RELATED IDEAS
Priority limit line on subsequent pages of Prioritization view
Love the new prioritization lines introduced last week. However, they can only be placed on the first page. We have a need to also place them on the subsequent pages, as we have that many features to keep track of. We're hoping to use these to also drive discussions around limiting WIP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- +1
1
MERGED
Allow Priority Lines on Page 2 under the Epic Priority List View
Who would benefit? User What impact would it make? Allow users with more than 50 epics to plan for the entire year and break down into quarters using the Priority Line How should it work? Allow user to create priority lines in Page 2 of the Epics,...
0
Future consideration
© 2025 Aha! Labs Inc.•All rights reserved
I also consider this a bug. For full-company planning events there will be more than 50 items and that is not a wrong or bad thing.
I will do my best to get around it by using a Whiteboard but adding records to a whiteboard is much more cumbersome than the ease in which you can do so in the UX of the prioritization page filtering and searching. It also doesn't force relative ranking so I will have to facilitate that more strongly on my own.
My one immediate ask would be to make this clear in the Aha documentation and maybe a tooltip in-app that prioritization lines are only supported on page 1. I suggest updating the yellow note in the attached screenshot to explicitly mention this bug/limitation. Then users will at least know and not waste time building a list they can't use. Thank you!
Agree with what I read below. We also have a need to delimit certain epics on the second page for better communication and visualization of the border. We considered it a bug until now.
Same for us. We have a backlog of 288 features that we need to delineate and this is causing confusion for existing and new PMs and hurting adoption of the priority lists.
Same for my organization, it was raised to me (the Aha admin) as a bug
Agree with this as I also submitted it as a defect. From the reply, it sounds like it was intentional as you felt as if subsequent pages would have "buried" prioritization lines, but I think that is the responsibility of the user to manage, not the software.