Improved flexibility in Categorical reports for option selectionsImproved flexibility on the options for the categorical reports. Specifically, the ability to modify options in the red triangle by each variable. So for example, could customize the report such that base size is shown for only one variable and standard deviation is shown only for another variable. Another use case is if I have a multiple response variable and a single response variable. I currently need to so see all frequences, cases, and cases responding when it does not really need to apply to all variables.
User InterfaceRe: Improved flexibility in Categorical reports for option selectionsI think this may be the same if not a similar request. User would like to be able to see the summary statistics for all response levels, but have the flexibility to show and export only certain response levels. Supercat > hide works at some level, but not quite there. Ideal would be to have a pick response level(s) to show.
Re: Improved flexibility in Categorical reports for option selections - Status changed to: InvestigatingRe: Improved flexibility in Categorical reports for option selections@EmmaKeeling your comment is captured in the following ideas which JMP currently declines to execute (so we need to motivate):
Original request seems to be more about allowing Variable 1 (say an Overall response) to display Response Levels, Mean, and StdDev and then another Variable to show only Response Levels and no Mean/StdDev, etc.? Not sure why this is a need?
Re: Improved flexibility in Categorical reports for option selections@mjoner @Peter_Hersh I remember the conversation with the user, and it seeming a reasonable request. But I agree with the rationale. Please delete this item. I will continue to work with @Peter_Hersh with the ideal table views as I think that gets at the heart of the issue better
Re: Improved flexibility in Categorical reports for option selections@EmmaKeeling - just confirming, delete THIS request, or delete the two referred to above in my comment from last week? I think THIS request may make sense (but don't have context to understand why yet)... I am less sure about the sensibility of the two I referred to above.
All that said, I agree that getting a clearer understanding of what we really need Categorical to do and where we have people spending substantial amounts of time reformatting reports is the bigger opportunity area here.
