JMP Wish List

What inspired this wish list request?  As a reliability engineer, I frequently use the Life Distribution platform for its distribution plotting and fitting capabilities.  These plots are important not only for internal topics but also for critical customer communications.  Unfortunately, the method of plotting data points in this platform changed in JMP 17 in a way that is less desirable.   These plots are often used to demonstrate the quality of fit of a distribution model to data.  Such demonstrations can be crucial in obtaining acceptance.  The Kaplan-Meier / Turnbull estimates used in JMP 16 were appropriate for this, as a good MLE distribution fit often came close to the estimates.  For example, see the Weibull MLE fits below (same data table, different versions).  Both MLE Weibull fits are identical, however JMP 17 points are significantly below the fit.  This change to the default behavior is troubling - now I must question which version of JMP was used when reviewing plots.   JMP 16 – “great fit!” JMP 17 – “not such a great fit?”  (same fit!) In JMP 17 the user can select Points (black, default) / Step Function (red) / Both / None.  Both selected below: However there are a some issues with this: User has no customization options for the red markers (which are what should be default).  Need ability to adjust color, marker, size, etc. just like regular markers. Buggy behavior: selecting Step Function does not work when going from one of the other options.  It works when the platform is first launched if selected as platform default in preferences, however when toggling from Points back to Step Function it once again shows nothing.  Even if selected as default in preferences, once the “Nonparametric” distribution is deselected the red markers disappear and can only be recalled if “Both” selected.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  The default point positions should be the “step function” points (Kaplan-Meier / Turnbull estimates) to be consistent with previous versions.  It would still be nice to be able to select midpoints, however each option should have full marker customizability.      Why is this idea important?  These plots are often used to demonstrate the quality of fit of a maximum likelihood distribution model to data.  Such demonstrations can be crucial in obtaining acceptance.  The previous default Kaplan-Meier / Turnbull estimates were appropriate for this, as a good MLE distribution fit often came close to the estimates.  Deviating from this now with JMP 17 causes confusion and is inconsistent with previous versions.       ... View more

☐ cool new feature ☐ could help many users! ☐ removes a „bug“ ☑ nice to have ☐ nobody needs it   What inspired this wish list request?  I want to clean up a data table with a few hundred columns. A few columns are used in formulas and have to be replaced by new columns. The remaining columns can be deleted. When deleting the old columns, it is difficult to identify the columns which are used in column formulas.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  1) Please display a symbol next to columns that are used in Formulas.   2) Please provide a functionality to generate a formula lookup map. a) The map should list all formula columns with the columns used in the respective formula. b) In addition the Window should provide a list of all columns which are used in any Formula column.   e.g.    ratio = height / weight myequation= (height - weight)^sex   a) - ratio: height, weight - myequation: height, weight , sex   b)  - height - weight - sex   Part a) is useful to get an overview and to work on specific formulas,  Part b) is useful for batch-replace:  A right click menu should be available which allows to replace the specific column in ALL column formulas with a replacement column.   Why is this idea important?  Will help to edit column formulas after changes of the input column names.   more wishes by   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? While using the summary table, I have to find work arounds for interacting with the raw data table with selections that area easy to make in the PS summary table.  For example, if I wanted to just select the columns that have out of spec conditions there is no easy way to do that.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  Add the ability in the red arrow drop down to select the columns in the associated data table from the highlighted "Column" rows in the PS summary table  In the select where options in the red triangle , add in "not missing" or add in an "Invert selection" option Add in the ability to lock the highlighted "Column" rows so that if you change anything on a local data filter, the same "Column" rows will remained highlighted after the filtering is finished.  Right now it moves around (and I not sure what logic it uses) Add in the options for "Process Screener" under the red arrow options of "Launch for Selected".  This goes along with second item above (the item above is how you would selection items when you then want to use the red arrow option of "Remove Selected Items", this suggestion allows you to remove unselected items) When the sorting order of the PS summary table is changed, have the "Charts as selected" and "Charts for selected" order update to match the new order. Allow selecting rows in the data table with out of spec and/or Alarms to be selected vis a red arrow button for the highlighted "Column" rows in the PS Summary table. On the "Charts as selected" and "Charts for selected" have preferences for the Control limits and Spec limit formatting that are platform specific Be able to sort the PS summary table by more than one column Have the ability so that on "Charts as selected" the axis settings will not get updated for the X axis as you select other "Column" rows     Why is this idea important? This will improve the user efficiency and experience as well as allow better presentation and exploring of the outputs from the platform.    Thanks for considering Steve   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? While using the Power Explorer platform, I find myself having to jump back and forth between different input boxes as I try and examine different operation conditions due to the fact that few of the boxes can be locked.  This makes for a frustrating and ineffective user experience.  Also, there are some one and two sample test I'd like to do power analysis for an equivalence test but there is currently no option.     What is the improvement you would like to see? Add Power to the "Solve for" drop down options Add Margin of Error to the "Solve for" drop down options Only allow what has been selected in the "Solve for" drop down  to change as the other input boxes are updated Add the ability to lock the ratio between G1 and G2 sample sizes For Sample Counts per Unit, change the "Assumed Ratio of Group Counts per Unit" inputs to a single input of the ratio of group 1 to group 2 defect counts per unit. Add in one and two sample Equivalence test for Proportions and Counts     Why is this idea important? The Power Explorer platform is a key platform but is hard to use and less intuitive than the Minitab equivalent(though it does have more and better capability!).   Thanks for considering this! Steve   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? Writing scripts and finally this post How to supress script dump in log upon closing a chart?    What is the improvement you would like to see? 1. Message / argument to prevent report snapshot from single report I would like to see a message we can use to prevent a platform from being recorded when it is being closed which we could use when scripting. The message could be something similar as the preference we have   << Report Snapshot On Close(0) and of course it should be possible to use this as an argument in JMP Platforms.     2. A function which would change how snapshot behaves in current script Being able to disable all snapshots created from a script could also be useful. The setting could work in similar manner as Names Default To Here(1); and maybe it could be called something like   Disable Snapshot On Close(1);     Why is this idea important?  When writing and using custom scripts it can get quite annoying when your log is being spammed with report snapshots. This can be already prevented by modifying preferences but I would like to keep preferences as they are as I like that snapshots are saved when I'm using JMP interactively and just prevent these snapshots from my scripts. There is also at least one workaround which works from time to time but this is very clunky to start adding to every report Names Default To Here(1); dt = open("$SAMPLE_DATA/Big Class.jmp"); nw = New Window("", gb = dt << Graph Builder( Variables(X(:weight), Y(:height), Overlay(:sex)), Elements(Points(X, Y, Legend(9)), Line Of Fit(X, Y, Legend(11))) )); nw << on close( gb << close window; );   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Plots look better if we right click > Customize... and order Grid Lines so they are drawn first.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  Change so that grid lines are drawn first (in background) automatically.     Why is this idea important?  Not critical, just helpful to make plots look better without extra manual steps.   ... View more

Hi.  I would like to have the ability to set the USL equal to the LSL.  I'm currently using JMP Pro 17.2.0.  If I try to set the limits equal to each other in the Column Properties window, I get an error "USL must be greater than LSL and the target".  Similar error if I try it using the Manage Limits platform.   Please see this thread for original discussion: https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Setting-Spec-Limits-with-USL-LSL/m-p/717822#M89952    What inspired this wish list request?  If I try to set limits equal to each other in the Column Properties window or Manage Limits platform, I get an error.  I can programmatically set the limits to be equal using the << Set Property message, but I cannot read them back using Manage Limits.  This script helps to illustrate:   Names Default to Here(1); dt = Open("$SAMPLE_DATA/Big Class.jmp"); dt:Height << Set Property("Spec Limits", USL(1), LSL(1)); //I can set USL=LSL in a script //I can confirm they've been set by manually opening the Column Properties window. //At some later date I need to reopen the table and get the limits to evaluate yield: msl = dt << Manage Limits(Process Variables(:Height)); //The limits are now missing. dtlim = msl << Save to Tall Limits Table; Sometimes I also see a small window popup saying something to the effect of "Inconsistent Limits" with all the offending columns listed, but I haven't figured out yet how to reproduce this.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  I would like the ability to set limits equal to each other in the Column Properties and Manage Limits windows.  I want to continue preventing USL < LSL though.   Why is this idea important?  Our data contains 1000s of columns.  Some (but not all) columns represent codes (integers), where only one value means "ok" and all others indicate a different type of failure.  For example, a "1" is passing, a "0" = did not test, and values 2 or greater indicate some other error.  We wish to compute yields and other analyses on these data using scripts.  But we're finding that these columns where USL=LSL are not getting checked because when the script reads back the limits using Manage Limits, they're missing.     Things we've considered:  1. Set the limits to (x-0.1, x+0.1) instead of (x,x).  Cannot do bc that would require modifying hundreds of limits multiplied by several manufacturing steps multiplied by several programs, and would affect many other orgs in our company. 2. Set just the LSL for these columns, leaving the USL missing.  Then, in our yield analysis script, add a clause that checks the column name against a list of columns whose values are "coded", and if matching, just check if the value matches the LSL instead of checking if the value lies between LSL-USL.  Problematic bc it would require us to hardcode which columns need to be checked one way vs another within the script, constantly updating scripts as the list of names changes throughout development.  Plus, there would have to be separate lists maintained for each manufacturing step and each program, as they don't share the same tests.  Also problematic bc others are using different analysis scripts on the data, that may not be aware if we have deleted the USL and kept only the LSL. 3. Set the limits programmatically as in the script above.  Then when we wish to read them back from the data table at a later date, use the << Get Property message instead of the Manage Limits.  I'm still working on a script to try this, but I already have misgivings about this tact.  First, it would need a For loop to read and parse each column's specs, which might take awhile for 10k+ columns.  Second, I'm having difficulty parsing out the limits from the << Get Property("Spec Limits") message.  (1) It just returns USL(1) (no quotes) and it's unclear to me how to extract the number from this.  (2) it does not seem to return the LSL, even though I confirmed in the Column Properties window that it was also set to 1.  The script below illustrates: Names Default to Here(1); dt = Open("$SAMPLE_DATA/Big Class.jmp"); dt:Height << Set Property("Spec Limits", USL(1), LSL(1)); //confirm limits set in col props window. specs = dt:Height << Get Property( "Spec Limits" ); //returns USL(1) only lsl = specs["LSL"]; //returns . usl = specs["USL"]; //returns .   Apologies in advance if there are other obvious solutions I haven't thought of (or forgot to mention).  Also apologies if I've glossed over some crucial detail.  I've been working on this for awhile now, so I'm pretty deep in the weeds.     Thanks for considering.       ... View more

☑ cool new feature ☑ could help many users! ☑ removes something that feels like a „bug“ ☐ nice to have ☐ nobody needs it   What inspired this wish list request?  Some functions in Jmp take a very long time to get finished. There is a request toSpeed up Tables/Update , because it can take hours to be executed. "Get rows where" is taking way to long  Another issue: Life Distribution. Depending on the size of the data table, the user has to wait for hours: https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/how-to-make-cumulative-probability-plots-in-JMP/m-p/717879/highlight/true#M89957 another application case: Database queries. They can be executed in the background. But then the query cannot be included in a script. The next part of the script has to wait for the data to arrive. Would be great if there was an option to interrupt the query if it takes too long.   For all these cases, it could help to cancel the activity after a specified Timeout interval:   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Option: For Try(), please add a possibility to specify a timeout interval. If the execution of the code takes longer, the script is stopped and the table is reverted to the initial state.Timeout of the try function   Please add a timeout parameter in the preferences. if the user specifies a timeout of 10 minutes, If starting a platform or executing an action takes longer than 10 minutes, the execution is stopped. For actions which alter the data table, the table is restored to the point before starting executing the action. This should be possible because most actions in Jmp have an undo function. I guess a recovery point is stored before starting the action?   Why is this idea important?  There is a Wish from 2020 with 79 Kudos:Kill process without killing JMP ! So, it seems that there is an extreme demand here, but it also seems to be extremely complicated to fulfill the users' wish.   The Timeout concept could be an easy solution. Every user will accept to wait 10 minutes (and get a coffee - or two) instead of losing the results of many hours because an action in Jmp takes orders of magnitude longer than the user expected. more wishes by ... View more

☐ cool new feature ☐ could help many users! ☐ removes a „bug“ ☑ nice to have ☐ nobody needs it   What inspired this wish list request?  When reshape the appearance of existing report, the Horizontal 0/1 option helps a lot: The horizontal option is not only available for ListBoxes, but also for oher DisplayBoxes, e.g. ColumnSwitcherContextBoxes. Do I want the Column Switcher on the left or on the top? -> just enable or disable the Horizontal option :)   For Lineup Boxes it's similar:  Just send <<NCol(N) to a lineup Box and the items will be aligned horizontally instead of vertically (if the setting before was NCol(1))   You can imagine what comes next? How do I get the Column Switcher below the graph or to the right?   What is the improvement you would like to see?  option 1) For DisplayBoxes which can contain multiple sub-items, please provide an option Reverse 0/1 to specify if the items appear 1->N inside the report or in the reverse order.   option 2)  please provide a functionality to specify the precise order of the sub-items. Maybe even with the possibility to specify a different number M of items to display - for a Display Box with originally N available items. *) <<order({x,y,z}) where the user can specify the number of the sub-item that should appear at position x, the item that should appear at position y and so on. e.g. with the option order ({1,1,1}), the first sub-item of the Listbox should appear 3 times (making sense or not).     *) I think it's easier to be open here than to throw an error if M=N and if a specific item is listed multiple times.     Why is this idea important?  More flexibility when re-formatting a report window that already exists. Giving more flexibility for the placement of e.g. Column Switcher menus.   more wishes by ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? I tried Alt+clicking function from scripting index, so I could quickly get to specific category but immediately saw that it didn't work like.   What is the improvement you would like to see? I would like like that scripting index would highlight/go to first category when I select item, from non-filtered list of items, which isn't All Functions.   If I have for example simple script like this Names Default To Here(1); Expr() and I would access the category in which Expr is, easiest option would be to open scripting index, write Expr to filter, select Expr from the filtered item list, select Expression from category and finally clear expr from filter.    How I would hope it would work, is that when I click Expr (from non filtered Item list) or alt+click from scripting index, I would immediately be brought to scripting index which has Expression category selected with my desired item also selected (Filter could also be filled, but that should be Preference). Currently I will have All Categories selected and I will have to browse through to find next highlighted category.   Why is this idea important? Makes using scripting index more intuitive and faster. ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?      What is the improvement you would like to see?      Why is this idea important?      ... View more

☐ cool new feature ☐ could help many users! ☐ removes a „bug“ ☑ nice to have ☐ nobody needs it     What inspired this wish list request?  It's great that there is a list of "builtin" presets in the Format Pattern dialog. Unfortunately, some of our files use  2-3 additional formats which are not in the list.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Please provide an option to store the current pattern to  "user defined" in the list of presets.   Why is this idea important?  Once a user encountered a format pattern that is not in the list  it is very likely that he will see it again and again - especially when loading the same type of data. Then it could help a lot if the user could specify the special patterns on the first encounter and all the other times: just pick the stored pattern from the list. more wishes by   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  I want to automate the saving of Animated GIF for my dashboard. Currently, I can click the animation control to play, record & save as animated GIF by using hand. Log and workbuilder did not record the steps done with animation control (i.e Run > Record > Save as GIF).   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Record step taken in animation control in Log & Workbuilder. https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/How-to-save-Dashboard-to-run-animation-gif-through-JSL/m-p/716958#M89863    Why is this idea important?  Currently, 2 weeks to get the correct JSL syntax, just to be able to "Click" play button in the animation control . Save time (since user would never guess "Run", "Go", "Set", "Click" actually are used differently in JSL).   Thank you ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Preview for functions under the Tables menu is very useful to check the correct manipulations have been performed.  However, the generation of the preview table can take considerable time if the data tables involved are large.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Preference setting to allow for the table preview and table preview auto refresh to be disabled by default.   Why is this idea important?  Saves processing time for the user.   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? I have a table that is already sorted in a specific manner and I can't resort it. I need to do a Column Statistic, but not a standard statistic. I can build JSL in the column formula to go through the whole table to create a matrix "by" the categories of interest, but for this larger table, the JSL layer would be pretty slow and inefficient. JMPs canned columns statistics already gather these matricies - and quite fast - so I would like to leverage that.     What is the improvement you would like to see? I would like to see a column function that is more generic... so like ColMean(column, by1, by2, by3) returns the mean of a matrix of values by 'by1', 'by2' and 'by3' .... I would like a function that just returns the matrix of values prior to any math being done.     Why is this idea important?  As mentioned in the first section, coding this in the column formula would be very inefficient. Coding this in a separate script (a table script, perhaps) could be faster, but then not as 'live' as a formula in a column. With JMPs base infrastructure already existing, being able to leverage it further would be ideal.     ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  While crosshair tool is useful to read the approximate values around the curves it would be good to snap on a smoother-ed curve that is closest to the crosshair.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Snap feature on the graph.   Why is this idea important?  This will enable quicker and more accurate look at the curve values compared to going into the table.   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Simplicity and efficiency of process screening platform compared to measurement system analysis.   In my earlier positions I was used to running measurement system analysis using more or less complicated macros (minitab) or more or less complicated scripts (jmp). JMP does offer easy way run MSA but to get usable report you have to do more work and if you wish to analyse results further, it is even more work.    What is the improvement you would like to see? I would like to have MSA platform which is similar to Process Screening. User would determine on launch of the platform what to calculate and how to get limits (use limits table/use limit columns in same table/use column properties) and so on... Then when user presses OK, it will create similar table as we can see in Process Screening, lots of information, fairly easy to sort, we can select rows and perform extra actions, we can add more columns to result table and so on...    Why is this idea important? Makes the calculation of MSA / gage easier for multiple parameters and makes analysing results from that single result table possible.       I can provide some ideas and mock-ups what could be included but it will take me multiple hours of work so I would rather first hear is there any point in this request. ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? In other stat packages I have used I can get 95% confidence intervals for various MSA outputs, such as % tolerance, StDev, 6xSD, and % Study Variation.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  I would like to see the option of showing 95% confidence intervals for the following outputs: Both EMP and Variation Platforms: All possible output columns need CI's Variation Platform: Variance and % of Total need CI's, EMP: % of total only as Var Component is there already.          Why is this idea important? CI are important for MSA studies as they help an investigator know if there is enough data in the study to be a useful result.  I've seen people get a % tolerance of 25% and pat themselves on the back but the CI's are basically from 9% to 95% so you really have no confidence with the amount of data you collected.   JMP 17.2 Pro ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? We are working a lot with Tables menu (join, update, concatenate...) and we need to write some jsl to do what we have to do and we are thinking that performances will be better if these features could be jmp natives.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  Update (data type): when we want to update table01 with table02 data, we have to check the data type. If the targeted column on table01 is defined as  numeric, this one can not be update if source column of table02 is defined as character. Update (insert new row) : Could it be possible to add an option in the update plateform to have a way to make a concatenate operation only on rows thats are in the table02 but not in table01 (based on matching column key).     Why is this idea important?  time saving better performance easier data handling operation   Thanks Guillaume   ... View more