Enter your feature requests for Aprimo DAM, or vote for your preferred feature requests below.
Within a PIM you are maintaining product information per product type. One application should be able to handle a product range: handle marketing products, handle food products, handle electronics, handle jewellery. For each product type/ product range you have different fields. Today you need to set the visibility based on the assigned classification. But some products are assigned to multiple classifications and then it becomes tricky in terms of displaying fields. We are at multiple customers who have a serious complex setup in terms of fieldgroups/ classifications and its not flexible enough so constantly demanding work-arounds. This is especially the case when a product hierarchy (main/sub products) is introduced.
Ideally we have the ability to set product templates which could be linked to a classification. This would allow much more flexibility, transparency and ease of use.
PIM should contain check-in / check-out functionality to help users collaborate easier. Now users block each other when they edit the same product in the same time span. Even if these are different roles which are adjusting different fields.
PIM should have some way of indicating that a user is in the process of editing a product. This will prevent a second user from losing his or her work when trying to save.
As long as each group of similar product records in Products (PIMS) are classified under their own "root" level category (with a custom view/edit template configured), there is no problem. Eg. food and non-food view templates.
But it becomes more difficult when you want to organize products under multiple classifications. I want to define classifications for publications or marketing campaigns: e.g. I want to make a classification where I bring different products together in a month folder for the monthly newsletter that is sent out to customers. The business user is forced to create "artificial" subclassifications structures per product group in the publication/campaign folder and make sure that he/she configures the exact same view/edit templates on them as in the main classification.
Otherwise, a search result results in different view/edit templates shown arbitrary per record When no explicit view template is set in the campaign classification, this will be the default PIMS view template. And a search result will sometimes use my "Food" template and sometimes use the "Default" template.
My suggestion is to have the ability to add a 'priority' in templates (Food template is preferred above default template) or better to have a kind of "entity type" on record level (e.g. set by a rule on classification) and have a configuration to map 'entity' type onto view template.
Another acceptable solution would be that you can have classification with an 'empty' view/edit template. The rendering could then fall back to another classifications template.
For a customer, Delaware consulting was requested to create a fields panel that would show some fields, but would hide other fields (If you want I can provide the reason why).
To do that, I hoped to extend the FieldsPanel with a property "HiddenFields". I created a class CustomFieldsPanel and overwrote OnInit to change the property CategoriesGenerator of the panel's FieldGridView. To make the HiddenFields property configurable via xml, I also overwrote the Read method.
Unfortuneatly, all PIMS panels inherit UserControl. Making it impossible for me to inherit FieldsPanel (or any other panel).
I still needed the HiddenFields property on the panel, so I opened up DotPeek and started copying all code from the FieldsPanel in to my own CustomFieldsPanel class.
Although this works perfectly, as a partner developer, I wasted a lot of time copy pasting from DotPeek. Obfuscating the code of your dll also doesn't help. Not only that, but if at some point you find a bug in the FieldPanel or add some feature or ... I have to go back to DotPeek and search for whatever code you added or removed an copy the behavior back into my code.
To make matters worse, the FieldsPanel uses the internal class BinderControlHelper. So I ended up copying that class as well.
Another example of overriding a panel is the ProductClassificationsPanel. All I wanted to do was not show the "Manage classifications..." button. But ended up copying a class of 300+ lines of code. Copying other panels was also considered, but we didn't do it because of the copy/paste risk. Instead we created simpler controls using and overriding Adam.Web controls.
I had the same problem when creating a custom ViewControl. Since I started creating the custom ViewControl in PIMS 3.x and had to upgrade to Products 4, I had to write the class twice because the styling and the HTML of a ViewControl was completly changed.
To finish here's my feature request. I would like to see all PIMS panels inherit Control instead of UserControl. In addition to that, I would also like you to do the same for ViewControl (inheriting from Control instead of UserControl).
That way partners can override existing panels and add small features. This would lower the cost of custom code, making ADAM customers very happy.
When uploading products/aspects via the Products upload manager, Products will add a file to a record and will stop the process the moment validation error occur. Currently Products doesn't have a UI for custom validation errors at this point and will just return that validation failed with a generic message.
Some of our users would like to use the list view as standard view in the Products studio. In Support Request #7169 you indicate this is not yet possible. We would really like to see that in the (near) future, because some users will always use the list view for their activities.
Please keep us updated. Thanks in advance!
KR Fedde Burgers
Only the PIMS_DefaultCategoryContentViewTemplate can be used to customize the list view in a category.
therefore, it would be desirable to have this configurable per category (can now only be done for the form view).
References are a very nice feature when ADAM is presented. But the customer gets disappointed when it becomes clear that those references can not be used in html fields.
Eg. In Adam Products, product specifications are usually entered in separate fields (eg. to be used as filters)
Addtionaliy, one could add a description field 'Spec Summary' to summarize some of the most relevant specifications in a short text. The text can contain several references then. It is then more easy to just use this single field in print or on the website.
The value of the field 'spec summary' could then look like:
Summary of Specifications:
- One of our most popular products!
- Height = <ref:record fieldName="Height" out="value"/>
- Width = <ref:record fieldName="Width" out="value"/>
- Color = <ref:record fieldName="Color" out="value"/>
Unfortunately, Adam does not allow to use references in a html field. In my opinion, the real strength of field references would exist in being able to use them in rich text fields. Is there any chance to have such functionality available in the near future?
Options on product metadata fields can vary depending the context or the type of the article. Dynamic Option List Field is a solution. However Products doesn't support this adam core fieldtype. Is there any reason why this isn't supported ?
TestDynamic : This type of field is currently not supported
Users usually work in one catalog at a time. Meaning that when they are searching for products, they only want products from that one catalog.
It would be great if you guys would introduce spaces in Products and would also add a Catalog space.
Customer support service by UserEcho