Product Communities

Attached/below. Keen to hear counterpoints and other considerations for use. 

CNIL has created a need to add the logic to send an email with disabled tracking for France leads. The same would be true for Italy soon, but this also means that we are modifying all “Send Email” steps with a choice, or replacing it with a requested/executable campaign. If this conditional setting and the ability to modify it is inbuilt into the email, that would help enable/disable tracking in a dynamic manner for the emails which are already in use. The parameters may extend to beyond tracking pixels as compliance landscape evolves and the settings could be beyond pixel tracking overtime.

Description - After a thorough implementation, we decided to use the Request Queues built directly in the projects. The functionality is great. We have a project template set up with Queue Topics, Groups, Forms etc. The issue is that when creating requests directly in a project there is no Autosave or Drafting functionality that we know of. Our users are becoming increasingly agitated by having complex requests easily deleted at the unfortunate click out of the request window or accidental refresh of the page.   Why is this feature SO VERY important to you - Our current solution is to submit requests without auto-routing to a traffic team so the work can be saved. Leading to needing to save as you go, something that is antiquated in this day and age, especially knowing that autosave exists in many other places in Workfront, including the Global Request Queues area.   How would you like the feature to work - simply autosave as you go with a Drafts section built into the Reque

Meta data creation is THE key step when feeding new assets into a DAM. Especially when uploading multiple assets, the creation of meaningful titles, descriptions and tags takes a long time or needs to be done with an excel sheet. An AI agent/tool that helps creates this data by reading/viewing the file and it’s content or what an image shows, would be extremely helpful.The agent should ideally also be able to do other things as well, e.g. translate the description and enter it into a specified field (e.g. translating the EN description to FR and adding it into the “French description” field).The Bulk Rename feature in Assets View already works pretty good, but it’s only for the actual file names, not for titles. This is like a mini version of what I’m imagining. Other DAMs already have this, if required, I can provide an example.The AI generated titles and descriptions are well noted, alas, there is no easy way to copy them to the actual title field with just a click or to see a sugges

Tracking approver decision counts across proofs (in Workfront AND in ProofHQ/Proofing Tool) to manage the 6-decision/month threshold before contributors shift to light access — that’s a genuine reporting gap.Currently, there is no visibility into Proofs that were generated in Workfront Poof Tool. We need to be able to report from Workfront on the user level to track/count decisions that will count towards a user’s decision threshold before they are automatically moved from a contributor to a light user.

A new feature that would be great to have is the ability to test marketing channel rules as you’re creating/saving them. Similar to what we have for classifications, where you can put in a test string and it will show how that string would be classified. It would be great to have this with marketing channels. How it should work:There should be an option to run a test where you can manually put in a URL, referrer, and other components (based on what components you’ve used to set up your rules). Either have it show up with all of the fields you’ve used and the option to populate them/leave them blank, or have dropdowns where you can select which fields you want to enter info for.Then have it run what you’ve entered against all of your rules and tell you which marketing channel it would get classified into. Why it’s important:Right now when making marketing channel processing rules, there isn’t currently a way to test them. It can be hard to mentally go through all of the rules and figure

In Adobe Analytics Segments we can use "equals" and "does not equal" to compare a variable against specific values.i.e. Page Name (evar1) does not equal “test”This is fine when you only have a few specific values to compare against. It would also be useful be able to compare the values of dimensions as a whole. The specific scenario that comes to mind is segmenting page views where Page Name and Previous Page name are not the same, but this could also work for a number of other scenarios.I.e. a segment that saysHitPage Name (evar1) does not equal Previous Page Name (evar2)

Current problemMy organisation uses centrally managed Analysis Workspace projects that are shared with a large population of Adobe Analytics users. These projects are commonly shared with broad product-profile groups using Edit copy, allowing users to work from a governed starting point without changing the original project.Within the Share dialogue, there is a checkbox labelled “Set as landing page for recipients”.If a project is shared with a large product-profile group, selecting this option and clicking Update can make that project the default landing page for every recipient in the group.This is a potentially high-impact action, but it is presented as a standard checkbox alongside lower-impact project-sharing settings. The interface does not provide a prominent warning explaining the scale of the change, clearly confirm which users will be affected, or offer an effective organisation-level method of reversing the action. Why this creates a governance riskIn a large organisation, A

A helpful and efficient update that would help reduce the number of fusion scenario runs and modules needed after an Adobe Workfront Watch Event (instant) would be simply to include numberOfChildren as an Event Filter option for Task events webhook configuration.   We are looking to drive automation once a task status changes but looking to limit the run on only actual tasks, not parent tasks.   We are able to work around but see double the number of runs necessary and need to add extra modules to read the task after the webhook.   This would be similar to this idea where the option to filter by that field for task objects:  Fusion Watch module for a task canStart update | Community  

We used to be able to right-click on the sidebar area to the left of the project info. 'Tasks, Documents, Project Details, etc.' could be right-clicked and have opened in a new tab/window. A few montsh ago the UI team changed that option and right-clicking those is no longer available. I’m hoping there's a way to bring that back as it was REALLY helpful when trying to see two different sections of the project quickly.  The removal of the right-click functionality on the project left panel navigation items is a product design change that was made as part of a platform update. I’d love for it to be brought back as an easier part of the Workfront workflows. 

We’re going through a taxonomy/metadata exercise to map our organization’s taxonomy across our enterprise with Workfront and AEM.While this page is available:  https://developer.adobe.com/workfront/api-explorer/You can’t export the fields or the data.This would be nice to have when mapping and integrating.

Hi,We have disabled the "Schedule All Audiences" option in our AEP Production sandbox and currently manage audience evaluation schedules using the Tags feature. This allows us to run segment evaluations at different times based on business requirements. For example:Daily tagged audiences are scheduled at 12 PM Daily_Edge tagged audiences are scheduled at 9 PMThis approach is being used for both batch and Edge audiences.I was wondering if there is an option, or if there are plans to introduce one, that would allow "Schedule All Audiences" to be enabled only for Edge audiences while keeping batch audience scheduling controlled through tags.The rationale is that, if Edge audiences could be automatically evaluated whenever profile data is ingested, the Edge audience memberships would remain up to date without requiring a scheduled segment evaluation run. This could help reduce operational overhead and improve audience freshness for Edge use cases.I understand that audiences containing even

My organization uses Workfront Planning to manage our Enterprise Strategic Plan. Initially, users submit very early stage Strategic Plan Requests for initial review. If it is determined by leadership that it aligns with the organization's strategic goals, they are approved to begin discovery. The Request itself is not approved at this time, it is just moved to a different status, indicating they can move forward with discovery. Once discovery is complete, it is reviewed again, and only then if approved does it move over to Workfront Proper to become a full project.This discovery could take years in some cases, and is occurring while the item is still a Request in Planning. We need a way for these users to track their time contributed to the discovery process.

My organization uses Workfront Planning to manage our Enterprise Strategic Plan. Through the use of structured taxonomies, we’re able to create a timeline view that allows for the breakdown Strategic Theme -> Strategic Sub-Theme -> Strategic Statements -> Projects, showing where each project falls on the timeline that impacts its associated strategy.We'd like to break it down a step further and be able to expand each Project associated with a Strategic Statement within that timeline view to show the Milestones within the Project, or specifically labeled Parent Tasks, allowing teams to view where each phase of any given Initiative then falls within the overall project timeline all in one view.Currently we're unable to do so as the only available Workfront Object Types to connect to in Planning are Project, Portfolio, Program, Company, Group and Original Request.

Hello,When adding an audience to an Adobe Journey Optimizer campaign, the audience-selection window displays all available audiences in a single flat list. Users can search or apply filters and tags, but they cannot browse the folder structure already available in the Audiences workspace.Why is this feature important?For organizations managing hundreds or thousands of audiences, a flat list is difficult and inefficient to navigate. Audience folders are commonly used to organize audiences by market, business unit, campaign type, environment, or use case.Without folder navigation, users must remember exact audience names or rely on tags, which may not always be applied consistently. This slows down campaign creation and increases the risk of selecting the wrong audience.How should the feature work?The AJO campaign audience selector should display the same folder hierarchy available in the Audiences workspace. Users should be able to:Browse and expand audience folders. See their current f

Right now, we can only export meta data on a folder level. This is impractical if you need to edit only meta data for 30 assets, but then wait hours for a folder meta data report because there are 5k assets in a folder. And no, smaller folder is not an option here. So what would be preferrable is that you simply select any assets you want and click “export metadata”. The upload of meta data should support this, so that you can add the meta data e.g. for the top folder and it will be applied to all assets in the csv, regardless of their sub folder location (not tested in current environment - maybe this works already?).

Currently, the meta data export csv does not contain the asset ID. This is a real problem because the asset ID (“urn:aaid:aem:”) is the unique identifier and with this ID, you can easily compare, consolidate or edit meta data import sheets or locate a specific asset in the csv, even if some assets have identical titles etc.. This is a feature that I would expect of ANY DAM, not a nice to have, but a must-have. Support asked me to send in an idea, but I feel the product is lacking a standard feature here.

Hello! We would like to propose that when using a Workflow Template for Proofing that the V2 (Version 2) of that document would follow the deadline days and time as formatted in the initial template set up. Thank you!

I recommend that the feature that automatically auto tags images in a document is disabled for every user. The tagging can/should be manually done with the ai generated text as an option, not a default setting.I have an abstract image in my template that I send to clients. If I forget to disable the auto tagging, then the client will read a caption that suggests I am sending them a nude image. There is no figure in the graphic. There is no suggestion of a figure in the graphic, but Ai suggest that there is, and it confuses my clients. Even if it says that it is an “Ai generated caption”, my clients read it as something I, myself, inserted into their document.  I have turned it off. I have done it multiple times, successfully. However, I do not love that it is my sole responsibility to work around a program every single time I send out a document.  

It would be great to create a date range which is relative to the Date Ranges selected in the Panel. Right now, I can only visualize a fixed date range for a previous reporting period. Example: I create a report with last week as previous comparing period. When I change the Date Ranges in the Panel (e.g. last quarter) it will still compare the whole last quarter with last week.

There is an important option missing in the date rage panel.We can select the current period but not the selected period of the workspace. So it's not possible to create dynamic comparison to the current time range users set in the workspace.In other words we absolutely need these options:- current day- current week- current month- current quarter- current year- current date range

Requested EnhancementsPlease consider expanding the Activity Revisions API to include more complete audit information, such as:What exactly changed in each revision Who made the change When the change occurred Previous value and new value for changed fields Change type or action performed, such as create, edit, approve, deactivate, archive, or schedule update Workspace, property, or environment context where applicableWhy This MattersMore comprehensive revision history would significantly improve:Audit readiness Troubleshooting and incident analysis Operational transparency Change tracking across teams Governance and compliance reviewToday, it is difficult to fully understand the history of an activity and determine the precise sequence of updates made over time. Expanded revision details would make the API much more useful for enterprise activity management.Request to AdobeWe would appreciate it if this enhancement request could be shared with the Adobe Target product team for conside

It is a huge inefficiency that we cannot bulk edit like items on template tasks in multiple templates. For example, I want to bulk edit a value on the same task custom form in multiple template tasks/across multiple templates. I pull all of the tasks in a template task report, select the several I want to change, all of which have the same task custom form, and you cannot do this. You get the error below. You can bulk edit tasks across projects, why can we not bulk edit tasks across multiple templates?  

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Content Hub Display  Use-case:   Current/Experienced Behavior: Content Hub Display Labels on Filters Improved/Expected Behavior: The filter list in Content Hub currently shows technical values instead of display labels. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable):   Customer-name/Organization name:   Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

When creating a report, you have the Report Default view that is naturally created which works great for a lot of specific reports, but we find creating reporting for multiple teams challenging as they want to see different data elements (different columns) based on their role; looking for options to avoid creating multiple reports for basically the same thing and also increase the ease of using reports without having to team users which views go with which reports and also which ones simply are used potentially in project list views or somewhere else.  Idea:   Have the ability to create or associate specific views (columns/formatting) and tag them to a report.  Ideally, this would be available in a section on top with predefined reporting views that users can quickly navigate between.    Bonus:   Have the option to select a view based off simple rules such as If TeamID = Leader then present the Leadership view (configured when creating the report!)