JMP Wish List

Hi JMP Team and Community !   Here is a wish for DoE based on covariates from different tables (I'm using JMP Pro 17).   What inspired this wish list request?  Design of Experiments based on covariates factors from two tables - JMP User Community I have faced a difficult situation to setup a DoE with 5 covariates : 2 covariates, from a table A, are predicted physico-chemical properties of formulations (thanks to the model of a first DoE), 3 covariates, independent from the first ones, from a table B, are characteristics of different packagings.   I wanted to create a model (screening main effects and interactions, some set as "if possible" and other "necessary" with 30 runs) with these 5 covariates to evaluate relationships and interactions between formulation covariates and packaging characteristics on the response, but when I use "Custom Design" and want to add covariates, I only have the option to add covariates from the table on which I create a Custom DoE (table A OR table B). @SDF1 suggested to select the top level data table before adding the covariate term, which indeed works, but is not satisfactory for me regarding my settings : Covariates Ax and Bx should be independent from each other, which is not the case anymore with this technique (since JMP seems to do an outer join based on the biggest table (or inner join) with rowID as the join option),   When doing the design, due to the joining done on the two tables, not all combinations are explored (covariates from A don't meet all conditions with covariates from B), and I have a poorly efficient design : Script of the design: DOE( Custom Design, {Add Response( Maximize, "Y", ., ., . ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate A1, 0 ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate A2, 0 ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate B1, 0 ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate B2, 0 ), Add Factor( Covariate, Covariate B3, 0 ), Set Random Seed( 695832949 ), Number of Starts( 3479 ), Add Term( {1, 0} ), Add Term( {1, 1} ), Add Term( {2, 1} ), Add Term( {3, 1} ), Add Term( {4, 1} ), Add Term( {5, 1} ), Add Term( {1, 1}, {2, 1} ), Add Term( {1, 1}, {3, 1} ), Add Term( {1, 1}, {4, 1} ), Add Term( {1, 1}, {5, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {2, 1}, {3, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {2, 1}, {4, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {2, 1}, {5, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {3, 1}, {4, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {3, 1}, {5, 1} ), Add Potential Term( {4, 1}, {5, 1} ), Set Sample Size( 30 ), Simulate Responses( 0 ), Save X Matrix( 0 ), Make Design} ); Power analysis :    Since then, I have found an "external" solution by creating a new table with all covariates from the two tables, and so create all possible combinations A/B of the 2 factors from table A with 3 factors from table B thanks to a low-code tool and some looping. When creating the custom design on this table, I find a more satisfactory design :   I joined the different tables  for testing (not the same as for my topic for confidentiality reason, but tried my best to have a mock-up for illustrating the situation).   What is the improvement you would like to see?  It would be great if there was a solution where JMP would : Ask us to choose the table on which the covariates are located (in case of separate tables containing covariates), Be able to store the data in memory and give us the possibility to do all the combinations in the background when building the design based on two covariates tables. Perhaps an option to check "independent covariates" ?    Why is this idea important?  The Custom design is an excellent tool to deal with covariates and create optimal designs tailored to specific situations. This upgrade would make the tool even more powerful and adaptive, as it would be able to create designs with covariates from different tables and suggest adequate designs.     I hope my wish is clear, if not, don't hesitate to comment or come back to me, Thanks a lot in advance ! ... View more

JMP's text explorer platform is wondeful for pre-processing text, however, it would be great if JMP Pro included a "term map" option where users could click and expand to see additional terms associated with the selected term of interest (i.e. visualization). For example, if I wanted to see the top five terms associated with the term "visualization" for articles in a corpus, by clicking on the "visualization" term it would expand to a selected default (i.e. 5) amount of additional terms (e.g. "scientific", "volume", "interactive", information" and "reference"), thus providing a term map for greater exploration of nuances in text data. Additionally, useful summary statistics could potentially include how many documents/observations in the corpus include the term. I have attached an example of what I am referring to.   ... View more

Currently we have the ability to Group Columns and Group Scripts.  This is really helpful to keep large data tables organized and reduce clutter.  It would be nice if we could also Group Table Variables.   I have about 20 table variables and they are always shown at the top of the scripts panel.  I cannot move them down and I cannot group them.  When I first open my table, I always have to scroll past the table variables to reach my scripts.  I want to be able to group them so they are out of the way. ... View more

From time to time I come across situation where I would like to quickly check if two columns have exactly same results in rows. I usually do this by writing new column with :COL1 == COL2 for example. It would be nice to have this as an New Formula option in right click menu (and hopefully support more than 2 columns). ... View more

It would be great if Distribution and Quantile Profilers in the Reliability Platform optionally showed Likelihood Intervals instead of Wald Intervals.   As Likelihood Intervals tend to be more precise than Wald Intervals, we prefer Likelihood Intervals in Custom Estimation. When accompanying these estimations by Distribution/Quantile Profilers, however, it can get confusing when the intervals used in graphs don't reflect the custom estimations.   Ideally, Profilers could also optionally show one-sided intervals instead of two-sided ones.   Below is an example created with the JMP Sample Locomotive Data where except for the first 5 Failes all other observations were set to "Censored". ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  Past personal need and experience with colleagues who are implementing partial signal analysis algorithms to analyze data.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  Signal processing functions for standard results found in pythons scipy, including filters(digital & analog), FFT (spectrum), noise, convolution, correlations, transformations, peak analysis, SNR, THD, and vibration analysis. If possible I would go further and add functions for simulating signals as well, this would also be great for teaching and well as synthesizing signals for specific needs with good control and intuitively.    Why is this idea important?  I believe one of JMP's major strengths is the low entry level that it allows of it's users to be able to do complex tasks quickly while assure it's integrity and also assist users in gaining a deep understanding of processes.  I feel the area of signal processing lacks this immensely and feel that the folks at JMP can contribute greatly to this field.  This is a major field with increasing traction and I believe this would align well with JMP's renewed emphasis for targeting academia.      ... View more

Add functionality to use << Set Focus with different interactive display elements (Text Edit Box, Button, Num Edit Box...) (or create new function <<Set Active or similar). This would help when creating user interfaces to reduce time when using them and remove the need to click around or press tab to get to correct element.   With barcode scanners: Similar suggestion has been earlier created based on this Set focus on text edit box , suggestion: Set (next) focus on TextEditBox    Easier default selection for modals: Default button selection/highlight in modal window    Returning to TextEditBox after pressing button: Set focus of display tree (new window) to text edit box    And in my current application I have a window with TextEditBox used to filter out datatables. I would like the TextEditBox be selected when you open the window as now user has to first click the Text Edit Box to get it active (or I would have to create a workaround).   These can be handled already with different workarounds but I think it should be added as a functionality directly to JMP. ... View more

Currently the sign function does not seem to be available in JMP while several similar functions are (like Floor, Modulo etc.) It should be easy to do. and there seems to be need. ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  My companies' process control groups are increasingly using the Process Screening platform and the alarm rate is becoming a key metric for us.  Also, we are using three-way chart more and more, and it is just as important on three-way charts to track and understand the alarm rate on the within charts as the mean charts.  When trying to compare results across platforms as well as expected results, we found discrepancies.   I've been working with @PatrickGiuliano at JMP Technical Support to work through how the platform has been designed to function vs this requests goals.   What is the improvement you would like to see?  The alarm rate section of the Process Screening (PS) platform is a great way to be able to pareto out what process to attack first as well as track performance changes over time while also being able to quickly visualize trends.  I would like to see the following: The "Alarm Rate Column" and "Any Alarm" columns should respect all selected alarm rates as calculated off both upper and lower control limits.  Currently they only calculate off both control limits for the mean chart (as well as any other tests) but only the upper control limit for the "Range Limit Exceeded" when a three-way chart is selected. Not respecting the LCL causes different alarm rates when viewing a process in PS vs Control Chart builder.  This also creates control charts that are different looking than Control Chart builder when using "show chart as selected" in the PS and adding in the dispersion chart as only the UCL is shown. The names for the dispersion charts should be changed to be clearer.  "Range Limit Exceeded" should go to "Disp Limit Exceeded" and be used with MR/-R/-S/three way S/R charts and "3W MR Limit exceeded" should be used for MR charts on three-way charts. The alarm rates and alarm count should not be the sum of the alarm rates for each "Test" column and three way "Range Limit Exceeded".  They should only sum up across a subgroup (so if any subgroup fails a "test" on the mean chart or the subgroup dispersion chart exceeds a Control limit, that should only +1 the value on the "Any Alarm" column and only add +1 to the numerator in the "Alarm rate" column.  For example, if subgroup 2 (of 10) fails for the mean and 3 way within dispersion chart UCL's, and is the only subgroup to fail then the "Alarm Rate" should be 10% and the "Any Alarm" should be 1.  Currently this would show as 20% and 2, which is a misleading look at the process. Since the goal of Process Screening is to be a kind of one-stop shop for an overview of all your processes, it would be value-added to the users to have the platform have the overall alarm rate reflect all the alarm types being selected by the user.  (So, I would like to see a Means alarm rate, MR alarm rate, Range Within alarm rate, and an Overall alarm rate which flags for any tests that were selected by the users to flag a subgroup as defective {MR for an I-MR chart can be excluded here as it spans "two subgroups}).                 How this might look:     Note: took keep consistent with Control Chart Builder using “Test All Beyond Limits - All” vs "Enable all tests" might work better.  I noticed that after I made this picture above.   In the picture below you can see both issues for items 1 and 3: There are no lower control limits on either of the dispersion charts and the platform does not respect any violations of the LCL (which is an issue for -R or -S or the within charts in three-way charts) and thus, leads to a incorrect alarm rate. For the electricity subgroup, it is out of control for both the X-Bar and Range within charts and thus is counted as two alarms, when it should only be counted as one (as the denominator is the number of subgroups).  Thus, the alarm rate should be 3/17 not 4/17.   If for some reason item 1 from above cannot be added on, at the very least, then the names should be changed to “Upper moving range limit exceeded” and “Upper range limit exceeded” so that the user won't assume that they include both due to the current naming convention.       Why is this idea important?  This is important for the following reasons: You should get the same results from both Control Chart Builder and Process Screening, especially since Process Screening will send you to Control Chart builder as an available feature in the platform. Tracking and understanding within process variation is just as important as variation between the means and is especially critical when using three-way charts. Different companies will have different priorities on what alarm rates matter and thus the user group should be able to control what to display in the Process Screening platform (e.g. whether to turn on or off LCLs in MR and R charts). Whew, hopefully that came out clear.  Please let me know if I need to clear anything up!   Steve   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  When writing jsl scripts that update large tables it is cumbersome to add a <<begin data update() and <<end data update() on either side of the for each row().   What is the improvement you would like to see?  I would like to see some functionality for <<begin data update() and <<end data update() embedded in the for each row() function.   Why is this idea important?  This will make code more readable and faster if users write all for each row() using the new functionality. May improve GUI speed as table updates will be faster.   I am using JMP 16.2   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  When making a new data table I frequently use code dt = new data table() but this throws an error since only new table() works.  Tables are frequently called data tables in documentation and other functions and would be good to support new data table() as an alias for new table().   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Please make a function "New Data Table()" as alias for "New Table()"   Why is this idea important?  Would remove a frequent error when coding in JSL.   I am using JMP 16.2 ... View more

Add new function which would return values in a list (or matrix if numeric calculation) based on column calculations. We can calculate values with Formula() and << Set Each Value, but we have to place the values in Data Table. It would be nice to be able to just calculate values based on the data table's columns WITHOUT adding new columns which you will have to later remove.   One idea for usage could be something like this (Big Class.jmp) result = dt << Calculate Values(:Height / :Weight); and this would then return me a matrix with :Height/:Weight calculated for each row.   Other example with characters could be result = dt << Calculate Values(:sex ||"_"||Char(:age)); and this would return me a list of each row concatenated with :sex and :age.   ... View more

We often use a contingency analysis to show outcomes across groups. However, there is no visual indication on the plot of confidence intervals, giving users no idea about whether the differences are significant or not. What I'd suggest is more like the 2nd image below. Confidence intervals should be calculated using, for example, Agresti-Coull, Clopper-Pearson, etc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_proportion_confidence_interval#Agresti%E2%80%93Coull_interval)   ... View more

It would be great to see the following added into the profiler: The ability to reset the level settings back to the default setting (what the settings were when the profiler is first made, I elective this is the average of each factor) A button next to the desirability box (where you can drag the desirability line to max/min/target interactively) that you can click to run the maximize function (so you don't have to go into the red triangle) Add a summary line below all the remembered settings that would show the range of the settings for each factor.  This would allow you to see which factors had the most distance between their levels for the predictions your were optimizing on.  Often times, the bigger the difference between a factors levels the easier of a change it is to make so this would be great to see quickly. Be able to show all the saved profiles on the same graph.  Right now this can only be accomplished by copying the frame content and pasting the frame content over the other setting (such as copying a minimize setting over a maximize setting). ... View more

Signal processing is important as a preprocessing process for analyzing manufacturing data such as equipment processing waveforms. "wavelet transform" will be added to JMPPro17, but at the same time I would like to add a simple signal processing "Fast Fourier transform". Various signal processing is necessary for preprocessing of time series analysis including waveforms. This signal processing can be converted into structured data, expanding the range of data that can be analyzed by JMP. In the manufacturing industry, it is very important and needs are also large. I would like to do more strongly than that. ... View more

☐ cool new feature ☑ could help many users! ☐ removes a „bug“ ☐ nice to have ☐ nobody needs it   What inspired this wish list request?  The New Formula column submenu in the column right click context menu is very useful to quickly generate new formula columns. But: Often a user just wants to get a column with the values, without the need of a formula column. compare the options of Recode:     What is the improvement you would like to see?  Please add an option to the New Formula right click context menu, allowing the user to toggle between - Formula Column and - New Column (just calculate). A third option could be: - Formula Column (1x) like it is implemented in the Normalize Function of the QuickSelect Toolbar  : This way a Formula Column is added to the table, but the evaluation is disabled after a first calculation.     Why is this idea important? With the additional option available, a user can generate "pre-calculated" columns as easy as he can generate formula culumns. The third option would allow the user to generate a pre-calculated (non updating column) with the additional benefit that the calculation is stored/freezed - ideal for documentation, and with the possibility to reactivate it.         more wishes submitted by     ... View more

Currently Action Recorder creates fairly non-robust code by using table names and such. New Workflow Builder is able to offer reference replacements but I would like to go a bit further and have an option in which Action Recorder would use variable names. These should be configurable by user. Also namespace should be used in this case, either some specific one or here (add Names Default To Here(1); to top of script)   Below is fairly simple example created using Big Class and Enhanced Log /*: // Open Data Table: Big Class.jmp // → Data Table("Big Class") Open("/C:/Program Files/SAS/JMPPRO/16/Samples/Data/Big Class.jmp"); // New formula column: Log[weight+1] Data Table("Big Class") << New Formula Column( Operation(Category("Log"), "Log x+1"), Columns(:weight) ); // New formula column: Random Uniform Data Table("Big Class") << New Formula Column( Operation(Category("Random"), "Random Uniform"), Columns(:sex, :height) ); // Report snapshot: Big Class - Graph Builder Data Table("Big Class") << Graph Builder( Size(528, 448), Show Control Panel(0), Variables(X(:sex), Y(:"Log[weight+1]"n)), Elements(Points(X, Y, Legend(4))) ); It would be nice if this could be written in log as (this won't work as it seems like << New Formula Column doesn't return reference to the column like << New Column does, but the idea is still the same) // Open Data Table: Big Class.jmp // → Data Table("Big Class") dt_1 = Open("/C:/Program Files/SAS/JMPPRO/16/Samples/Data/Big Class.jmp"); // New formula column: Log[weight+1] col_1 = dt_1 << New Formula Column( Operation(Category("Log"), "Log x+1"), Columns(:weight) ); // New formula column: Random Uniform col_2 = dt_1 << New Formula Column( Operation(Category("Random"), "Random Uniform"), Columns(:sex, :height) ); // Report snapshot: Big Class - Graph Builder rep_1 = dt_1 << Graph Builder( Size(528, 448), Show Control Panel(0), Variables(X(:sex), Y(col_1)), Elements(Points(X, Y, Legend(4))) ); And in this example dt_, col_ and rep_ are the variable name prefixes user has chosen for these specific object types.   This should make auto-generated scripts a bit more robust ... View more

What inspired this wish list request?  The New Formula column submenu in the column right click context menu is very useful to quickly generate new formula columns. But the user is somehow "lost" if the desired function is not available or if he want to generate a special function. Then he has to generate a new column, and add a formula manually manually.   No big issue ... But let's look at the Filter Col Selector right click context menu, e.g. by right clicking on a column entry in the Summarize Dialog. There is an additional entry: Formula ... which allows the user to create a "draft" new formula column, just starting with the identity formula and waiting for further user input.     What is the improvement you would like to see?  Add such a Formula ... entry also to the New Formula Column submenu of the column right click context menu. The new column should be called orignalColumn 2 - Transform[originalColumn] (like in the Filter Col Selector) is too long :)   Why is this idea important? It gets much easier to generate a new formula column. The identity function is an ideal starting point.         more wishes submitted by   ... View more

What inspired this wish list request? I haven't really used JMP's Dashboards because Tab Page Boxes they use take too much space and because of this I always write my own UI using New Window(). I could see myself almost using Dashboards (at least as a starting point) now that JMP17 provides quite clean script if I didn't have to clean the code to remove Tab Page Boxes. This isn't as big of an issue in Dashboard view but more on the created script, though I would also like to be able to have dashboard without the "title boxes"   What is the improvement you would like to see?  Provide an option to not add the Tab Page Boxes. Below is fairly simple example with one graph builder and one distribution (script taken with  from Dashboard above): I have basically three mostly useless Tab Page Boxes there, I already know this is a dashboard, I already know I have a Graph Builder and Distribution , I don't need the Tab Page Boxes to tell me that (I also have Outline Boxes telling me this). I would like to be able to have Dashboard which look more like this:   Why is this idea important?  Allows easier creation of compact UI's. Especially with JMP17 change in which the Dashboard script isn't a huge mess anymore (! ... View more