Adobe Workfront

I’m hoping someone can help me understand why reviewers/approvers on a proof are receiving two different approval experiences. In some cases, reviewers are prompted to “make a decision,” while in other cases they are only given the options “Approve,” “Approve with Changes,” or “Needs Work,” which is the workflow we want to use consistently. Because the options presented are not the same for all reviewers/approvers, it creates confusion in our review and approval process. Could you clarify what causes these different approval methods to be sent, and whether there is a setting or configuration that controls this behavior?I’m also seeing what appears to be a related issue when I upload a new document to a project. I automatically receive an approval notice in my Home widget, even though these documents do not actually require my approval. Note: when we upload documents, they automatically create a proof.   In this situation, I am consistently asked to ‘Make a Decision’.   This clutters th

We have several product fields (multi-select dropdown) on custom forms used by different groups. One group would like to adjust the fields by adding new choices on them that won’t apply to the other groups. No deletion or renaming of existing choices is needed. These fields have been used on thousands of requests and projects by the group, and I’d like to keep that data intact for them. I know that changing the fields will change them on all the other groups’ forms. I’ve tried making copies of the fields in Preview to see if the copy carries over the original field’s selection, but it didn’t work. Is there a way to copy the existing fields for this group’s forms (requests and projects) so that the copies retain all of the previous entered data while also allowing me to add the new choices they requested?

Thanks to everyone who joined today’s workshop on Mastering Business Rules and Validation Logic in Adobe Workfront! The session was led by Adobe Workfront’s Tina Craig, Principal Business Consultant, Content Supply Chain, who shared several examples and best practices for using these new features to help with governance (and reduce the redundant reminders from admins)! Workshop Summary:Validation logic prevents form submission when criteria are met; business rules prevent object creation, deletion, and editing across system. Validation logic uses if-then statements on custom form fields; business rules are configured in the Setup area with broader scope (only available to customers on the Workflow Ultimate package). Practical examples like special character restrictions, character limits, date constraints, SLA enforcement, and multi-option selections were demo’ed.  Remember! Always test in Sandbox before production deployment to prevent workflow disruption. If you weren’t able to join

Currently, setting the default filters and groups in a Layout Template > “Home” > “Widget Settings”, changes the default filter for all areas of Workfront. IE if a user is on a layout template where the default grouping for the “My Tasks” widget is set to “Project”, all areas of Workfront where the user views tasks will be grouped by project. This is simply a poor UI choice - these settings should either only affect the home widgets, or they should be moved to a section of the UI that indicates they affect the entire system.

We are wanting to bring our proofreading process into Workfront, but are struggling to find the easiest way to do so.Our proofreaders don’t work on specific work as it’s based on what’s coming in and how busy each of them are. Our current way is outside of Workfront, where they pick up the PDF and proofread that file to give back to the team to make edits. We would like to include them in the proofing process that happens within Workfront currently. Since there isn’t a way to pull a report to show what a person has to review (as we don’t need them to approve the proof), we are finding that the only way to add them into the Workfront Proofing process is to add both proofreaders as reviewers & approvers. The owner of the proof would then remove the proofreader who doesn’t make a decision on the proof since the other one did the work. We can use the reports that we have built for them to see what work they have and show them how they can see if the other one is in the proof or not.Doe

This morning, I did a proof of concept of "Targeted Auditing" and would like to share it with the Community. I thought of the idea years ago but never made time for until my unsatisfying response to this thread twigged my memory. As below, my example records the changes to a particular "Target" custom text parameter in its "Target History" custom calculated parameter counter part...and to my delight, actually works! The formula turned out to be why-didn't-I-try-this-sooner? simple: LEFT(IF(LEFT(Target History,LEN(IF(ISBLANK({Target}),"-",{Target})))={Target},Target History,CONCAT(IF(ISBLANK({Target}),"-",{Target})," (",$$NOW,") | ",{Target History})),2000) And does the following: - limits the Target History to the most recent 2000 characters (staying within the Workfront database limit)- checks if the current Target value (treating it as "-" if it is blank) matches the front of the Target History value- if they match, leaves the Target History "as is"- if they don't match, replaces the

I have an existing WF user who has been using the program for years and has never had an issue with logging in before. Today however when she goes to log in she gets the following error message"You don't have access to the linked application for that organization an have been redirected to the Experience Cloud home page" I had her close wf and clear her cashe and now when she tries to log back in she is getting another error message"This username may be incorrect. Make sure you typed it correctly. Otherwise, contact your admin"I checked and her username is correct. Has anyone had this happen to them before and how did you fix it? Attached screenshots of the error messages."

As the Workfront Second Quarter Release is scheduled for next week (April 16 - Quarterly Release, April 15 - Monthly/Fast Release), this webinar highlighted a handful of enhancements coming to Advanced Enterprise Operations, Unified Approvals (the future of proofing in Workfront), Reporting, Fusion, and Workfront Planning. There are several demos in the on-demand recording, so it’s a bit longer than usual - plan for 75 minutes unless you watch on 2x speed.  If you weren't able to attend - no worries! The links to the slide deck, recording, and Q&A are listed below. Be sure to review the release notes on Experience League, as not all feature enhancements were covered in the webinar today!  Webinar Recording  Slide Deck PDF - note that the videos cannot be replayed in the slide deck PDF, so I’ve included links to those below  All videos from the section, Advanced Enterprise Operations Enhancements, can be found here - Financial Management (slide 18), Enhanced Layout Templates (sl

Can a validation rule be setup that only allows users from a particular group to access a form field?  I’m trying something along these lines but I can’t get the syntax correct.IF($$USER.groupIDs="69fcf9d70002183a0944fbb90b78a5ab", "Only members of the LP Approval group can edit this field.")Any help would be appreciated.ThanksFrank

Hey all, I’m trying to build a Fusion automation to connect appropriate projects to records in Workfront Planning but the Planning Update Record module isn’t an append, it replaces any values currently in the field. What I’m trying to do is add a new project to the connected project field of a given record, while retaining the existing connected projects.Whether this was clean or not, my idea of a workaround was to re-map all of the existing connected projects plus the new one, so I’m using the Planning Get a Record module to pull in the pertinent information on the specific record type I need to connect the project to. This is outputting a “Project” array that contains as many collections as there are currently connected projects, with each collection containing the External ID.Then in a Planning Update Record module, I’m mapping the Project array external ID to the Project (Connection) field by using the array index number, plus the new project’s external ID as seen below.  This func

We have been attempting to connect Workfront and Campaign Classic V8 with Fusion and we established the connection.    The issue we seem to be having when using Adobe Campaign Classic Read a Record module, is that when selecting any resource, we get this error message.   I have been working with the Campaign Classic admin to see if we can troubleshoot the access limitations and just been hitting a roadblock at this time.     Does anyone have any experience with this and know how to correct this?   This appears to be something on the Campaign Classic side that is limiting access and I am not familiar with the application and hoping I could help provide the admin over there some possible solution to review.   Thanks!  

If you just got back from Adobe Summit 2026 (or wished you had), this is the event you don't want to miss. The Workfront WUG – Southern California is hosting a virtual after party on May 12, 2026 — and we're skipping the polished recaps in favor of the real conversation.What announcements will actually change how your team works? What's worth bringing back to your org — and what's just hype? Our expert panelists are ready to give you their unfiltered takes on Workfront, content supply chain innovation, and AI. No fluff. Just clarity, candor, and a little healthy debate.🗓️ May 12, 2026 | VirtualAll chapters, members, and guests welcomeRegister here: https://workfront-augs.adobe.com/events/details/adobe-workfront-wug-southern-california-presents-spill-the-tea-adobe-summit-2026-after-party/Mega-WUGs are special virtual events where all Workfront User Group (WUG) chapters are invited. Not familiar with WUG?  Learn more here.

Hi all—looking for some ideas/best practices here!I’m exploring how to automate task completions in Workfront based on proof decisions. From what I understand, this requires the document to live at the task level. If that’s the case, I’m curious how others are handling version control across multiple rounds of edits.Do you typically reuse the same task for each round, or create new tasks for each version? Trying to avoid things getting messy while still enabling automation.Example of what I’m trying to achieve:Design R1 – Designer uploads file to the task and marks complete Creative Review R1 – Proof is created and routed for approval Approved → completes Creative Review and moves to execution Changes Required → completes Creative Review and moves to Design R2 → Creative Review R2 This cycle would repeat until final approval.Would love to hear how others are handling this—especially if you’ve found a clean way to manage versions + automation together. Thanks in advance! 

I’m curious who is using Priorities and whether it’s working well for your team. I’ve been playing around with it for a while and really like the UI and overall functionality, but it still feels a bit too “clicky” for me to comfortably roll out to our teams.For example, our Creative team lives in their assigned tasks and frequently jumps into the project custom form to view requirements/details. In Priorities, it seems like they need to click into the project name and then click “Go to details” from the side panel to get there. Am I missing an easier way to navigate this?Would love to hear how others are using Priorities in similar workflows/scenarios.

We have Workfront contributors that will view a monthly report that contains a proof link, where they can view a document proof. For these users, all User notification settings set to off. However, when they click to view the Document Proof, Workfront is adding them as a “Reviewer” to the Document Proof and automatically subscribing them to receive Daily Summaries for that project. We tested resolution by keeping them as Reviewer with Proof notification settings disable. However, next month when they view the report again, it auto-defaults to start sending Daily Summaries. This is an issue, as these particular users cannot get bogged down with the details within those daily summaries for each project, and we need to control this scenario to protect their inbox.Has anyone else experienced this and/or found a resolution? I saw a past post in Experience League, but it was marked as “resolved” due to inactivity on comments, but with no resolution.

Hello, I know i can bring this in a task report, but Is there anyway I can bring in lastnote: note text in a note report?