Adobe AD0-E906 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 3

To create watermarked renditions for only some of the assets in AEM, the best approach is to create a new workflow model that includes the Add Watermark process. This new workflow can be selectively applied to specific assets as needed, rather than modifying the global DAM Update Asset workflow which would affect all assets.

Selective application: By creating a custom workflow model, users can choose which assets will go through the watermarking process, providing more control and preventing unnecessary watermarking of all assets.

Option B and C suggest modifying the existing DAM Update Asset workflow, which could result in watermarking all assets, not just the desired ones, and is not flexible for specific asset selection.

Refer to AEM's workflow documentation for more information on creating custom workflows and adding watermark processes.

In this scenario, the company wants only one department to use a custom metadata schema with a 'verifiedBy' user picker field for image assets. The best approach is to:

Create a new metadata schema for the specific department.

Extend the Coral UI Component to create a custom user picker field, which will allow the department to select users from the list of available users in the system.

Option A suggests modifying the default image metadata schema, which could impact all departments, and Option B involves manually adding users to a dropdown, which is not as efficient as using a user picker field.

Refer to AEM documentation on creating custom metadata schemas and extending Coral UI components for more information.

The issue of the custom field not displaying correctly on a component is likely because the namespace 'myProject' is not registered in AEM. AEM requires that custom namespaces be registered before they can be used for storing metadata properties. Without registering the myProject namespace, the system cannot properly recognize the custom property, leading to issues displaying the value.

Namespace registration: Custom namespaces like myProject need to be defined in AEM before they can be used to store properties.

Option A is incorrect because the text field should accept special characters, and Option B is incorrect unless there is already a conflicting property name, which is not indicated in this scenario.

Refer to AEM documentation on namespace registration for steps on how to register a custom namespace in AEM.

When a new metadata profile is applied to a folder in AEM, it only affects new assets added to that folder after the profile is applied. Existing assets that were already in the folder or subfolders prior to the profile being assigned will retain the metadata profile that was previously applied.

To update the metadata of existing assets with the new profile, you would need to either manually update the assets or run a script to reapply the metadata profile to those assets.

Option B is incorrect because the profile applies to all assets in the folder, not just direct children. Option C is incorrect because if there were invalid field values, you would likely see an error or warning, rather than a silent failure.

For more details, refer to AEM's documentation on managing and applying metadata profiles.

In this scenario, the proofing workflow needs two stages:

Stage 1: This stage routes the proof to the creative director upon proof creation. By selecting 'do not allow this stage to be deleted,' the workflow ensures that the creative director must always review the proof before it is sent to stakeholders. This ensures consistency in the review process and makes sure the creative director is always involved.

Stage 2: This stage activates when all decisions are made on the parent stage (i.e., the creative director's approval). Additionally, since the creative agency only requires one decision from each company, the 'only one decision required' setting is appropriate to speed up the process while ensuring the necessary approvals are gathered.

Option B is incorrect because setting the stage as private may hinder collaboration, and Option C suggests waiting until all decisions are approved, which is not necessary in this scenario.

Refer to Workfront documentation on proofing workflows for details on setting up multi-stage approval processes.

For a workflow where a task assignee must upload a document, have it reviewed and marked up with annotations, and then have it approved by the director and customer, the best option is to upload the document with a proofing approval workflow attached. Proofing workflows allow for:

Annotations: Reviewers can mark up the document with comments and annotations.

Approvals: Once the document is reviewed, it can go through the necessary approval stages, including the director and customer.

Option A (using approvals under document details) does not allow for the same level of markup and annotation as a proofing workflow. Option C (uploading to a subtask) is not an ideal way to manage the review and approval process with annotations.

Refer to Workfront's proofing documentation for more information on setting up proofing workflows with annotations and approvals.

For a multi-faceted holiday promotion involving several teams and unique workflows, the best way to track the associated assets is to:

Establish the holiday promotion as a Program: This allows all related projects, each corresponding to a specific marketing platform (e.g., social media, email), to be grouped under a single program for easy tracking.

Associate each project with the Program: This ensures that all related assets and workflows are linked to the holiday promotion and can be reported on collectively.

Create a Project-level Custom Form Field: This will capture specific details related to the holiday promotion for each project, allowing for more tailored reporting.

Create a Project Report filtered to the holiday promotion: This report will enable leadership and stakeholders to track the progress of all assets related to the promotion and ensure on-time delivery.

Option A involves creating a Program for each platform, which adds unnecessary complexity. Option B is similar but lacks the specific tracking of custom fields at the project level.

Refer to Workfront's documentation on managing Programs and custom forms for details on setting up and reporting on large campaigns.

In this scenario, the reviewer needs to leave comments on an interactive web content URL and tag the designer. The Web Proofing viewer is the appropriate tool for reviewing interactive web content in Adobe Workfront. The Web Proofing viewer allows users to:

Review and comment on web-based content directly in the browser.

Tag users in comments and updates.

Approve or reject the content with the necessary feedback.

Option A (Desktop Proofing viewer) is typically used for offline or downloadable content, and Option C (Legacy Proofing viewer) refers to an outdated tool that lacks modern proofing functionalities.

Refer to Workfront's proofing documentation for more information on using the Web Proofing viewer for interactive content.

The best practice for managing metadata in this case is to:

Create a document custom form: This form will capture the essential metadata details for the asset, such as title, description, and other key attributes, ensuring that the metadata is structured and managed correctly from the start.

Map the custom form fields along with project details: By mapping this information from Workfront to AEM, the metadata is automatically synchronized, reducing manual work and ensuring consistency across both systems.

Option B, which involves not creating custom forms, would likely lead to the same lack of metadata management as before. Option C suggests creating a project custom form, which is less relevant for capturing specific asset metadata.

Refer to Adobe Workfront Enhanced Connector documentation for more on best practices around metadata management and custom forms.