Website link attachments useless?

I've finally gotten around to trying the attach website link feature and it seems utterly useless, as it won't allow me to attach links to pages on our staging server, only our public-facing production server. It returns the error "Website can't be accessed" when I use a private URL from our staging server. As a proofing tool, it doesn't help me to review pages that are already on the production server. 

Is anyone else having this problem? Is there anything that I can do force Wrike to let me enter the URL of my choice, even if it wrongly thinks there's no page there? 

1
8 comments
Spot On Innovative Approach Stellar Advice
Avatar
Hugh

Hi Glen Turpin,

It currently is not possible to access HTML links on private servers through Proofing. However, the Product team are working on adding this feature to Wrike. As soon as I have more information, I'll be sure to let you know.

0
Comment actions Permalink
Spot On Innovative Approach Stellar Advice
Avatar

Thanks for the response, @.... What's vexing about that is that (a) proofing often (usually?) happens on private servers, so a proofing feature that doesn't support that seems like it misunderstands a common proofing workflow, and (b) you had to make an effort to check and disallow links on private servers.

0
Comment actions Permalink
Spot On Innovative Approach Stellar Advice
Avatar
Hugh

Thank you for the additional feedback, Glen Turpin! No update here at the moment - I'll keep you posted.

0
Comment actions Permalink
Spot On Innovative Approach Stellar Advice
Avatar

I totally agree here - our production sites aren't HTTPS and the website review tool only allows HTTPS :(

1
Comment actions Permalink
Spot On Innovative Approach Stellar Advice
Avatar

Same issue here as Glen notes above - when all of our proofing is done in Wrike, but we're unable to follow the same process for website projects we are left teaching/learning a process for certain projects one way and web projects another. This throws a huge wrench in our process and leaves us to find less-efficient work-arounds.

0
Comment actions Permalink
Spot On Innovative Approach Stellar Advice
Avatar

Emily Hopkins Our current workaround is to send the task for approval and put the URL of the staged page in the approval comment. Wrike users comments go on the task and "guest reviewers" reply by email. (They're not real Wrike guest reviewers because there's no attachment for them to review.) It's not great, but it's the best workaround we've found for now. 

0
Comment actions Permalink
Spot On Innovative Approach Stellar Advice
Avatar

Thanks for sharing Glen Turpin. I was considering attaching screenshots to allow for the visual element, but that still requires image editing to get a full webpage into a single PNG file - again, not ideal. 

0
Comment actions Permalink
Spot On Innovative Approach Stellar Advice
Avatar

Emily Hopkins We recently adopted Edge as our default browser. It has a built-in screen capture tool that does full-screen images. My preliminary test of generating a full screen image, copying and pasting that into a task comment looks promising but I haven't tried it in production yet. Might be worth exploring. 

0
Comment actions Permalink

Folllowing List for Post: Website link attachments useless?
[this list is visible for admins and agents only]

Top
Didn’t find what you were looking for? Write new post