Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Would it be possible to add the capability to import or build a CSS for reporting in a future release, I am sure I am not the first to think about having Style Sheets in reports so you do not have to define fonts, colors and all that HTML stuff to each output line. 

Currently, when creating scatter graphs you are unable to order the plots based on a sub-group of the data (ie the legend). It would be nice to have the ability to pick which part of the legend is displayed first, above the other data plots. Could we also have the option to take the 3D element off the scatter graph plots?

Thanks,

Oliver

Please extend the Workflow Dependencies functionality to include dependencies of used macros in the worflow too. Currenctly macros are simply marked as dependencies by themselves, but the underlying dependencies (e.g. data sources) of these macros are not included.

We have a large ETL process developed with Alteryx that applies several layers of custom and complex macros and several data sources referenced using aliases. Currently the process is deployed locally (non-server) and executed ad-hoc, but will be moved to the server platform at some point. 

Recently I had to prep an employee for running the process. This requires creating aliases and associated connections and making sure that access to needed network locations is in place (storing macros, temp files, etc.). Hence I needed to identify all aliases and components/macros used. As everything is wrapped nicely by a single workflow, I hoped that the workflow dependencies functionality would cover dependencies in the macro nodes within, but unfortunately it didn't and I had to look through the dependencies of 10-15 macros.

I can see that the Venn diagram is very nice for a new user to understand the Join tool (which is a super-great tool by the way).  But I would like to be able to close up the Venn diagram to give more room to see the variables listed below.

Thanks!
Susan

Hi,

So I was working on a project which uses the "Download" tool. I needed to measure precisely the response time for each record so I set up a "timestamp" value using the DateTimeNow() function before the actual download. After download was complete, i tried to measure the response time by using the DateTimeDiff() function. However, using this method, i was not able to get a precise (up to a millisecond) performance reading since the DateTime format gets rounded to a second. 

It would be great to have a way of precisly measure the time taken for each record to go through a tool or a set of tool and having that value be a part of the output file

Our Alteryx users query a number of different data sources.  Some of these include external servers outside our control.

To avoid any issues regarding locking, we use the Read Uncommitted function as part of the Data Input tool as part of our baseline design, probably 95% of the time or more.

It would be very beneficial for our organization if there was a way for us to set this option to be checked by default, so that it was one less thing users needed to remember when configuring a quick data pull.

There is a need when visualizing in-Database workflows to be able to visualize sorted data. This sorting could be done 1 of 2 ways: In a browse tool, or as a stand-alone Sort tool. Either would address the need. Without such a tool being present, the only way to sort the data is to "Data Stream Out" and then visualize the data in Alteryx. However, this process violates the premise of the usefulness of the in-DB toolkit, which is to keep your data in-DB and process using the DB engine. Streaming out big data in order to add a sort is not efficient.

Granted, the in-DB processing doesn't care whether data is sorted or not. However, when attempting to find extreme values after an aggregation, or when trying to identify something as simple as whether null values are present in a field, then a sort becomes extremely useful, and a necessary tool for human consumption of data (regardless of the database's processing needs).

Thanks very much for hearing my idea!

Hello

My problem: I've used the download-tool to download a 40mb XML. Parsing the DonwloadData-field containing this XML results in about 6600 records. The XML-Parse Tool passes the orginal DownloadData field to each record, resulting in quite a bit of memory usage:

XML-Parsing Problem

Suggestion: An option in the XML-parse Tool to not pass the parsed field in its output. 

Marco

When running an app on your desktop, nested radio buttons work wonderfully.  You can collapse groups and drill down to your heart's content.  If you promote the app to the gallery, it doesn't work.  I reported this as a bug to Client Services.  Their response leads me to believe that they designed it this way.  I'd like nested buttons to work both as a local app and as a gallery app.

Please star this idea if you agree...

Dear Mark,  

This email has been sent to confirm that your technical support ticket has been closed. Please contact us if you need any further assistance.

Case #: 00095540

Case Subject: Radio buttons- different functionality between Gallery and local version

Your comment:  

when using radio button to activate a sub set of questions that also use radio buttons then entire group has to be unselected then reselected to make additional change either activate/deactivate selectoins.

link to recorded webex that demonstrates issue: https://alteryx.webex.com/alteryx/lsr.php?RCID=740fd707be5e4654ba659f25713f8cdb

Dear Alteryx

Typing econometric formulas within the Formula tools can be very tyring when formulas are long and complex

What would be very nice, would be to have the possibility the get a a kind of "Formula" format (in adition to double , string, datetime ...).

When the format is set to Formula, Alteryx automatically detect that it is a formula and use it as such.

It would allow to import easily external models formulas without to type or paste them within Alteryx

Many thanks

Arno

Our company is still using 9.5 so if this is addressed in 10....I appologize.

Currently the Join Tool Options drop down has [Select-->Select All] and [Select-->Deselect All]. I think an additional [Select-->Select All Left] and [Select-->Select All Right] would be handy.

Thank You

When building out a large workflow, I'd say one of the bigger challenges I come across is being able to quickly navigate the canvas to a certain spot. In these types of workflows, my personal way of keeping things organized is creating sections of my workflow in different Tool Containers and naming them with a short description.

Here is what I picture helping out a great deal in navigation. Create a drowdown somewhere in the ribbon on top (would not want another sidebar or floating window that takes up needed space) that simply lists out every tool container in my workflow by name. When a tool container name is selected, the view jumps to that tool container in the window pane. Another option in terms of the interface might be to add a keyboard short that gives a popup "tool container search" window. Begin typing a tool container name, and it would jump to the first result it sees as a match. Then just hit escape or click outside the popup to continue your work. 

I think this would help immensely in being able to jump to a particular spot in the workflow without having to drag the overview or scroll around until you are able to find it. I included mock-ups for each version I mentioned.

For example I have an ERROR MESSAGE tool that is rather verbose.  I chose to modify the annotation as:  ZIP Code Check.  I presumed that the result would simply be "ZIP Code Check", but Alteryx added that to the beginning of the annotation rather than replacing the whole annotation.  I reported this as a bug, but was told that this was designed to operate in this manner.  It was suggested that I bring this out as a "New Idea" to the community for review.  If you agree that the tools should operate in a similar fashion for annotation (or other actions) across the pallet, please STAR this.  Otherwise, I'm happy to hear your feedback.

Thanks,

Mark

The summarize tool have drag drop facility and cross checking and suggestion on the type of aggregation that can be applied based on the data type.

e.g. Let there be two different stack. One to be used for Group By. Another for aggregation.

We should be able to drag fields to these sections.

Now when we are dragging something to the Aggregation stack, based on the data type, a small suggestion list of possible aggregation to choose from.

And a small validation of the data type to aggregation if we are defining the aggregation manually.

I can provide mock ups if anyone is interested.

There is currently no way to export interactive output from the network graph tool. I would like to be able to export a png of the static network graph image, a pdf of the report, and a complete html of the whole (which means including the JSON and vis.js files necessary for creating the report).

I found what I think is a bug.  Usually the bug maker is me, but on this occasion I really think that it could be Alteryx (version 10.1.6.60263).  Maybe we could add a category for posts as:  Is this a bug?  Currently, the idea labels allow for a "BUG".  But is bug reporting really part of New Ideas?

I'm going to report my findings to clientservices@alteryx.com.

For those interested in what I'm observing:

Try creating a INTERFACE using an ERROR MESSAGE tool.  Once you've got a formula and an error message, check the ANNOTATION.  Do you see one on the canvas and do you see it in the configuration?  Try putting a brief annotation into the Annotation box.  I believe that the Annotation should appear in the annotation box as it does with other tools. Check the canvas and see what happens.  Here's what mine looks like:

I recently began working with chained analytic applications.  One of the things that I wanted to do was to take the values selected by the end user at each stage of the app and pass them further down in the application.  I was able to do this by dumping the selected values to Alteryx databases and then using drop downs to pull the data into subsequent apps.  However, I was wondering if there would be a better way of accomplishing this.  One reason is that, with my approach, I wind up with several additional drop downs in my interface--which I really don't want.  If there's a way around this, I'd love to hear it.  Alternately, if Alteryx could potentially support doing something like this in the future, I think it would be really helpful.

The "idea" here is, for any tool utilized in a macro project, to allow any configuration setting for that tool, if desired, to be exposed to the outside world, so that when the macro is utilized in a parent workflow, the embedded tool's configuration setting is directly available to the parent workflow.

A benefit here would be the ability for users to more easily build custom tools based on the existing tools: e.g. send all inputs and outputs through a validation phase of arbitrary complexity, while leaving the "integration layer" of the encapsulated tool untouched.

Can the inputs to app interface tools update other interface tools within the same app?  Right now, I believe the only way to do this is with chained-apps, but I don't wish to go that route again.

Just one example:

Can a Dropdown interface tool update a listbox interface tool with an action?  

Right now, I have two interface tools in an app:

1. Dropdown
2. Listbox.  

For the Listbox tool , it references an external source file for the NAME:VALUE pairs, let's call this file:  Category1.yxdb.

I would like for the resulting dropdown selection to update this external source file to say, Category1.yxdb or Category2.yxdb or Category3.yxdb, etc.

The different .yxdb files here have different name:value pairs within them.

It doesn't seem like this possible at the moment, but please let me know if this is something that's currently supported within Alteryx.

Thanks,

Collin