Build better products with our product team
Description - I would like to have alerts on all the journeys and would like to made aware when these journeys fail. We as of now have no other option other than manually check them. This then leads to journeys being broken for a longer time without us knowing. I am aware that alerts are used for failure of ingestion or when a certain threshold is crossed. I think it should also work with journeys on a individual level. Why is this feature important to you - In the current situation we are not made aware if journeys fail due to any circumstances. this means that customers have a suboptimal experience. How would you like the feature to work - We would like to receive a push notification in the UI and preferably with an email when failed journeys pop up. In the ideal situation we would be able ourselves to set up when an alert is triggered based on how many journeys it fails. Current Behaviour - We currently do not receive any alert and have to manually check over a hundred journeys on failures. Best regards, Rob
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Chance to select which kind of assets(original or renditions or both) to download from shared assets. Use-case: AEM as Cloud Service: when I share multiple assets with a user through the Share functionality, the receiver can't choose if they want to download only the original assets or the renditions, it automatically downloads whatever was set up by the person initiating the share. Current/Experienced Behavior: When I share multiple assets with a user through the Share functionality, the receiver must download whatever was set up by the sender, not for folders or collections. Improved/Expected Behavior: The requirement is for the person receiving the assets to be able to specify what they want to download, similar to the functionality present when you just use the DAM as a normal user, both for folders and collections. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): 2024.11.18598.20241113T125352Z-241000 Customer-name/Organization name: Jet2 Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
前提Marketoの仕様として、同一アドレスへの配信はIDが古い方に配信されると思いますしかしABテストで配信する場合、テストと勝者の2つのメールが配信されてしまう仕様になっていると思います。これは、プログラムの内部でテストと勝者にそれぞれのスマートキャンペーンが生成されるためと理解しています。 参考リンクアイデアABテストを使用したメール配信でも、重複したアドレスには1メールしか送信されないような仕様に変更いただきたいです。
Wants flexibility to do cross device targeting for some experiences and to not have to do it for all as in certain cases they don't won't experience switching to happen .Ref: Real-time profile syncing for mbox3rdPartyID
Community Manager Edit:This idea is being archived as a duplicate. Please direct all votes, comments, and questions to the new idea.New Idea - Reference Data Elements | Automatically Update Names of Data ElementsAs mentioned before Automatically Update Names of Data Elements Used in DTM Rules with 10 votes by user: @jon_kranzPROBLEMChanging the name of a Data Element does not automatically update the name of the same element when it is used in any Launch rule.SUGGESTED SOLUTIONIF the name of a Data Element has been updated AND that same Data Element is referred elsewhere within Launch (be it a rule or installed tool or anywhere else it is used)THEN system will automatically update the name of the Data Element anywhere it is used.**Note: This solution would exclude areas where custom scripts are permitted. My naive assumption is that having the system change custom scripts would be a very bad/problem-causing idea.Adding support to update _satellite.getVar('dataElementName'); should be in this scope as well, I don't see why this would cause issues since its a simple string replacement.Thanks for listening.
It would be fantastic if we had the ability to set our own fiscal year in a calendar/schedule or even at the company or group level. This would help immensely for reporting purposes.
One of the features we love in Current Home is that it's easy to see at a glance how many overdue tasks the user has.By grouping older tasks it means allow more space for current tasks (this week and next week).Coloring them in red flags to the user that they are overdueWe'd be more inclinded to use New Home if the My Work widget looked more like the Current Home Work List.
Hi, as a product enhancement in the future it would be great to be able to use Dynamic content (language) in an email and have that reflect in the view as a webpage preview. Currently only the default (English) version shows when you click view as a webpage for emails that contain other languages.
As a system administrator I would like to get notified about new and pending user approvals, so I can activate (approve or reject) new users from user creation approval request. Post Adobe Admin Console migration, only system admins are allowed to create new users form within Adobe Workfront. Group admins/users with "create" (edit) rights for users can only submit new users for approval. A system administrator has to approve this request. Currently, there is no notification (neither within Adobe Workfront, nor via email) for such request. Hence, nobody receives these requests and users stay unapproved (without access to Adobe Workfront). The current workaround is to scan the Users list filtered by "Pending Approval" manually, or to send a report with pending approvals frequently.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add Sorting Filter in Card View for various asset display variations Use-case: Use and enable Sort By filter in card view. Open AEM Asset Search and sort in card view. Current/Experienced Behavior: Sorting for Asset Search etc. is only available in List View, which only displays very small thumbnails. Card View Sort Filter function is currently only available at Assets>Files. Improved/Expected Behavior: Card View Sort Filter is available in AEM Search etc. like it is in its functionality DAM where you can sort the assets in the folders. We would like to use this existing function in Asset Search and Collection Detailview. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): v6.5 AEM Assets Customer-name/Organization name: AIDA Cruises Screenshot (if applicable): possible use Code package (if applicable):
Description - there is no way to change the default aggregation behavior for columns within freeform tables. For example, some dimensions have a sum total at the top while some dimensions have an average, with no way to manually change them.Why is this feature important to you - A field our analytics team uses frequently is Visits Per Visitor, however, when looking at certain time dimensions the value does not calculate how we are desiring, so instead of it having a sum at the top, an average would be much more useful. The option to select our own aggregation method would be preferred.How would you like the feature to work - Either in Freeform table settings or within the column gear icon in the freeform table, a way to select if we would like the column to sum total or calculate an average (or median, as another example).Current Behaviour - Certain dimensions total up as a sum at the top of the column and some provide averages automatically (such as Time Spent Per Visit), but being able to manually choose per dimension would be very powerful.
Page events are causing a single visit to switch marketing channels mid-session. With the help of Adobe support, we have tried several options to ignore page events within the rules, but it only causes these page events to get attributed to No Channel Captured. I would like to suggest a report suite setting that would tell Marketing Channel Process Rules to ignore page events.
It would be really useful for my organization when creating a new version of a proof, to have the option to carry over any unresolved comments from the previous version to the new version. This wouldn't necessarily be relevant for all scenarios, so having the option to carry them over would be important. In order for this to be most effective for us, we would need to have the option when creating the new version both from the WF browser, and also from the Adobe Workfront plugin for Creative Cloud apps (specifically InDesign). Ideally, when generating or uploading a new proof, both from within WF and in the WF plugin for InDesign, the user would be asked to tick a box if they wanted to carry over unresolved comments from previous versions. If the box is ticked, then the unresolved comments would appear in the newly generated version. (Any comments marked as resolved from previous versions would remain in their versions without being carried over). Without this feature, our users are manually checking between previous proof versions to ensure they've picked up all the comments, which inevitably results in some comments getting overlooked. It would be great to leverage the technology to ensure nothing gets missed inadvertently.
Within automated workflow it would be really beneficial for us to have different custom messages for different stages of review. For example: Stage 1 goes to these people, they get this message. Stage 2 goes to these people, they get a slightly different message... etc etc We have a range of different stakeholders that need to see proofs for very different reasons and often information we are sharing with one group is confidential from other groups.
Hi all, To enhance the security of our domain, https://planonsoftware.com, we are working to enable nonces in our Content Security Policy (CSP) header. As part of our testing phase, we enabled nonce support in Reporting Only mode in our development environment. During this process, we encountered an issue with Marketo. Marketo injects a <style> tag for the tool 'modernizr', which doesn't comply with nonce-based CSP. We considered adding the hash of the modernizr file to our CSP, which could solve the issue temporarily, as suggested in another Idea. However, this solution would break if Adobe Marketo changes the script in the future. Therefore, it would be ideal for Marketo to address this issue directly by supporting nonces, as it's a basic security best practice.P.S. We also reported this as an issue (Case Number 02814654), but since it was classified as new functionality, it wasn't resolved. We were directed to raise an Idea here on Marketo Nation so that the Product Management team can review it for the roadmap. I'd strongly encourage prioritizing this issue to align with modern security standards.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Optimize the synchronization process to minimize latency, ensuring that user data is available across all pods immediately upon creation. This will enhance user experience by providing real-time data access. Use-case: Current/Experienced Behavior: it takes 200 to 500 ms in synching user across pods in cloud service Improved/Expected Behavior: it should be almost instant or with in few milliseconds Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Munich Re Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Develop functionality to execute user-related code within a single pod, preventing cross-pod requests for user data until it is fully synchronized. This will reduce errors and improve system reliability during user login. Use-case: When user get created on one pod and code check on another pod it results on authentications issues in applications Current/Experienced Behavior: should be able to guide code restrict code to run in same pod for whole flow. Improved/Expected Behavior: Same pod should be getting used for one set of request flow. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as Cloud service Customer-name/Organization name: Munich Re Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: To have the ability to undo the move or deleted assets/pages Use-case: Sometimes we want to revert the bulk moved or deleted assets or pages, but we don't have any recycle bin or undo changes option Current/Experienced Behavior: No option to get back the deleted or undo the moved assets or pages Improved/Expected Behavior: We should have undo option in the action bar just like paste so that we can get back the unintentional action results Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Ability to re-baseline RDE environment after reset / Backfill code image from Prod to other environments Use-case: After a production release we backfill our environments. This is done by executing pipelines for the various Dev environments however this could be different to whats deployed to production depending on when the master branch was deployed.For our RDE environments however, this is manual and when we have multiple RDE's for our developers its a time consuming task to reset each environment. It would be great if we could simply select an image that has previously been deployed to an environment such as Production and be able to deploy that to any dev/rde environment without having to run a build pipeline.This would minimise effort from executing multiple pipelines and manual effort and would also minimise processing by Adobe as the image would already be built and validated. Current/Experienced Behavior: Manual for developers to deploy code after resetting it Improved/Expected Behavior: Create the ability for an environment to be backfilled based on an image that has already been deployed Eg: Production code image can be deployed to Dev & RDE Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud manager Customer-name/Organization name: Spark NZ Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Allow to search for Assets by combination of options e.g. Created by, Created Date and Modified Date Use-case: goto aem activate filter Select created date - in last 2hours (same for all options) Select modified date - in last 2 hours (same for all options) Current/Experienced Behavior: Tick box now removed from created by and added to modified by Improved/Expected Behavior: Would expect to be able to filter by all 3? Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Assets CS, AEM Release ID 18175 Customer-name/Organization name: Jet2 Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Dispatcher GUI Use-case: Dispatcher management Current/Experienced Behavior: Not often it is cumbersome to develop, manage and trroubleshoot Dispatcher configurations, including those specifically belonging to Apache HTTP server. Improved/Expected Behavior: - I remember that back in the days there was a pretty good UI tool for managing Apache HTTP related configurations. It was called http://www.apache-gui.com/apache-windows.html and we can refer to it and check it out to see how it works.- I would propose to have a similar tool for managing Dispatcher configurations. Everything should nicely be viewed in a visual editor. It may contain hints and preferably validators that can be used during editing. The core engine for the tool can either be developed from scratch using maybe ANTLR or it may reuse the stuff that Adobe uses internal to read, interpret and apply the Dispatcher config. - I would be more than glad to participate and contribute to development of such tool. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): For both on-premise and AEMaaCS. Customer-name/Organization name: Techich.com Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Provide a means of permission and user-management for AppBuilder Applications (through Adobe IMS, AdminConsole) Use-case: When developing App Builder Apps, the question occurs how to give different users different permissions within the App (or access to the app at all).How can access to an App be granted or denied - and what about granual permissions within the app?How is permission-management / user-management within Appbuilder Apps handeled?IF we do not yet support something like that ..I think each app should have the ability for product profiles in the admin-console, which could then be customized to have as many different permission levels as required by creating additional profiles.(Naturally these should be easily available on runtime "OOTB" for developers to use. And not though something like the UMAPI - which is very cumbersome ... ) Current/Experienced Behavior: Unfortunately ORG level is the only granularity in terms of access to an app which is way too broad. Everything else currently needs to be handled within your app.IDPs like Auth0, cognito, supabase, must be integrated directly into the app (so only "non-Adobe IPDs can be used). This is not simple when you inevitably get into MFA, SSO, password rules enforcement, fraud detection, etc Improved/Expected Behavior: I'd also like to see more fine grained control built in on our side, e.g. via profiles added to an IO project, which would change the required scopes to invoke the action, so only users with that profile/group would be able to access it with their token Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Adobe & serveral customers using App Builder extensively Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Developer Console in AEMaaCS should display runtime environment variables values too - This helps to know which is the current value being picked (default or custom) Use-case: Currently the config.json displayed in the pod at cloud manager for an instance displays configuration for environment variable as is in the codebase - "configKey": "/configValue/$[env:CUSTOM_KEY;default=9876543210]/rohan", If the CUSTOM_KEY is configured in environment variable then the value that should be displayed is the actual one and not the above one. If it's not configured then the default value should be displayed to give a better idea of whether an environment value is configured for an instance or not. Current/Experienced Behavior: User has to navigate to the Environment Variable console to manually verify whether CUSTOM_KEY is configured or not. In a project with 150+ env variables this becomes an unnecessary lookup. Improved/Expected Behavior: The config should display the proper correct value. If no environment value is configured then display the default one else display the custom one. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): 2024.10.18311.20241017T104455Z Customer-name/Organization name: EPAM Systems Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: The Cache metrics report generated by Adobe SME named "AEM CS BPO Tech Staff Report.pdf" monthly basis recommends improving the CDN Cache ratio but the way its generated needs to be revisited as the internal call, or URL forwarding requests, internal redirects are all being tracked differently causing the cache hit and coverage ratio scores reported low. Use-case: Ex: when the request is made for our website like fiserv.com gets (302) redirect to https://fiserv.com and to https://www.fiserv.com/ in this case considered as different requests and reports miss or pass. As this is the homepage and the number of page visits to the homepages are high the score gets impacted significantly. other examples like A) there are calls like /autodiscover.xml and other that gets originated from network or bots or health checks and not from core AEM application which also gets reported as MISS/PASS and impacts the score. B) json responses with url params cannot be cached due to impl nature and requirements but this also gets reported as MISS After detailed manual analysis and cache coverage details the Adobe SME confirms we are on excellent coverage beyond the minimum standards and no issues but as per BPO report and score from Cloud manager dashboard we are not. Hence request for revisiting of reporting to reflect actuals appropriately. Current/Experienced Behavior: The Cache score is low Improved/Expected Behavior: The Cache Ratio should reflect the relevant and appropriate scores Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM CS Customer-name/Organization name: Fiserv Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Alias for Environment Names in Cloud Manager Use-case: We are working on AEM Cloud Service environment and due to our Business Strategy we were required to rename the cloud environments. I reached out to support to check on this topic. Unfortunately we do not have a possibility to rename or set another value to the name of the environment https://experienceleague.adobe.com/home?support-tab=my-cases&case-id=E-001417728&org-id=21EC1DCC64F9DFD10A495FAA%40AdobeOrg#support Current/Experienced Behavior: Due to this our customer is facing issue in remembering all the names which are not aligned with the business strategy Improved/Expected Behavior: Having Aliases will enable customer to have the names of the environment aligned to the business strategy Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): All Cloud Environments Customer-name/Organization name: PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL(PMI) Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
