Rich text features to some of the WF native fields, specifically Issue Descriptions? Switch current custom text fields to rich text?

[KristyMu1]

Does anyone know if there are plans to

1. add the rich text features to some of the WF native fields, specifically Issue Descriptions
2. increase the character limit on current text fields
3. ability to switch current custom text fields to rich text without loosing data.

[NRYNR]

Hi Kristy, We at Truist certainly hope there are no plans to do this. We’d prefer these “Rich Text” features not be implemented at all because they result in quite useless data from a reporting perspective and we don’t need them. Switching native fields to this format would be disaster. And now as configuration experts, we have a field type that we have to explain away as something that shouldn’t be used when people ask “what’s that?” as we build forms. If you don’t believe me on the useless front, try building a view that renders that “Rich Text” in a report and see how it looks. The only value I see is in the amount of data you can store in a field, which just screams “more useless data!” to me that I still can’t render in a view. What’s the point? It’s time we stop trying to bend Workfront to do what it’s not meant to do by adding ideas we all don’t need but that a few of us really want. Narayan (Truist)

[KristyMu1]

In most cases we wouldn't see any benefit from the rich text except for the increased character limit. Character limits have caused us some problems.

[Exp_-_GevorgKa]

Hi Narayan,

Thank you for the feedback!

I'm sorry to hear that you don't find rich text formatting useful, though I just want to bring to your attention that the lists support has been added and now available on your Preview instance for New Workfront Experience.

More details are available here.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,

Gevorg

[NRYNR]

Hi Gevorg, Thank you for the response. I performed a test as follows: ¬∑ Created a project custom form with an RTF field. ¬∑ Added the form to a project and entered some text with formatting. ¬∑ Created a project report and added the field to the view. The result is that this feature is not production-ready: ¬∑ My “RTF” entered on the project didn’t render. Instead, “Sample Preformatted Text” is displayed. ¬∑ Using text mode and the valueexpression= yielded nothing in return. Therefore, unable to validate the formatting or test the RTF values wrapped in HTML and shared columns. ¬∑ It’s not in-line editable in the list even though the blue box appears over the field. ¬∑ The field can’t be used in filters/prompts. Thanks, Narayan (Truist)

[Exp_-_GevorgKa]

Hi Narayan,

Thanks much for the feedback!

May I ask if you've performed the tests in the New Workfront Experience? As that is where those capabilities are supported.

If you're seeing "Sample Formatted Text" and could not inline edit in NWE, please raise a bug to our support team, so that we can investigate that behaviour.

Thanks,

Gevorg

[NRYNR]

Hi Gevorg, No, I am not testing in New Workfront Experience. Truist is an existing customer of Workfront’s for quite a few years and we rely heavily on the Classic experience. We can’t switch to “New” because it doesn’t function in parity with “Classic”. And even if we could, why would we when things are working so great in Classic? We’re focused on the needs, and we don’t need a single thing that New Workfront Experience offers. What we need is for Classic to remain stable so we can continue to focus on getting our work done. Instead, Workfront’s big changes such as this “feature” create projects that we have to manage in response because of the impacts, which is counterintuitive to the point of the tool. Would you agree that these features should function the same regardless of New or Classic experience? You’re likely have a lot of existing customers who are going to expect this, plus it keeps your documentation simple. Thanks, Narayan (Truist)

[CalvinFold]

@NRYN R - inactive‚, an interesting perspective I hadn't considered, and I'm glad you brought this aspect up.

With this in mind, if WF decides to make all fields, or even the exist Paragraph fields, RTF, then as admins should have the ability to switch off the functionality so users cannot use it based on business needs.

Otherwise, Narayan just made a believer out of me that the existing way RTF fields were implemented, as a separate field type, was the best way to go. Let us always have the option to have text-only data storage for any field.