Build better products with our product team
Description:I'd like the ability to have a little bit of control over the look and feel of custom forms, particularly how they are displayed when used as a request queue. Ideally we'd be able to adjust font size, font weight, color, bolding, etc. Even if we could apply a default font-size for the form, and selectively bold some text, that would be a huge improvement. Additionally, a complaint I've received multiple times is that the font size for a question is smaller than the font size for an option within that question. If we could change the font size we could fix this ourselves. Or, if it's easier, make the question font-size match that of the options below it. Example: Why is this feature important to you -There are new rules that go into effect in April 2026 around accessibility of internal and external documents for Government agencies. All documents must be WCAG 2.1 AA complaint. Depending on your reading of the guidelines the current request queue forms may not be in compliance. More information here: https://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/How would you like the feature to work -I can think of a few different ways to address this:1.) Allow admins to set a default font size for request queue forms and be able to selectively bold descriptive text in forms.2.) Give us complete control over the font size, color, etc, on a per-question basis.3.) As a stopgap, increase the font-size of the question label to match that of the options below it, and ensure request queue forms meet all other WCAG 2.1 AA guidelines. Current Behaviour:We have no control over the design of custom form/request queue design, and current request queue forms may not be WCAG 2.1 AA compliant.
Right now, users aren't receiving in-app notifications when a decision is made on their proof or when someone comments on a proof that the user has generated. After discussing this with our Support team, it looks like the app notifications aren't entirely integrated with Proof, which seems like a large oversight (and a source of major inconvenience when users wait on others to make decisions on their proofs).
Description - Please enable a way to us to automate the moving of regular Workfront documents (i.e. local in the Project) into an AEM Linked Folder via the API (preferably a Fusion action module).Why is this feature important to you - It's laborious and prone-to-error for users to manually drag and drop Workfront Documents into an AEM Linked Folder. We have many clients where this could be a big time-saver both in terms of reducing the effort to move files and also improving the accuracy of where they place them as we could automate that based on Document metadata.How would you like the feature to work - Have a Workfront module in Fusion where we can map in the Document ID and also the ID of the (Linked) Folder or its associated Linked Folder ID it is to be moved into. Even if we have to use a Workfront Custom API call or plain old HTTP Request that would be fine as long as it is via a Production API.Current Behaviour - There are various internal API calls we have tried to emulate via Fusion and there is an experience league article from last year with a accepted answer post from @victorto2 (please note that the original question is not relevant...only the answer) which indicates it was possible at that time but I've been unable to get that to work yet. And, even if I did, it is an unsupported internal API call which is not ideal for production use by customers. So, basically there is no current workaround.
We have multiple Reports that must pull data based on a Weekday to Weekday date Range. Sometimes it is a Friday-Friday, Monday to Monday, etc. Would add a lot of value to set a Day of the Week WIldcard type feature for Dates in a Workfront Report.
We often used the Document approvals for our proofs - was easier for us. But due to a certain issue/bug we’ve been somewhat forced to learn to do it via the Proof Approval method (via the ProofHQ way). I’ve noticed visually there’s a big difference and I much prefer how the Document approvals display. The red and green buttons for approvals let the users know right away where to click to make their decision. I am hoping the Proof Approvals can soon match the UI of the other approval method in the future. It feels cleaner and more direct on what the reviewers are supposed to do. Even the email notifications show a big difference. I wish there was a way to change the font size on the Proof notifications because any message sent has such a small font and immediately followed by the proof’s information that people start to just disregard after some time. Below are screenshots with direct comparisons:
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Provide a way for the "Asset Compute microservice extensibility"/Asset Compute workers to access the default renditions for an Asset so the custom worker can use those as a baseline for further conversions. Either: Pass a default rendition to the worker (instead of, or in addition to, the original). Or: Defer worker invocation until default renditions are generated (opt-in), so the worker can fetch them reliably. Or: Allow non ARM64 containers and installation of custom binaries like imagemagick for the Asset Compute microservice Use-case: We need to generate custom renditions (e.g., square JPEGs with white borders) from assets like .ai (Adobe Illustrator), .psd (Adobe Photoshop), .svg, .eps, etc. These file types are already supported by AEM’s default rendition generation, but not by Asset Compute workers directly (see below for reasons). If workers could use AEM’s default renditions as inputs, they could reliably transform these assets without needing external tools. Current/Experienced Behavior: AEM Assets and the generation of (default) renditions already supports a wide range of file types. However, the "Asset Compute microservice extensibility" is fairly limited in the filetypes it can process. There currently is no way we and Adobe Support found to support mentioned filetypes (ai, psd, ...).There is no way of reliably accessing the generated (default) renditions which then could be used as a baseline for the actual conversion from within the microservice, as they are not generated at the time of invocation microservice Technical details/background: The "recommended" library "JIMP" which is referenced in the demo project is super limited in the filetypes it can support (currently only jpeg, png, bmp, tiff, gif) Using other image conversion libraries wasn't successful either, as they always rely on binaries (like imagemagick) which don't work on the ARM64 containers the microservice runs on As mentioned previously, trying to access the default renditions and using them as a baseline for the conversion doesn't work either, as they are not generated/available at the time of the invocation of the microservice In summary: Asset Compute microservice currently only works for a very limited set of filetypes. Improved/Expected Behavior: Three possible solutions (either would solve the problem): Allow default renditions or custom defined renditions to be passed into workers instead of only the original Asset binary Invoke custom workers only after default renditions exist (opt-in, via processing profile checkbox), so the worker can fetch and transform them. Allow non ARM64 containers and installation of custom binaries like imagemagick for the Asset Compute microservice Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service (2025.8) with Asset Compute microservice running on Adobe AppBuilder/Runtime) Customer-name/Organization name: (private), see support case E-001769596 for customer specific details Screenshot (if applicable): N/A Code package (if applicable): N/A
We’ve started using dynamic chat with our BDR team. The biggest feedback from them is that they want to customize the notification sounds when they receive a new chat. The team is often multitasking and uses their computers for calls as well as chat. With the sound that is played to notify of a chat or of replies, it is causing issues if they are on the phone at the same time. I’d love to have a similar ability for the agents as we do for our external users that we can customize the sound that is played and the duration of the sound. The other big feedback we are having is that the 90 second window to reply to a chat isn’t ideal. We’d love to be able to customize this. When you have BDR teams that the size fluctuates regularly (it’s a role that is often promoted into sales), then when we are down to a smaller group, we would like the abandoned window to be able to be increased. Ideally, our BDR manager would love to customize it by user, but even allowing us to change that window at a global level would be helpful.
Within Workfront Planning - it seems there’s no easy way to move (completely) items from one workspace to another if reorganization is needed. Meaning, the original location would be archived or deleted altogether and the records within it would be repurposed and moved to a new or other existing workspace. I know the ability exists to download/export the record, and then reupload - but this requires relinking, reformatting, etc. in the record once it’s uploaded into the desired workspace.
Hi everyone. We'd like to be able to toggle on/off the different layers of a PDF from within the proof viewer, without having to make our clients download the PDF to see the layers. Most of our clients don't have Acrobat to be able to see the individual layers.
Description - Allow PDF layer functionality to be available in ProofingWhy is this feature important to you - Users who go to the effort of incorporating layers into their PDF's don't want their final audience to not be able to use them.How would you like the feature to work - Retain more of the original PDF structure to allow layers throughCurrent Behaviour - Workfront flattens the PDF to view in proofing, thus removing the layer functionality.
Currently documents/proofs roll-up from the task level into the project level which is great. But we also need documents AND proofs to roll-up to the program level (in our case, campaign). Many on our team need to see all documents across multiple projects in a project/campaign.This would also help with users trying to find certain documents related to a campaign but unsure which project it would be in.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Custom domain names are supported in Cloud Manager for both publish and preview services for Sites programs. Custom domains for author services are not supported. Use-case: Currently the Author service is accessed via URL in format -https://author-p<Program-ID>-e<Environment-ID>.adobeaemcloud.com Custom domain name for Author should be service should be supported similar to Preview and Publish Services. Current/Experienced Behavior: Only URLs of below format are allowed - https://author-p<Program-ID>-e<Environment-ID>.adobeaemcloud.com Improved/Expected Behavior: Custom Domain Mapping should allow URLs like https://brandAauthor.brand.com to be mapped to Author service. 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):
As a user, I want to add Outlook meetings synced to the Workfront Home > Calendar to projects and / or my timesheet (General Time if not assigned to a project). in order to avoid re-keying meetings as tasks or timesheet time in Workfront.System Functionality Idea: ability to click on an Outlook Meeting in the Workfront Home Calendar that allows you to create a task in a project (pulls the meeting name and duration) or transfer time (duration) to a General Hour Type.Value: this will minimise the need to switch between systems and increase time in the Workfront platform for the source of all work (incl. meetings).
Description - Add the Workfront widget such that Outlook meeting invites can be exported into Workfront as a task or an issue in a project Why is this feature important to you - Being in enablement, we track, report, share WF calendars and collaborate on events scheduled by our team. Specific projects can support 25 events in a quarter. It would make updating events a lot easier if we could add these outlook events as tasks in Workfront without manually updating them as tasks. How would you like the feature to work - Similar capabilities exporting emails into Workfront projects as tasks or issues. In addition, it would be great if the event start and end date could be picked up as the Planned Start and Planned completion date of the task, and the meeting duration be updated as the task duration Current Behaviour - Feature doesn't exist.
Hello team,I’m working on automating a small process in Marketo and would appreciate your input and ideas to make it effective. Here’s the scenario: We are using Marketo and the third-party platform Splash to set this up. We will create a landing page in Splash, which will automatically generate the event in Marketo.In Marketo, I will need to update the event naming convention, activate a trigger campaign, and update the SFDC campaign in the flow step. That’s all I need to do. The naming convention and SFDC campaign will be automatically created by another third-party platform. Our goal is to track leads in both Marketo and SFDC without setting up anything else.I understand some automation is already in place, but I’d like to automate the other two steps for setting up the Marketo program.My Ideas:I was considering updating the Marketo naming convention directly through the Splash tool, but I'm unsure if that will work. I also thought about trying web browser automation, but I believe that's restricted in Marketo. Can we try with bot? I would need your ideas and insights.
Description:Users have noticed inconsistent behavior for their pinned pages loading in. There appears to be enough space in the pinned pages section for all the pins, yet the number of pinned pages that appears varies regardless of if they are opening the web browser for the first time or a new tab, or using a monitor or laptop screen. As many as half of the pinned pages won’t appear. I had brought this issue up to Workfront Support, and they suggested to use Ctrl - and Ctrl + to fix the issue. While that does the trick, it is very tiresome for users to continually do this multiple times a day. Why is this feature important to you:The purpose of the pinned pages is so they are always visible and accessible. Having to continuously make them visible is counterproductive. How would you like the feature to work:It would be beneficial if the correct number of pinned pages always loads when opening the web browser or new tab. Current Behavior:Users have to use Ctrl - and Ctrl + to have the pinned pages appear correctly, which causes disruptions to their work.
With the reporting that is set up in dynamic chat, we have a large gap in not being able to report on how many people reach each individual goal. The reporting simply shows goals overall but when you have dialogues that route to support or other teams outside of sales, we want to be able to easily report on these stats. Even within the sales/marketing world, we have goals for people that opt in to receive communications vs those that go to a rep as an MQL that we would want to report on. The workaround for using smart lists is only viable when the person is known, but since when someone asks to speak with support we provide the details for creating cases, we don’t always know who that person is. It’s almost exclusively coming through as anonymous which ends up not putting them into a smart list in Marketo. Adding in functionality, even if we had to create system level tags for the goals or something would be huge for our reporting. Or adding it to the Advanced BI Analytics would work as well. Just some way for us to report on this would be great.
In large Workfront instances, Global Search / Advanced Search becomes inefficient because results are displayed in pages capped to a fixed batch size (e.g., 2,000 items per page). When an organization has thousands of objects (Projects, Documents, Users, Templates, etc.), searching for something specific may not appear on the first page—forcing users to manually click through multiple pages to find a known item. This creates friction for everyday navigation and slows down work, especially for admins and power users who need to locate records quickly. Workfront search is meant to help users “easily locate items” across many object types, but the current paging behavior undermines that goal at enterprise scale. Why this feature is importantTime savings & adoption: Users lose minutes per search when they must page through thousands of results, which hurts adoption and confidence in Workfront as the “source of truth.” Enterprise-scale usability: Many customers have 8,000+ projects/documents/users, and the search experience should scale accordingly. Reduces errors: Manual paging increases the risk of selecting the wrong object or assuming something “doesn’t exist” because it wasn’t in the first result set. Search is core navigation: Since search behavior already varies by permissions, missing items due to paging limits adds another avoidable obstacle.How I would like the feature to workOption A (Preferred – best UX): “Search first, then limit.”When a user enters a search term, Workfront should query the entire searchable index for that object type and return the most relevant matches even if they would have been beyond the first 2,000 items in the underlying list. In other words: apply the search filter to the full dataset first, then display results.Option B: “Show all results / larger page size.”Add a user option (or admin-controlled setting) to increase “results per page” (e.g., 2,000 / 5,000 / 10,000) or provide a “Show all matches” mode for searches.Option C: “Find within results across all pages.”If Workfront must keep paging for performance, add a “Search within results” that searches across all pages and jumps directly to the matching items—without the user clicking Next/Next/Next.(Any of the above would dramatically improve navigation for large environments. Current behaviorWhen searching objects (Projects, Documents, Users, etc.), the results are shown in batches (example: 2,000 per page). If the item I need is in page 2/3/4, I must manually navigate across pages to find it. This is especially painful when I already know the name/ID and just need Workfront to take me to the correct object quickly. Acceptance criteria (what “done” looks like)A search term returns results from the full dataset for the selected object type, not just the first batch. Exact matches (or strongly relevant matches) appear in the results even if the object would otherwise be beyond the first page. Users can locate a known object without manually paging through results. Performance is maintained (e.g., via indexing/relevance ranking), but completeness of matching is preserved.
We are facing a editorial challenge when users are creating emails in the email designer. This is regarding the use of email fragments. We have created many different fragments as design elements/modules, and in all of this fragments we are using variables to control how the fragment should look like. F ex we use variables to choose between pre defines background colors, we use variables to set the alignment of the content (can vary from mobile to desktop), we have different styling of CTAs etc. Today this settings needs to be done before the fragment is broken, and the content can be edited. The challenge is after the fragment is broken we cant change the variable settings from the interface.But there is a work around, and this is not user friendly. From the code editor we can access the fragment code, and by finding the right place in the code we can manually change the chosen value of the variable. And this is reflected in the template when we save the change.It would be very helpful if it would be able to change the variable values after the fragments is broken. We see that this can manually be done since the values is already present in the code, we just need the interface to do it -and not manually from the code editor.
In our daily work we are facing a challenge when it comes to maintaince of email templates build from fragments. We are using different pre-defined templates that is built from fragments. And the fragments again contains just dummy images and lorum ipsum texts. The users changes the content in the fragments when they create there Journeys with there emails. The issue we are facing is when a content designer wants to change the template that is in use in an running Journey – there will be a problem. The content designer could have ordered a total new template, with a new look that he wants to use (a new framwork) or simply just want to change to another existing template (could be seasonal variations in the design). When you use the “change design” feature in the email, and changes to another template – you use all your created content in that email you are changing design too. It should have been possible to keep your content when you change the underlaying template.Maybe it could be solved buy having a export content feature, that takes all HTML code from the “Drag and Drop” container, and make this possible to import into the new template you have selected. The code is there, it is just to move it into the new selected template -and store it. That could have been an option when changing the design – move the content true or false, when you make your change.With an option like that it would be much easier to play around with templates and make changes seamless without any boundaries or risking loosing your created content by mistake.
Hello Marketo Community, We are currently operating a large Marketo instance and are facing scaling challenges related to program membership data extraction via the REST/Bulk APIs. Current Limitation At present: There is no API-exposed field that identifies whether a Program is archived. Archiving a program in the UI (e.g., moving it to an archived folder) does not translate into a machine-readable “archived” flag via the REST API. The Program Membership Bulk API requires filtering by Program ID. There is no supported endpoint to retrieve program membership changes between two timestamps without iterating through individual Program IDs. Because of this, integrations must iterate across all program IDs to ensure no membership changes are missed — even for programs that are long archived and no longer operational. Business Impact For instances with thousands of programs: API calls increase significantly as program volume grows. Sync runtimes increase over time, even if most programs are inactive. There is no supported way to exclude archived/inactive programs from recurring membership checks. This creates scaling and performance constraints for downstream data integrations and analytics platforms. Requested Enhancements We would like to request consideration for one (or more) of the following improvements: Expose an “archived” (or equivalent) boolean flag via the REST API This would allow integrations to safely exclude archived programs from ongoing membership syncs (assuming archived programs cannot have membership updates). Allow bulk program membership export without requiring Program ID filters For example, enabling exports based purely on time windows (start/end timestamps) rather than per-program iteration. Introduce an endpoint to retrieve program membership changes between two timestamps This would dramatically reduce the need to scan all program IDs during each integration cycle. Why This Matters As program volume grows over years of usage, performance and API efficiency become critical. These enhancements would: Improve scalability for enterprise customers Reduce unnecessary API consumption Improve sync performance for data warehouse integrations Enable better architectural patterns for reporting and analytics
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Content managers need an ability to "Replace a file" from the asset's properties. We implemented an override for them (pictures attached). In future we'd like to have this feature as Out-of-the-box functionality. Use-case: Content manager creates an asset's language copy, then "Reveal in Asset", then goes to the asset's properties and need to Replace the original file by translated version of file, having stored it on local computer with different name. Current/Experienced Behavior: Content manager can update an asset's file by one of the 2 ways: Create a Version: Open the folder in the DAM. Find his/her asset file. Select it and click on the "+ Create" button, then select "Version" button. Replace an original file OR Create a version:Save a future image with the SAME name as an original asset's file in the DAM. Drag and drop the future image to the DAM. System suggests "Create a version" or "Replace". Improved/Expected Behavior: User Story: As a Content manager, I want to be able to "Replace a file" from the asset's properties to avoid walking through assets listing and files renaming. Acceptance criteria: Content manager can update an asset's file from the asset's properties by uploading the file from his/her local computer. Content manager can choose 2 options: "Create version" or "Replace". If "Replace" option is selected, AEM saves the file to the same directory and automatically rename uploaded file to the same name as the original asset (original file is deleted). If "Create version" option is selected, AEM creates a version of the file (original file is saved). Uploading file with different extension than original asset is not uploaded and the error is displayed. The button "Replace file" is displayed on menu above asset properties page. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Managed Services, v6.5.14 Customer-name/Organization name: Veeam Software Screenshot (if applicable): We implemented an override for Content managers: Code package (if applicable):
Description:All admins are currently receiving the notifications: Contributor user limit reached or Guest user limit reached. Why is this feature important to you:We do not need all admins to receive every notification. This can lead to unnecessary distractions and clutter in their inboxes. How would you like the feature to work:Implement a feature that allows selective notification settings, where we can choose which admins receive specific notifications based on their roles or responsibilities. Current Behavior:All admins receive all notifications without the option to selectively choose recipients.
Description - With the new license structure every time a user goes over their approval limit an email notification is sent to all system admins. Ideally these notifications can be managed like other notifications. Why is this feature important to you - It creates unnecessary confusion / urgency / internal correspondence every time a notification comes through. And it's only relevant to the Admin who is responsible for user / license management. How would you like the feature to work - The ability to turn on / off the notification for individual system admins and limit only to the person/persons responsible for user/license management. OR that there isn't an email every time this happens and it's managed under Setup (e.g. keeps a log of overages / # of approvals for users that go over) for admins to reference/manage. Current Behaviour - Every system admin receives an email notification for every user that goes over their approval limit.
In order to be able to better utilize the data and integrate report data in other systems, being able to email reports as a CSV attachment instead just a PDF would be a nice feature.
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.
