Explore product-specific spaces to ask questions, share insights, and learn best practices.
Recently active
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
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
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 tacticWorkfr
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
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
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
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 bin
Description - Support confirmed that personal projects remain open even after a user has been deactivated. Additionally, not even an admin can change the status of a personal project, so it's stuck In Progress forever and ever. Why is this feature important to you - It's extra labor for me to filter out personal projects that should be dead. How would you like the feature to work - Upon user deactivation, automatically close personal projects, including the tasks and issues within. Also allow admins to close personal projects. Current Behaviour - Personal projects remain active in perpetuity and some reports will display data from personal projects unless you intentionally filter them. (Support recommended a couple filtering options as a workaround: Personal = False OR Project owner Is Active = True.)
Hello,I would like to propose one improvement in the time-off concept over time zone.Currently, there is this issue that a whole day off entered by someone in a given time zone will be visible as 2 days off in another time zone. This gives a false information to other colleagues and this also prevent a correct planing with the resource manager. See also these posts describing the same problem:https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/workfront-ideas/time-off-not-dependent-on-time-zone-entered-viewed-in/idc-p/530272#M11903@francesdurhamevans , @yvonnemi2 https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/workfront-ideas/all-day-time-off-should-not-be-affected-by-time-zone-on-schedule/idi-p/523616@david_bray https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/workfront-ideas/time-off-settings-with-team-members-in-different-time-zones/idi-p/523728@leigh-annd37734 https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/workfront-ideas/time-off-consistent-viewing-of
Description -Why is this feature important to you - our team use both board function and project function to review and update tasks. so it is important to have same field in both functionHow would you like the feature to work - The tag field is available for task/card under board view.
Description - My teams Create all new requests as issues, Fusion converts to projects and performs other configuration tasks at this time. Starting a new project from the "My Projects" widget does not align with how our teams work.Why is this feature important to you - The ability to hide the function would allow us to use the MyProjects widget to help requestors see work at a glance. Having a "New" button causes confusion that we need to train around .How would you like the feature to work - Ability to configure the Homepage widgets to remove or hide the button.Current Behaviour - "New" button on homepage widgets cannot be altered.
The following are the REST API Enhancements we as a user are expecting to see it in near future. - Asset creator details to be included in the API (Email, Files, Campaigns etc.,)- Flow ID is returned in campaign API, however there is no endpoint to utilize and get the flow details- SmartList Cloning option is there, however there is no SmartList Update option (PUT method for updating the rules/criteria/conditions) via API. Likewise for Files, images can be created via API but there isn't an API option to update (PUT method) it. How come your product team ended up with just providing endpoints for reading and updating the meta data? Why should a development team in a company should create lines of code just to update a file name. I completely don't understand. - Final member count in a smartlist is not able to be pulled via API, again I'm not sure why this not considered as a meta information.- Worst pagination technique followed for returning records. While trying to pull the
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Provide the ability to add custom validation to the OOTB fields created via the CF model editor. Use-case: We have the following use case: two multifields. If one contains X items, then the other one needs to contain X items, or the validation should fail and show an error message to the editor. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, custom validation can only be added for custom fields. However, we do not want to add custom fields, we only want to add custom validation to the existing OOTB fields. Improved/Expected Behavior: Add an extension point for developers to define custom validation using an Adobe IO plugin. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS 2024.10.18311.20241017T104455Z Customer-name/Organization name: Assa Abloy Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): No example documentation found in: https://developer.adobe.com/uix/docs/services/aem-
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
