Product Communities

Increase Display Limit in Resource Planner while in the project view.Appears to be limited to about 300

We would like the preview window for ProofHQ attachments to display a preview of a PDF document as well as an image file. That way our team members don't have to download the PDF to see the attachment.

When comparing revisions it is often the current live version that you want to compare to.  However, there is no easy way to see which revision is the one that is currently published to the live environment. Please could you consider introducing some kind of visual indicator of the current published version in the compare revisions screen drop down menu?  

The Launch developers want to understand when the extension was updated last time. Add the release date next to the extension version in the extensions list.

Add new actions to the Launch Core extension to write and delete cookies.  

Currently there are no additional steps when editing activity that is live than one that is inactive. In this way any edits to a live test are set to live by saving the changes. At the same time there is no indication that this is a live test while on the edit screen. Both combine to a high risk of introducing updates directly to a live test. I would recommend two updates. First, all edits get reviewed before set to active. In the case of experiences that are already live the best action would be to have any update to an activity move the experience back to inactive along with a prompt explaining the move. This allows an opportunity for review updates before setting those live. Second, include the status of an experience in all edit screens. This will allow for a visual indication on if this test is currently either active or inactive. 

Hi,Many of my users are frustrated with Timesheet management and they would like the ability to sort their projects in their timesheets by various criteria. They also want the ability to granularly select which projects should appear in their Timesheet, even with initial auto-population at weeks start. There appears to be a default ascending alpha-numeric sort but it does not seem to extend past a few characters of the project name prefix, i.e. WF should recognize the project name prefix 156589 as a higher number than 61303 but it sees it as a lower value.Thanks,Steve

Hello,  I would like to suggest truly including all emails in the primary emails table.  I have been building a variety of reports using the API data however when I attempt to pull results on A/B emails from Marketo those type of emails are missing.  While I can find them in other email related API tables I use the primary email tables as the source of my reporting for best accuracy.   Thank you.

HiBest to allow user to register maximum 24 hours for one day in Timesheet.Or give functionality via Set Up.MvhKundan.

It would be great to be able to assign a timesheet profile when manually generating a timesheet from the "New Timesheet" button in the Timesheets section. Currently when you create a timesheet, it isn't assigned to a timesheet profile, and there is no way to manually assign a timesheet profile to these newly generated timesheets. (Note: uploader tool keeps rejecting my attachment but this function can be found in Timesheets > All Timesheets > New Timesheet)

Workfront advocates for Inherited Permissions for pretty much everything else. Why not between a document and proof? Our use case is this: The creative agency with a Review license uploads the document and tags the project owner to review it. The project owner has a Work or Plan license and generates the proof, and shares the proof with others as Reviewers & Approvers. However, the creative agency who uploaded the document does NOT get ANY proof activity. They must rely on a document update from the project owner. However, as much as we have trained project owners to send a document update to the agency this often gets missed because they assume the agency can see all proof activity. Please help!

I recently configured a form which had a requirement to have multiple fields on different rows in one form section. The fields on the same row all had the same display logic which i had to manually input for each field. It would be great if display logic from one field once defined could be copied to any other field. Either that or some way of grouping fields, like you can with a form section but without the section title and spacing, would achieve the same result provided you can apply the logic to the section the fields are in.

Please allow reviewer to appear in proof reports and on home page. Currently Proof reports just allows review / approver to show up.

Integrate with the newly release Google Hangouts Chat to push work objects and task lists back and forth.

It's great that you can get from the "edit library" screen into a rule/element to compare revisions.  However, it is frustrating that when you close the rule/element you lose the context and get kicked out to the element/rules list rather than back to the edit library page. How it currently works:Edit Library > view rule > compare revision > *close* compare revision > *close* rule > rule list page 😞 How it should work:Edit Library > view rule > compare revision > *close* compare revision > *close* rule > Edit Library 🙂 Please can you consider changing the work flow to remember the context in which the rule was accessed so you are returned to the appropriate place? - when looking at a lot of rules this would really make a difference!

Presently if a Group admin adds a new user to Workfront, they cannot see or add the "Manager " proofing permission to the the new user's profile. But if a System admin adds a new user the "Manager" proofing permission is automatically added to the user. Can we have the same function for Group admins. But we would like the ability to update the proofing permission to a "Supervisor" or "Administrator" to still only be a Sys admin permission.

Would like the ability to set default Update settings to "private to my company". We are an in-house marketing agency and have been working to bring our clients in to proofing but discovered any updates that were made on a document/proof are visible to the client. We are trying to remind everyone to check off the private to my company BUT if they forget we don't notice until the client comments on a thread they shouldn't see. It would be nice to have a setting we can select to make Private the default for all updates and if we need someone outside our company to see it we can @tag them.

It would be great if the client had the ability to add their signature to an estimate within Workfront, same as you would annotate a document using Adobe or preview. Maybe proof isn't the place for this but is there an additional function WF could add that allows a signature to be added to an uploaded document.

Would love the the field name to change on the request queues sent/received from "Completion Date" to "Respond by" or something to that effect. That is very confusing for users when they receive a request and think the actual request must be completed by the next day, for example.

Currently, debugger adds new events as columns to the right of existing event table, as they fire. Because this is often off-screen from the user (and the left-right scroll bar is only available at the very bottom of the columns), it makes finding the event you're looking for in a series very difficult: Current: events fire, then you scroll down, then scroll to the right until you think you're near the events you want, then scroll up and check, and repeat.Better: events fire, each appearing as a new column closest to the query param labels, and 'pushes' old events out to the right. That way, a user can simply watch the dimension row they care about as events pop in and find the event they're looking for immediately, no endless scrolling necessary.

In old experience i was able to choose and pick which form to update when using multiple forms in an issue/task/project. In new experience, when you want to edit a form, all custom forms become editable, causing work management issues when one form contains required fields that based on the process are not ready to be completed. Please make the new experience so that I can choose which form to edit, not have all forms become editable once the edit button is clicked. Thank you!:)

In each classification table, there are 2 groups of unclassified data. One group is activity with no variable set and the other is activity on a set variable that hasn't been classified. As an example, direct traffic without s.Campaign variable and campaign traffic with an s.Campaign variable that has not been defined by processing rules or a SAINT upload yet. In fully processed data, these can be distinguished by adding classifications to the null (or ~none~) variable. For example, set the classification 'Marketing Channel' = Direct Traffic when the s.Campaign key is null.Data Warehouse treats these two groups the same. It would be very useful for reporting to have Data Warehouse recognize classifications on null/~none~ variables. 

We discovered an issue (not a defect) with the Marketing Channels rules which it would be great if it was sorted 🙂 2 factors are combining to cause issues:Marketing Channels rules run on every metrics call (page views and linking tracking)Not all properties are available on link tracking metrics calls (e.g. pageName, URL, referring URL, query string parameters etc.)As we have to rely on some of the properties that are not available on a link tracking call to correctly ID a channel,  we are finding that if a link tracking call occurs before the first page view in a visit the channel is initially incorrectly assigned and then overwritten with the correct channel on the subsequent page view.  This results in our data being skewed. Got a feeling that this might be one that other Adobe clients may be suffering from but are unaware of.

Our team is interested in creating a custom automated response that would be sent out for any successfully submitted requests through the request queues. This would give requestors an estimated turnaround time as well as contact info if they have any questions.

On the collision report for each experience it currently listed ALL activities that clash with the experience from all workspaces you are wanting to publish based on the mbox and page URL.  But there are no filters so its a pain to check if there are any live experiences that are clashing. It would be great if on the collision report you could filter based on the target status (ie. live, inactive etc) as well as being able to filter by workspace (ie. default vs training etc)