Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Many files I use are in .xlsb format. 

Hello,

  After used the new "Image Recognition Tool" a few days, I think you could improve it : 

  > by adding the dimensional constraints in front of each of the pre-trained models,

  > by adding a true tool to divide the training data correctly (in order to have an equivalent number of images for each of the labels)

  > at least, allow the tool to use black & white images (I wanted to test it on the MNIST, but the tool tells me that it necessarily needs RGB images) ?

  Question : do you in the future allow the user to choose between CPU or GPU usage ?

  In any case, thank you again for this new tool, it is certainly perfectible, but very simple to use, and I sincerely think that it will allow a greater number of people to understand the many use cases made possible thanks to image recognition.

  Thank you again

  Kévin VANCAPPEL (France ;-))

  Thank you again.

  Kévin VANCAPPEL

Most of the finance industry is using HFM or Essbase finance solutions which is flexible in keeping the data and generating reports. Alteryx should create a direct connection with Hyperion or Essbase so that it's easier to connect with the data in those systems and it can directly feed other system reports.

Hello all,

HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System) connection is widely used to load data efficiently on Hadoop, for Hive, Spark or Impala. However, it's not compatible with the new DCM.


Best regards,

Simon

I understand the need for "exclusive rights" when using an input tool.  Unfortunately, due to the nature of some corporate data, getting write access to a file is not always possible.  I would like to have the ability to configure an input tool to open a file in "Read Only" mode while producing a warning message that the file was processed in that mode and may not contain the lastest version pf the data.  I envision this as a checkbox option in the tool configuration panel.

Highlighted in this post: Solved: DateDiff question - Alteryx Community The DateDiff function under certain conditions does not work as you would expect and I suspect most people would not notice the inaccuracy.

Here is the formula for the Results Column below:

DateTimeDiff("2022-11-30",[Date],"months")

Hi,

I have 2 simple ideas that would help me a little bit while working with the explorer box: 

• I think it would be amazing if we could pick the Internet Browser while using the Explorer box. 

While opening certain websites, I am getting this information: 

I know probably the answer to it isn't so simple, but that would give us a little bit extra flexibility while using Explorer box. 

My goal is to open a word or excel file with specific documentation. If I were able to use a newer browser, I could easily open a file with a link to a webpage. 

• Second, can we give the Explorer box a header similar to what we got in the containers? The address bar does not always give us information about what the explorer box shows and a small extra header that we can configure would add some additional clarification

Alternatively, if I could merge a comment tool with the Explorer box tool that would also work.

Today, the behaviour of batch macro can be strange.

If I refer to https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Batch-Macro-not-looping-after-running-...

we can have big behaviour differences between :

-wf and app

-designer and scheduler

Example here with a batch macro running for all lines in designer and only for line in scheduler

Designer works fineScheduler only runs the first line!!

I know the turnaroud (just use a message box) but it's not natural and I think

-at least the same behaviour is needed in any use case
-if you want to do some optimization, ok, but make it an option!!

As of today, Alteryx is not compatible with PAC, althouth it is pretty common in companies.

Asking for a few machine to be out of the GPO may be a real struggle with IT security and has only a few chances to succeed. I have a case when we cannot do an upgrade because of that regression (since old licensing seems to be ok).

Please change

Instead of using the arrows, I think it would be nice to be able to drag and drop the questions to rearrange them in the Interface Designer. This would go more hand in hand with the drag and drop experience of Alteryx.

Additionally, when a lot of interface tools are on the canvas, Designer really slows down if you need to rearrange the order of the tools in the Interface Designer. I would like to see if there is any way that this can be sped up.

Thanks!

The introduction fo a rank tool would be hugely beneficial. Whilst there are currently means to rank using a combination of other tools formula/running total/multirow etc... a specific "Rank Tool" would be provide a seemless and smoother way to rank your data either for further analysis or purely to output this field.

This tool should include a sort by and group by functionaility as well as options for ranking (such as dense ranking or unique ranking) and in addition multi levels of ranking (ie. Rank by "Field A" Then By "Field B" etc...).

Hello!
A quite minor, pedantic issue from me today. 

Currently, the Oversample Field Tool's naming and configuration suggest that the tool can over sample data:

However, I would argue the tool under samples data instead.

Here are a few sources that explain this much better than I can:

• Towards Data Science
• Wikipedia
• Medium

And an image is taken from Medium:

Effectively either step is to create a similar (or same) number of records between each class. Under sampling is the process of taking samples from the majority class, and ending up with a smaller dataset than started with. Over sampling is the process of duplicating records within the minority class, and creates a larger dataset.

When using the Oversample tool within Alteryx, using the example workflow for reference:

When summarizing the input:

And the output:

It's clear that the data has actually been under sampled, in that random samples have been taken from the majority class to match the minority, rather than creating duplicate minority records. 

I would suggest a quick renaming of the tool to "Undersample Field Tool", and documentation to not cause confusion to new users of the platform.

Kind Regards,

TheOC

Experts - 

During development it would be helpful to be able to do the following in both Formula and Filter tools (and perhaps any other tool that uses custom code):

1) Highlight a line or block of code

2) Right click

3) Comment/Uncomment

Easier than manually typing or deleting "//" at every line.  

Thanks in advance!

I am currently using alteryx to generate pdf reports and noticed there is no option to have multiple row headers. In my line of work i cant skip this as the end users insist on having it like they have always had it.

I definitely think this should be available as many of us like replicate canned reports which are otherwise in excel and hence see the need for such an option.

The following might give an example of the multi row header,

Also the ability to merge certain columns to create the above effect should be available.

There is duplicated action in the table tool to force the user decide the decimal places.

In the normal situation, all the data preparation process has been completed prior to the Table tool, we just want to leverage on this tool to format the header or incorporate conditional formatting. However, once the Table tool is connected and we have to re-configure the decimal places for all the numeric columns, the column names will be varied from year to year and it brings additional manual intervention to the workflow.

We recommend to provide flexibility for us to take the original upstream data source without changing the underlying data set.

Lack of tools in Alteryx to extract data from True PDF. The current set of tools (Computer Vision) only allow us to extract data from images which is not ideal for True PDF documents in terms of accuracy.

Please add a data validator workflow.

Suggested features will be the following:

1.  Add validation name and set the field/s of your data you want to validate. (it can have more than one validation name on one workflow)

2. On the selected validation(name). Add features that will check/validate the information below:

   A. Verify data type
   B. Contains Null
   C. Max and Min string length
   D. Allowed values only, else it will give you an error
   E. Regex expected to match and not allowed to match.

3. It can have two(2) outputs. One is True(which is match) and False(which is fail over/error).

It'd be great to have all DCM connections available in the Data connections window.

And when Use Data connection Manager (DCM) is ticked, The screen defaults to DCM Connection list. 

In the dynamic input tool,

Where you “Read a List of Data Sources”, there should be a radio button below the “Action” field, to   

“INCLUDE FIELD OF DATA SOURCES”,

Then you’d have an output field with the isolated name from which the data was sourced. You wouldn't be required to "include full file path" then parse out the sheet the data came from.