Build better products with our product team
Problem StatementCustomers are reporting color discoloration and washed-out rendering in Workfront Proof that does not match the original processed creative assets. This issue is particularly visible in color-sensitive review and approval workflows where proof accuracy is critical for validation and sign-off.The issue appears to be related to changes previously made to support overprinting and multi-layer PDF rendering. While the prior enhancement resolved a separate issue involving varnish and multi-layer content not rendering correctly (Reference: #00442736 - Environment Discrepancy: Varnish Layers Failing to Render in Capital One Proofing Viewer), customers are now experiencing color discrepancies that may be an unintended side effect of those rendering adjustments.Business ImpactReduces trust in Workfront Proof as an accurate representation of final creative assets. Creates confusion during review and approval workflows. Impacts customers with color-critical use cases, including print production and packaging workflows. Forces users to rely on external validation methods outside of Workfront Proof.Current StateWorkfront Proof reprocesses uploaded files for viewer display and renders content in sRGB. Rendering behavior can be affected by embedded ICC color profiles and proof processing settings. Current guidance requires customers to manually adjust files prior to upload by: Converting assets to sRGB Embedding color profiles Flattening PDFs before proof generation There is currently no product-level workaround that preserves intended color output while also maintaining support for overprinting and multi-layer rendering.Requested EnhancementInvestigate and enhance the proof rendering engine to:Preserve color fidelity more accurately during proof generation. Improve handling of ICC color profiles, overprinting, and multi-layer PDF content. Eliminate or minimize color shifts introduced during proof reprocessing. Maintain support for the existing multi-layer/varnish rendering improvements without requiring customers to flatten or otherwise modify source files. Provide users with greater visibility into applied color conversion and rendering behavior when proofs are generated.Desired OutcomeCustomers should be able to upload professionally prepared creative files and receive a proof that accurately represents both:The intended visual color output, and Multi-layer/overprint rendering behaviorwithout requiring manual preprocessing, file flattening, or color profile manipulation prior to proof creation.Related ReferencesDefect/Support Ticket: E-002306339 Previous Ticket: E-002157738 Related Issue: #00442736 - Environment Discrepancy: Varnish Layers Failing to Render in Capital One Proofing Viewer
We are currently using Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) as a core platform for managing and publishing imagery to our website. However, there are significant limitations around auditing and activity tracking, as there is no comprehensive audit trail available for us to utilise. This creates challenges for operational processes, including complaint investigation, troubleshooting issues and understanding when and how changes have been made within the system. Currently, key activities such as asset uploads, metadata updates and publishing to the live website cannot be tracked. Internally, we have identified multiple gaps where audit visibility is either limited or not available. Use Case / Problem:Without an audit trail, we are unable to:Identify when an image was changed or replaced on the website Trace who made specific metadata or asset updates Investigate discrepancies or bugs more efficiently, enabling us to respond to complaints with greater confidence and accuracy. Maintain a clear historical record of asset activity across product pages This leads to increase manual investigation, reduced accountability and slower resolution times. Requested Enhancements:We would like AEM to provide a clear and accessibly audit history covering the following areas: 1. Asset Creation via Workfront FusionVisibility of who uploaded an asset into AEM Details of the upload date and time Ability to trace source system (e.g. Workfront Projects) 2. Asset ModificationsFull history of changes made to an asset Details of what was modified (e.g. metadata fields, tags, captions etc.), for both Adobe’s out-of-the-box functionality and any custom-developed features Date and time of each change User who made the change 3. Publication TrackingRecord of when an asset was published to the website Identification of who triggered the publication Visibility of when assets were unpublished and archived 4. Product Level HistoryAbility to view publication history at a product level Timeline of when assets were added, updated or removed. Benefits:Introducing auditing capabilities would deliver clear benefits such as:Faster and more accurate complaint investigations Improved troubleshooting and root cause analysis Greater visibility and accountability across teams Reduced reliance on manual tracking and workarounds Stronger governance of digital asset management processes
Salesforce Platform : Migrate from OAuth Username-Password to Client Credentials Flowhttps://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=000886201&type=1 As per Workfront Customer Support’s Technical Support Engineer :Adobe Workfront Fusion currently does not document native support for the OAuth 2.0 Client Credentials flow in the Salesforce connector. The documented authentication method is interactive authorization rather than client-credentials-only authentication. Further their suggestion, we post this as new idea. We would like our request to add client credentials flow authentication method to Salesforce connector to be considered. Salesforce connector does not support custom domain for sandbox environment as well. It will only have url as test.salesforce.com.
We would like to move to Adobe Cloud Storage so we can take advantage of the new Unified Approvals with Frame.io. However, doing so would require us to manually recreate all of our Workfront Legacy project templates—more than 200 in total. While I understand that projects can be created manually from a legacy template, that does not meet our needs because we use Fusion and Kickstart to load most of our projects. In addition, each template includes required fields within forms that cannot be completed until the project reaches specific tasks. Currently, there does not appear to be a way to manually create a project without completing all required fields. The folder structure also does not carry over to a cloud project, so that would need to be recreated manually for each project. Is the ability to copy project templates to Adobe Cloud Storage on the roadmap? If we need to recreate the folders manually, that would be manageable; our main concern is avoiding the need to manually rebuild more than 200 templates.
My team has noticed that Workfront now defaults to showing AI Suggestions when attempting to link AEM folders to Workfront projects. The “suggestions” take up most of the screen and make it harder to find the folders we’re looking for (even when we “hide” the suggestions). Additionally, more often than not, we are “hiding” the suggestions as they are not very helpful. It would be nice if we were able to turn this feature off while retaining access to other AI features in the application. Ideally, this would be a setting that the user could change in their preferences (rather than turning the feature on/off across the whole organization).
When creating Layout Templates in the New Workfront Experience, we're currently limited to only being able to pin Main Menu Items or Dashboards. Ideally, we should be able to pin specific Objects on a layout template (Project/Portfolio/Report/Document/etc.).
Custom Forms are an important use-case. Many users have a need to see and/or input the Custom Form, but do NOT need to make four or more mouse clicks to get there. The current Layout Template "Tabs" feature exists, but can only incorporate "Dashboards." This proposal is to add a "Quick Pin" that allows System Admins to create/edit a Layout Template to attach a specific Custom Form. This means that a specified user could have a default view that is directly and specifically to a Custom Form.
Description -Enable any URL to be added as pin on the layout template page.Current Behavior -Currently, from the layout template, we can only pin dashboards or standard pages also accessible trough the "Waffle Menu".Why is this feature important to you -This has introduced the need for admins to go in to every new user and manually pin a specific board to their home page.How would you like the feature to work -At the layout template page, allow users to enter a URL to the pins.
Currently, when publishing a page, AEM provides the capability to publish referenced content together with the selected page ("Publish with References"). This behavior is useful in many cases; however, it can also introduce a significant governance and security risk. Recently, this issue resulted in an actual information leakage incident in our production environment. Some of these referenced pages were not yet approved for public release, resulting in unintended exposure of information.To prevent similar incidents, we would like to request an enhancement that allows administrators to configure whether referenced pages should be included in the publish candidates.We believe this enhancement would help many AEM customers improve content governance and reduce operational risk.
The native sync currently hinges around the core objects of Lead/Contact/Account/Opportunity. I do come across use cases more and more frequently though where the Account-Contact Relationship in SFDC manages more complex relationships between a contact and multiple accounts. Use cases range from external consultants / influencers on more than one company, several sites in different countries within a customer being logged as separate accounts and a stakeholder playing a role in more than one, etc. The set-up in SFDC prevents the contact being entered more than once to indicate their role in every account effectively, so is really great in avoiding unnecessary duplicates. It would be great if the data model in Marketo would also incorporate this added complexity.
LOVE the new UI Beta. The ideal next step for the UX is to enable Marketo users to be able to copy/clone flow steps and smart list filters from within the same smart campaign or smart list. This will help save us significant time in building smart lists and workflows.
!!NOT the same as being able to apply segment to calc. metrics!!Goal:Segment Visitors based on calculated metrics (such as AOV)Problem:Calculated metrics is NOT available in Segmentation console.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Versions must be created in AEM upon using Manage Publication. Use-case: Manage Publication is commonly used feature within AEM and versions not being created with Manage Publication can cause issues while restoring content. Current/Experienced Behavior: Versions are not created in AEM upon Manage Publication and versioning works only if Quick Publish option is used. Improved/Expected Behavior: Versions must be created in AEM upon using Manage Publication. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as Cloud Service latest release Customer-name/Organization name: Abbott Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - While viewing all Project Tasks, having a dedicated Field/Column for logging Task HoursWhy This Feature is Important - Having the ability to log hours directly from the Project Tasks page and not needing to navigate to either the Task itself, or the Open Summary tab would be incredibly helpful. This would reduce User effort in logging time, while also removing any possible confusion for new Users navigating to the Task, and back to the Project, or navigation within the Open Summary tab.How the Feature Would Work - Added Field/Column to the standard Project View as a place for Users to log hours. This could be done via a button similar to the Status Icons that directly opens the ‘Log Time’ panel (without leaving the Project page). Alternatively this could be a Field where Users enter a numerical value that is then added to their Actual hours, and then removed from the Field. Current Behavior - Currently, Users need to navigate to the Task itself to log hours, or use the Open Summary. Both options have more clicks and actions than Users need to take, and can be simplified.
One of the challenges we're trying to address is the amount of manual effort required for users to complete and submit multiple intake forms in Workfront at a time. To help streamline this process, we are exploring a solution that would leverage a custom web service and Workfront APIs to help automate the completion and submission of custom forms. The goal is to enable users to submit multiple intake requests programmatically while still adhering to the business rules and user experience defined within the Workfront custom forms. As part of an enhancement feature, would it be possible to allow API access to the display logic (e.g., cascading rules/conditional visibility) and/or other methods to retrieve the display logic within the custom intake forms?
Description - Before the migration to Adobe console, we were able to have two email addresses associated to each Workfront account. One email (FedID) is what our users used to login through SSO and the other (Username) is where their email notifications from Workfront went. With console this is now no longer possible and support has been unable to suggest a workaround. Would love to see this functionality restored! Why is this feature important to you - Some of our users need their notifications routed to a shared inbox for coverage purposes/so it is easy to jump in and help each other with workloads. How would you like the feature to work - I would like to be able to have a field on the user profile again where I can input an email to send Workfront notifications to. Current Behavior - Functionality no longer exists.
Currently in Realtime CDP, using tracked event data that is also evaluated in Adobe Analytics, it is not possible to segment profiles based on the number of visits (as metric “Visits” in Adobe Analytics) that they have since there is no “visit-id” that is exposed on the UI or even the possibility to select audiences based on “count unique” [element]. The number of visits in a given timeframe is an important KPI for our department and we would like to select profiles in different intervals of it.Thanks!
Description - Would love to have the option to attach a file to a request in Planning.Why is this feature important to you - We thought we had a solution to our public facing request problem through Workfront Planning's ability to create public request links. However, the inability to attach files makes it a non-viable option for us.How would you like the feature to work - Just like in Workfront Core, we would like to have the option to attach files to requests.Current Behaviour - Currently there is no file attach option in Workfront Planning.
SummaryOur team uses Claude connected to the Workfront MCP server to answer resourcing questions in natural language. Planned Hours are fully and reliably queryable today. Remaining Available Hours — the metric the Resource Planner itself calculates (schedule capacity minus time off minus existing commitments) — is not exposed through any MCP tool, and cannot be reliably reconstructed from what is exposed. We're requesting this data be made queryable so a team's full capacity picture (Planned + Available) can be surfaced through natural-language requests, not only through the Resource Planner UI.What Works TodayPlanned Hours are cleanly queryable via the insights_find_workfront_data tool, using fields such as assignment.assignment_workRequired and task-level planned hours, grouped or filtered by user, project, or date range. This lets Claude answer questions like "how many planned hours does each person on this team have this month" accurately and immediately.The GapThe Resource Planner's own Available Hours (AVL) value — schedule capacity minus time off minus hours already budgeted across all of a user's projects — is not exposed as a field through insights_search_fields or any other MCP tool we've found. The raw inputs needed to approximate it are also incomplete: user.user_workHoursPerDay and schedule.schedule_hasNonWorkDays are queryable, but time off is only exposed as a boolean flag (user.user_hasReservedTimes), not as actual date ranges or hours. There is no queryable list of a user's specific time-off periods or schedule exceptions. As a result, Claude cannot reliably reconstruct "remaining availability" even by combining multiple queries — any approximation would overstate availability for anyone with time off on the books, since those dates aren't visible to any tool.What We're RequestingPreferred: expose the Resource Planner's calculated Available Hours (AVL) value itself as a queryable field — per user, role, or project, scoped by date range — mirroring what already displays in the Resource Planner UI. Minimum viable alternative: expose the underlying time-off / schedule exception data (specific dates and hours per user) as queryable fields, so Available Hours can be reliably approximated by combining it with the Planned Hours data that is already accessible.Why This MattersCapacity planning conversations need both halves of the picture — what's already committed, and what's actually left. Today, getting the Available Hours half requires manually opening the Resource Planner and checking user-by-user, project-by-project, which doesn't scale and can't be surfaced through natural-language tools like Claude. Closing this gap would let our team ask capacity questions the same way we already ask planned-hours questions — directly, without a manual UI detour.
Both the Section Headers and Table Of Contents have been good additions for making reports easier to read and navigate through - though have got a couple of thoughts on how they might be able to be improved further. 1) Add the full set of right-click functionality to Section Headers - At present, the only way that the Section Header visual can be interacted with is changing the text; the right-click menu that exists with other visualisation types isn’t there. However, I think it would be good to change this for two main reasons. ‘Edit description’ - This could be used to enable the adding of a short description or subtitle, between the main title and the line underneath the visualisation. ‘Get visualisation link’ - It would be good to be able to link directly to a Section Header. As a user who often adds an Introduction or Contents section to tell users what they can find in a report, it’s nice to add links in, but currently you have to link to any other visual that’s close to the Section Header instead. Although doing this ‘Contents’ part does overlap with the Table Of Contents feature, I find a) many more ‘casual’ users are still unaware it exists, and b) this written text is far easier to quickly understand due to the next point… This right-click menu exists on other visualisation types, but not Section Header. Distinguish Section Headers in the Table Of Contents - In the below image of the Table Of Contents on the left, you can’t instantly see which lines are Section Headers. As a result it’s a lot more tricky to find what you’re looking for and understand what’s in the panel. Some possible changes (as per the right) that could improve this may be adding bold text to Section Headers, indenting any text that isn’t a Section Header, or even adding in icons to distinguish the visualisation type next to each line. At the moment I often find myself adding colons to the text of these visuals only, or adding extra Section Headers with ‘-’ as the title to create a space, as something of a workaround to get them to be somewhat visually identifiable. The left image shows how the current Table Of Contents displays, while the right image shows how this could look using bold text for Section Headers or indented text for other visuals. With these changes though, hopefully it would make dashboards easier to read and navigate.
In the new unified approvals, when an approval template is created, there is a field for “workdays until due date”. We need this number to exclude weekends, or at least have the ability to associate with a schedule that excludes weekends, so that approval due dates do not fall on weekends without manually adjusting the due date with the calendar feature.
Marketoのメールアセット一覧とメールコンテンツ取得に関して、現在の検証結果として下記だが、v2仕様は公開情報となっていない。また、メールアセット一覧取得に関して、v1で旧エディタでの作成分と新エディタ作成分（ただしレスポンス内容の不足あり）という状況だが、この状態が正式仕様となるのかも公開情報となっていない。 APIを利用したシステム構築を行ううえで正式な仕様情報がなく、設計が困難なため早期に仕様の確定および公式情報として公開を頂きたい。 《検証結果》■メールアセット一覧取得 v1：旧エディタに加え、新エディタで作成したアセットも取得可能。ただし新エディタ分は、一部Subjectが含まれないなどレスポンス内容に不足が見受けられます。 （https://developer.adobe.com/marketo-apis/api/asset#operation/getEmailUsingGET） v2：新エディタで作成したアセットのみ取得可能。 （https://developer.adobe.com/marketo-apis/api/asset#operation/filterContentUsingGET_email）■メールコンテンツ取得 v1：旧エディタ作成メールのみ取得可能 （https://developer.adobe.com/marketo-apis/api/asset#operation/getEmailFullContentUsingGET） v2：新エディタ作成メールのみ取得可能 （https://developer.adobe.com/marketo-apis/api/asset#operation/getContentUsingGET_email）
It would be great if the Date field could be customized, such as being able to block or highlight specific dates when the calendar pops up.
Link is https://experience.adobe.com/#/experiencemanagerBut it returns a 404.
Currently when you unassign a user from a task/issue, it automatically fills in the assignee with that user's job role. My company has never used this feature and it just creates extra work and confusion to either remove that job role or to see it in the assignments. It would be great if this is something we could disable in the setup area.
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.
