Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Dear UX Usual Suspects,

I've created a video for you to observe the idea:

With 400+ fields available, I find it challenging when I am validating my formula output to look at the "Referenced" fields of data plus the new data fields.  It would be oh-so-nice to press a button and look only at the "valuable" data.

How about you?  Do you want a little of this idea @Hollingsworth @T_Willins  @Aguisande @NicoleJ 

Cheers,

Mark

A typical macro does the same job every time. I therefore want it to have the same annotation each time.

I want it to have a default annotation that I save in the Interface Designer. This annotation will be shown on the canvas whenever the macro is added.

Currently only VADER algorithm is available however other algorithms might be interesting alternative. By other algorithms I mean: TextBlob, Flair and Custom option.

Cheers,

Pawel

Please asses the value of using d3js javascript library to create vizualisation.

D3 gallery examples

Thank you.

Regards,

Cristian.

CI / CD is critical to any production level process, especially when multiple authors are contributing new features to the same workflow. Currently, multi-author editing of workflows is extremely difficult, and something that would be aided greatly by using git to control different branches of ongoing work. Luckily, that's something we can already do today! However, the ability to test before merging a pull request is critical to modern CI / CD pipelines. For this, it we need to be able to run a headless workflow from a CI / CD environment. Also, having the ability to pass in parameters to the workflow would allow for robust integration testing - something that isn't straightforward today without running on production environments. 

The Workflow configuration window currently has "Canvas" as the default tab when clicking on whitespace in a workflow. 

Since workflow orientation, annotation settings, and progress settings tend to be consistent for a user, I think it makes more sense to have the default tab on something that might be more relevant to the user.

Workflow provides information that is useful...location of the workflow and constants related to the workflow.

Runtime has settings that can change often as the user is developing out the workflow.

So either of these would provide better access to more important info that that found on the Canvas tab.

Problem: The visual nature of Alteryx is one of its key selling points. The idea is to make work flows understandable. But when you're building something complicated, the lines cease being a helpful visualization and become a confusing mess instead. Lines cross each other. Lines cross out annotations. I know that there's wireless connections, but using too many of those makes the data flow hard to trace. So I spend time moving tools and boxes around, trying to get lines to cooperate, instead of chasing that thrill of solving. 

Solution: Users should be able to click the line and place an anchor which affects the line just like a tool would, but without doing anything to the data. It would just be a little point, not a full tool.  That way I could make the lines dodge my annotations without placing needless select tools or moving everything around. It could be located in the Documentation tab. 

Thanks for reading,

BG

Often I need to add filters or other tools early on after the workflow is already been mostly built. If a tool connects to one tool I can drag the filter over the connecting line and add the filter seamlessly. However in large workflows there is often this situation:    

The Filter will only connect to one of the lines I'm hovering over. If I could connect to all lines simultaneously and drop in the connection to achieve this (would be awesome):

Hi,

The basic table report tool could be improved by including a title option, such as a checkbox that allows you to add a title above the table.

When you want to add a title to a table, you must create a report text specifically for that purpose. The more significant improvement would be for situations in which you want to create tables grouped by a specific field. It would be nice to have the option to add a title per group as well, this would make it easier to add all of them to a report in a more dynamic way without having to do workarounds.

Within the Dynamic rename tool there is an option to ignore missing fields. 

It would be great if this was a bit more "Dynamic", for example if you wish to ignore duplicate field names for example. 

Otherwise you are left with warnings in a perfectly functioning workflow which some users may wish to control. 

Hello! I'm just wanting to highlight a couple of small issues I've found when trying to use the TS Covariate Forecast.

1. The example workflow does not open. This has been tested on multiple machines with different users. Right clicking the macro allows for the option 'Open Example Workflow':

However the button does not work/do anything. It is listed as a tool with a 'one tool example' (https://help.alteryx.com/20213/designer/sample-workflows-designer) so i would expect this to work.

2. Fix left/right labelling of input anchors. Currently the anchors are labelled incorrectly (compared with the join tool):

This can make things confusing when looking at documentation/advice on the tool, in which it is described as the left/right inputs.

Thanks!
TheOC

Hello all,

When you copy and paste a layout tool to keep the formatting you just spent hours fixing it goes away as soon as you paste it. This is infuriating. Please keep the formatting from resting upon pasting.

Attached are pictures of a copy and pasted layout tool connected to the same incoming data source.

You can clearly see that the order and formatting has been removed. #Infuriating

Nick

PostPre

In cases where there are dynamic tools - you often get a situation where there are zero rows returned - which means that the output of something like a transpose or a JSON parse or a regex may not have the field names expected.

However - any downstream filter tools (or other similar tools) fail even though there are no rows (see screenshot below).

The only way to get around this is to insert fake rows using a union or use the CReW macro for Ensure Fields.    However, this is all waste since there are no rows so there's no point in even evaluating the predicate in the filter tool.     Rather than making users work around this - can we please change the engine so that a tool can avoid evaluation if there are zero rows - this will significantly reduce the amount of these kind of workaround that need to be used with any dynamic tools (including any API calls).

thank you

Sean

In workflow Constants, it would be really useful to be able to populate a new field associated with each user created constant. 

E.g. Type, Name, Value, "Description"

The description could be left blank but also populated by workflow designers to attach commentary / business logic to the constant. 

E.g. Type = User, Name = MyUserConstant, Value = 0.25, Description = "This describes the weighting factor used in Product Calculations"

I would be nice for the Import tool to be able to import both the expanded and unexpanded value labels from a .sav instead of having to choose, perhaps as metadata if it's inconvenient to do otherwise. It would also be helpful if the Output Tool could be modified to report all the Labels and Values for each record when it outputs to a .sav file.

I merged two .sav files using the formula tool to do some renaming and the union tool. In the output .sav I lose the labels for any variables that were renamed and I lose all the value labels for all variables.

Below is an image of some of the variables in my .sav output file. Notice in the red box, some of the variable labels are blank and the values are listed as none.

Hi all,

If you try to use Alteryx to solve simple recursive problems like the Towers of Hanoi; or solving Sudoku - you get this error

Please could we enable Alteryx to allow recursive macros - this would not only be helpful for problems such as Towers of Hanoi - it's also particularly useful for solving problems like walking an HR tree to get to the leaf nodes

Hi there, 

In working through the Udacity assignment on AB testing (again, thank you @PatrickN ), it seems that there's no obvious way to use location directly as a distance factor for selecting control units.

Additionally - the identifier field for a unit has to be a character field.

It seems that here would be a lot of value in making 2 changes to this tool:

a) allowing for integer unit identifiers (like store ID - not sure why a character is required)

b) using an actual point (location) to determine closest potential control unit.     

- This is particularly important in the US where two towns may be very close to each other although they are in different states

- So the actual distance on the earth's surface would be a better indicator of closeness between test & control units than state or county.

Hi,

Would it be possible to add additional sections to the 'Summarise Tool' such as one for dates so that you might be able to group by Year, Month, Quarter, Week or a combination of all these. There are other extensions that could also be considered such as group with nulls or without that would make this tool far more usable and not dependent on data manipulation prior to it; you might offer to have all nulls grouped and called something else for readability and this shouldn't be very hard at all to implement.

Kind regards,

Peter