For most normal dimensions you can only generate dynamic columns for the top 5 items. 5 is a very small number (I needed 8 the other day and was stuck!) - is there any chance of increasing this? If there are performance worries, even a small increase to 10 or 20 would be very useful! The feature can be seen here: Dynamic Columns In Analysis Workspace Freeform Tables | Adobe Analytics - YouTube
To be able to export from the Updates TabWe are archiving projects, and this is one more piece of project informationTo Export in PDF format (landscape or portrait)Current there is no option.
Description -the document upload notification email to say what folder the document was uploaded to. It would be nice to see that the document was uploaded to the "internal review" folder (in our case) and the project status doesn't need to change without having to go into the job and look each time. Why is this feature important to you -This would save our traffic team a lot of time. We wouldn't need to go into the project only to see that there is no action required from us yet. How would you like the feature to work -the document upload notification email to say what folder the document was uploaded to. Current Behavior - The notification email just says a document was uploaded to the job. I have to go in to the job and click to several different screens to see what folder its in to know what action I need to take.
One of my biggest issues when it comes to coding landing pages/ emails is the white screen that plagues the Marketo Designer. It would be really cool to add the option to switch on "dark mode" to make coding easier as the black screen helps with coloring and finding/fixing errors. I'm not entirely sure if this already is a feature - but I haven't been able to find it and I think it would be an awesome asset to add for people who tend to code a lot and don't have the resources outside of Marketo. What do you guys think?
When developing email templates that work with both light and dark mode, using <picture> and <source> tags with a fallback <img> inside it is a clean way to set both light and dark mode images without having to assign the image a conditional media query show/hide via CSS. However, the TinyMCE editor today will strip this markup rather than allow it to be in editable areas. Can this please be updated to no longer have this behavior?
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: display number on assets in list view Use-case: to have an easy way to know how many asset we select Current/Experienced Behavior: today we have a clear view of the total amount of assets in list view, but if we need to select only 35 assets (because of limitation on other flows for ex) then it's quite complex to do Improved/Expected Behavior: if in each line we have the number of line, then it's easier to do the selection Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): display number on assets in list view Customer-name/Organization name: Louis Vuitton Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description Love the Company Folder and the ability to share a group of projects across your organization, but want to potentially share only relevant projects for users and / or want to hide non-relevant templates and folders? Current state, the Company Folder is an all-or-nothing holding ground for placing reports and enforcing automatic sharing privileges. However, there are situations where you want only a certain team or group of individuals (maybe even product profile) to access a certain folder or even see that folder. I'm proposing the idea of allowing users to create a "Shared Folder" that will let you set-up your own sharing permission that allows you to create a project and move to the folder and all members of the group will be able to access, but will not have to give carte blanche access to all members of your company. Why is this feature important to you I often have a team of core people I work with for certain projects or reporting focuses that allow for many reports to get created, or I have a list of 5-6 people who NEED to be shared a report, but it has to be reviewed and approved internally before it is shared out, and putting it into the company folder before it is ready is not an acceptable option. How would you like the feature to work Ideally, I would like the folder when selected on the landing page and the blue selection bar appears, it would have similar options to selecting a project, to "share", "rename", "pin", or "tag". And inside the "Share" menu, you could manage the permissions for the folder similar to the pop-up menu that exists for projects: "Edit Sharing Access" could be used for determining who has the ability control access permissions for the folder, "Edit Project Access" would allow users to determine who could edit the projects inside the folder or move projects inside the folder, and "View Project Only" would allow users to be added to the folder to view reporting, but unable to edit (perhaps great for executives or others who you want to give visibility without risking a report getting unintentionally modified). It could also be more complicated, and move to using product profiles if supporting this level of granularity inside the landing page wouldn't be possible, but the idea of allowing users to have folder permissions for storing their projects similar to the concept of Dropbox, Box, OneDrive shared folders is the core of the idea.
The recent calendar look/feel upgrade from May 2025 no longer allows multiple entries (more than 2) from displaying for each date. Instead, the user needs to click on the "more" option which appears on any date with more than 2 entries. The text is light grey, blends in with the background, and is easy to miss. It's causing confusion among our users who do not see their entry and are unaware of the "more" functionality. We would like the option in Setup to turn off "more" and simply display all the entries, which was the standard prior to the May 2025 update.
DescriptionWe have dozens of Roles, and hundreds of Teams, Reports, and Dashboards. The only tool that is built into Workfront to help us document and govern these objects is the Description field. The absence of custom parameters on these objects is limiting in what and how we are able to document their usage.We would like to attach custom forms on these object types so we can spend less time tracking down all the people and places throughout our instance that are impacted by updates to these objects.This was enabled last year for other objects like Groups and Billing Records. The efficiencies gained by those enhancements should be further expanded to these additional object types. Why is this feature important to youIt is challenging to track and document governance-related details on these objects because we have only the description field to do so, and that field is exposed to all users. How would you like the feature to workFor Teams, Roles, Reports, and Dashboards, we would like to attach custom forms that we would design to help us in maintaining and governing those objects. Current BehaviourWe have only the Description field to add all details about these objects, so are constrained by space, format, and visibility to users.We have explored using Fusion to seed a collection of Projects and Tasks to add a lot of detail and metadata about these objects, but its tedious to maintain and isn't easily seen when someone is making updates to one of these objects.
Description - It would be extremely helpful to have the ability to remove individuals from the Workload Balancer tab of a Workfront project once they are no longer assigned to any tasks. Why is this feature important to you -This creates unnecessary clutter and makes it harder to focus on the actual project team members who are actively contributing to the work. Having a way to automatically or manually remove unassigned users would streamline resource planning and ensure that only relevant team members are visible when reviewing project resourcing. How would you like the feature to work - View Description. Current Behaviour - Currently, even after reassigning a user's tasks to another user or job role, their name still appears in the Workload Balancer.
Description - We would like the ability to upload a structured document (e.g., Word, PDF, linked SharePoint file) to a Workfront object (like a tactic or project) and have Workfront’s AI extract key data points and populate designated custom form fields. This would streamline the setup of records that rely on structured metadata already captured in offline templates. Why is this feature important to you - This functionality would eliminate redundant manual entry and improve data consistency across Workfront objects. It is especially important for our marketing team, which uses Workfront tactics to manage a content inventory. Each tactic has structured metadata that already exists in a completed Word template. Currently, this information must be copied and pasted into custom form fields, which is time-consuming and error-prone. How would you like the feature to work -Allow users to upload a structured document (e.g., .docx or .pdf) to a project, task, or tacticWorkfront AI parses the document and suggests values for mapped custom form fieldsAdmins can define mapping rules for which text fields in a document align to which custom form fieldsThe user reviews and accepts or edits the extracted field values before savingOptionally, allow mapping to vary by object type or custom form template Current Behaviour - Currently, documents can be uploaded or linked to Workfront objects, but there is no functionality to extract content from those documents and apply it to custom form fields. All structured data must be manually transcribed from the uploaded file into Workfront forms.
It would be great to be able automatically un-sync a program from a SFDC campaign when the program is archived.
Description - only proof approvals are currently sorted by the deadline set within the my approvals widget. Confusion with users thinking there is not anything for them to approve because the urgent ones are sitting on the last page of the widgetWhy is this feature important to you - enable users to better manage their assigned approvals directly from the home pageHow would you like the feature to work - task and document approvals are sorted by the deadline that is set, enabling users to see the most urgent approval on the first page of the widgetCurrent Behaviour - document approvals appearing within the my approvals widget sorted by entry date
Description -Why is this feature important to you - in most cases UPSERT flag is required for a dataset. the option to enable upsert flag can be done only through API. it will be good if we have this option in UI.How would you like the feature to work - enabling UPSERT flag in UI as a toggle button.Current Behaviour - currently UPSERT flag can be enabled only through API.
Description - We would like a more intuitive way for requestors to clear out data in irrelevant form fields when they change their selections in a request form. Why is this feature important to you - We want to eliminate confusion for requestors and prevent errors in automated processes and reporting. Currently, our Fusion scenario triggers messages based on a calculated field, and retained data from previously selected options can cause false positives. Requestors often believe they’ve submitted the request correctly, unaware that hidden fields still contain outdated data. How would you like the feature to work - When a requestor unselects an option, any data entered in fields associated with that option’s conditional logic should be automatically cleared. This would ensure that only relevant data is retained and reduce the risk of errors caused by hidden, outdated inputs. Current Behaviour - Our request intake form uses extensive conditional logic. Occasionally, a requestor will change their selection mid-submission or copy a previous request and modify it. When they deselect an option, the associated fields are hidden—but the data within them remains. This retained data can interfere with calculated fields and downstream automation, leading to confusion and incorrect outputs. I refer to this issue as the “ghost of a previous deliverable.” Despite efforts to educate requestors, many find it unintuitive that hidden fields still retain data. I’ve attached a tutorial video I created a couple years ago to demonstrate this behavior.
Currently, Workfront calendars lack the "Run this report with the Access Rights of" setting that exists in Workfront Reports. Without this feature, every user must be granted access to every relevant project in order to view the calendar. It would be extremely beneficial if Workfront Calendars could adopt the same access rights as Reports. Calendars offer a more intuitive and visual way to communicate timelines compared to reports. For use cases like tracking launch dates across multiple teams and departments, calendars provide a clearer, more accessible view that supports better planning and coordination. Our department—and the company as a whole—heavily relies on Workfront calendars for their visual clarity and ease of use. We've built department-wide launch calendars to track email deployments and web production go-live dates. I spoke with a support representative today who confirmed that this feature previously existed. I recall this as well—it was a key reason we initially built out launch calendars. It's frustrating that the functionality has been removed, as it significantly limits the usability of calendars across teams. Can we explore bringing this feature back?
I would like the ability display a field solely on whether a previous fields was filled in. For eample I have a situation where I need to enter in up to 5 supplier names but only want the next supplier field to appear if the previous was entered.
Description - Apply attribution models to Data Warehouse exportsWhy is this feature important to you - So that we have an ability to automatically export approved data to vendors with the appropriate attribution in view.How would you like the feature to work - Be able to do attribution on metrics in Data Warehouse.Current Behaviour - You can only use Last Touch Channel as a dimension (with no ability to manipulate attribution window per report) and no metrics can be attributed.
Since the prehistory... In Adobe Analytics the possibility of sorting by dimension is something impossible.Now we have workspace and I really dream to have it.In freeform table we can sort by value we have in columns but not by value we have in rows. Please let's make it !! There are tons of reason why we need it. Try to think about a report where I'd like to have data sorted by Category of products, Zip codes, Order Id, Attributes of product...
Description - Ability to create segment based on calculated metrics Why is this feature important to you - Sometimes a calculated metrics need to be used to get a more accurate segment How would you like the feature to work - In my case, I created a metrics of revenue with tax, which added 2 existing metrics of revenue and tax. I then would like to create a segment of visits that meet a threshold of the calculated metrics. Current Behaviour - Calculated metrics cannot be used in segment creation.
Hi Team, I’m currently working on a requirement related to interaction aging buckets. The idea is to categorize leads based on their most recent engagement in Marketo and assign them to corresponding buckets. I’ve created a text field for the interaction bucket, which I’ll start populating once the full solution is ready. To determine the appropriate bucket for each lead, I’m using the Marketo activity log to track opens and clicks. This helps us identify the least engaged leads and allows us to tailor specific campaigns or strategies for them. For context, we also have a custom rule that marks a lead as ineligible if they haven’t engaged for over 18 months. By implementing these buckets, we can be more mindful of engagement levels and run targeted re-engagement strategies. Below are the bucket ranges we’ve defined:My question here is :For example, in the 121–150 day bucket, I’m seeing leads who have interacted in the last 30 days, which is causing confusion.I’ve created the buckets as per the below screenshot, and they work fine in some scenarios and not all.I suspect the issue could be something related to contacts with multiple opens/clicks.Currently, I’m using “opened AND not opened” conditions within the bucket, but it seems some leads are still being included incorrectly.My goal is to only include leads whose interactions fall strictly within the bucket’s date range , so that we could categorize them in those bucket , lets say ..if they multiple opens then last open should be considered so have those buckets updated based on last interaction.Could you advise what adjustments are needed to achieve this? Do let me know in case of anythingRegards,Akshat
Description - Our client wants that whenever a task is created then the plan start time should be start of the schedule. Example 9 AM. Even if the project owner creates the task at 3 pm, still the task should take it as 9 am. Also, user in another region/timezone should also see the project start time as 9 amWhy is this feature important to you - Projects have fixed date and it should be completed within the planned date irrespective of time zone.How would you like the feature to work - If the project owner creates the task at 3 pm, still the task should take it as 9 am. Also, user in another region/timezone should also see the project start time as 9 amORCan we remove the time component from timeline calculation and consider only day/dateCurrent Behaviour - The task timelines keep changing as per timezone. Also, the start time of a task is picked up automatically from the project creation date and time or predecessors.
I would like to be able to export a kickstart of just one project. We have thousands of projects so when you export a "projects" kickstart it comes with ALL of the projects and is way to big to even be delivered.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Allow custom headers with dynamic value for assets to be added from AEM (for example, set header in the filter). Use-case: Integration of 3rd party search solutions to index content for search, for example AddSearch, but can be extended to any use case when custom header is needed. In case of AddSearch, pages are indexed by adding HTML meta tag, but for the assets this approach is not feasible. To enable indexing for the assets, HTTP header needs to be added as described in https://www.addsearch.com/docs/indexing/defining-custom-fields/ . Value of the header is dynamically defined by application (for example contains document type and file name). Current/Experienced Behavior: HTTP Headers are not present in the response. Filter is triggered and solution works fine on the Local SDK (screenshot attached), displaying proper values both on publish and dispatcher. Header is removed when redirecting asset request towards binary bucket. Improved/Expected Behavior: Clients are able to define custom headers whitelist so header added from the AEM is present in the asset response. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service SDK version is not relevant Customer-name/Organization name: ASSA ABLOY Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
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.
