Feature Request

Team, we currently have the ability to export articles in the PDF, and which is fine. However, we want to be able to export in Word .doc or .docx format as well. In the previous tool our team was using, we could export a Word file. It is especially useful when we have to share the doc with the customer offline and they want to have updates made to it in real-time. Our sales staff in collaboration with our doc team can help them edit or update the exported version in real-time. Our tech writing team will then push the updates in Document360 for it to be published with the next release cycle. This way we're letting customers assist us on our tech doc efforts. See the screenshot below. A native capability to "Export to Word" similar to Export to PDF option is the need of the hour.

Currently, when uploading glossary terms, each language must be uploaded separately - meaning I need to create and import an individual CSV file for every language. What I’d like to request is the ability to upload all languages in a single CSV file. In this setup, each row would contain a term and its translations across different languages (for example: English, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, etc.), and the system would automatically link them together as one multilingual term entry. Additionally, if a term is spelled the same in two languages (for example, Plan in English and Plan in Spanish) but has different definitions in each language, the system currently only allows one definition. It would be very helpful if both definitions could coexist under their respective language entries to avoid overwriting or data loss. This improvement would make it much easier to manage large multilingual glossaries and ensure language-specific accuracy.

Ideally a glossary term in an article could also be a link to an article for that term. User would hover over the term and get the glossary definition, then click to open the related article. and/or the link to the related article could be a link in the text of the glossary term. Hover over the glossary term, read the definition, click the link in the definition.

Add an option to add multiple workflow assignees to a workflow stage + add an opportunity to add an article to multiple workflow stages at the same time.

Please add back the ability to link to the header of an accordion or FAQ accordion.

I'd like the ability to set/scope reusable content (snippets, variables, glossary) per category, while also allowing for global/all category reusable content. Scenario: We have different variables and glossary terms that are used in specific areas of our product. These product areas have their own categories in Doc360. I'd like to be able to set these variables and glossary terms to only display in their respective editor drop-downs when the article is in a specific category. This will reduce the clutter of options for other authors in different categories who don't need these specific variables or glossary terms. Reusable content scoped to other categories should still be searchable and usable from within other categories.

We currently have set limits on variables, snippets, glossaries within content, title length, and the number of reusable content items that can be created. These limits need to be adjusted or relaxed.

I would need to create a glossary entry for "Performance+", but the input field doesn't allow the plus character. Any chance of including a wider variety of input?

We’ve been running into several issues that significantly hinder collaboration during content reviews in Doc360: Comment locking: When one user opens the comments in a draft, others are unable to view or respond to any of them — even if they’ve been tagged. This forces us to explicitly tag people every time and ask them to close their view just so others can interact. It disrupts async workflows and slows down the review process. Tagging limitations: In some cases, it’s simply not possible to tag a collaborator, even though they have access to the doc. The reason is unclear and inconsistent, making it hard to rely on tagging as a communication tool. Poor comment anchoring: It's often unclear which piece of content a comment refers to. The UI doesn’t consistently link or highlight the associated text, which makes it difficult to track context — especially in longer articles with multiple threads. Collectively, these issues make collaborative editing and feedback tracking more difficult than it should be. We’d really appreciate improvements in these areas or, at the very least, some clarity on why the system behaves this way.

When you add links to a H4 heading in another article it only goes direct to that heading if H4 is enabled in the contents pane. If H4 is not selected to show in the contents, it will take you to the top of the article when you link rather than to that heading. We would like to not show H4 in the contents pane, but still link to H4 headings and have it go to that heading in the linked article if possible.