission through the Adobe Admin Console.3. Provide an organisation-level reset optionAdministrators should be able to centrally restore the default landing page for affected users.4. Make the setting a reversible stateThe option should behave as a genuine on/off setting rather than as a one-time action.If a project is currently assigned as the landing page for a selected group, the sharing dialogue should show that state clearly. Turning the setting off should remove the central assignment for the same recipients.5. Protect existing personal preferencesWhere possible, Adobe should provide a choice between:Set the project as the landing page for all selected recipients Set the project only for recipients without an existing preference Do not overwrite user-selected landing pagesThis would allow organisations to provide a helpful default without overriding deliberate choices made by experienced users. Expected benefitThese improvements would preserve the usefulness of Set as landing page for recipients while reducing the risk of an accidental large-scale change.They would provide:Better governance for centrally managed workspace environments Clearer awareness of the impact before a change is applied Appropriate access control for a high-impact capability Protection for individual user preferences A scalable recovery process Fewer avoidable support requests and user communicationsMost importantly, the administrative effort required to reverse a landing-page change would be proportionate to how easily the original change can be applied. Current workaroundWe identified a workaround that can reset the landing page for the affected recipients:Create a copy of a centrally shared Analysis Workspace project. Share that copied project with the affected user group. Select Set as landing page for recipients and apply the change. Delete the copied project.Once the copied project is deleted, the assigned landing page is no longer available and the recipients’ landing page is reset.Although this provides a possible recovery route, it is not an appropriate long-term solution
A helpful and efficient update that would help reduce the number of fusion scenario runs and modules needed after an Adobe Workfront Watch Event (instant) would be simply to include numberOfChildren as an Event Filter option for Task events webhook configuration. We are looking to drive automation once a task status changes but looking to limit the run on only actual tasks, not parent tasks. We are able to work around but see double the number of runs necessary and need to add extra modules to read the task after the webhook. This would be similar to this idea where the option to filter by that field for task objects: Fusion Watch module for a task canStart update | Community
We used to be able to right-click on the sidebar area to the left of the project info. 'Tasks, Documents, Project Details, etc.' could be right-clicked and have opened in a new tab/window. A few montsh ago the UI team changed that option and right-clicking those is no longer available. I’m hoping there's a way to bring that back as it was REALLY helpful when trying to see two different sections of the project quickly. The removal of the right-click functionality on the project left panel navigation items is a product design change that was made as part of a platform update. I’d love for it to be brought back as an easier part of the Workfront workflows.
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.
