What inspired this Wish List Request?
When answering questions about this in the community it is hard work to explain how to construct the model. Fit Model is one of the most important platforms in JMP. I don't think it makes it intuitive or easy to learn how to construct a model. Sorry, I don't have specific examples, but my experience is that lots of JMP users don't seem to know about the Macros, Transforms, and Attributes. Personally, even though I know what I am doing, I find using Macros and crossing effects awkward.
Please describe the new or improved feature or solution you would like to see.
A good starting point might be the language used. "Macro" is not a term used anywhere else in JMP, so I don't think users even look there. "Select Model Type" might be better.
The term "Construct Model Effects" could also be improved to make it more intuitive to new users. "Add Model Effects Here..."
Maybe we could take some of the learning from how models are constructed in Easy DOE, with hints to help users understand their options.
Maybe there could be button to take the user to a separate wizard to step users through constructing their model effects. In that way the existing interface could be retained for people that already know how to construct models and don't want more clicks or windows.
What would the value be to you and/or other users if this new feature is provided?
Models are probably the most valuable outputs for a user of JMP. I think that improving ease-of-use of Fit Model is one of the best opportunities to reduce time-to-value for new JMP users.
Is this an external customer request? No.
Is there a competitive software package that has this feature or solution that we should be aware of?
Internally, Easy DOE has some good ideas.
Externally, the interface in Design Expert might give some ideas. e,g. Keys to Analyzing a Response Surface Design - YouTube (14:23)
Will this impact a renewal, expansion, or adoption at a customer, and does this put an account at risk if we do not address this?
No.
I would like to echo Phil's comments here. A common models library with easier specification would enable users with less statistics background still be able to get things correct. There are a number of ways this could be achieved, but in the EasyDOE model this could be as straightforward as a guided vs flexible mode for the Fit Model dialog. In guided mode, a user could select a model type, and then only the required fields for the model type selected could be exposed. This is, essentially, what I have in the Add-In for the Full Factorial Repeated Measures ANOVA Add-In, which creates a separate dialog then exploits Fit Model, but could very easily be the kind of thing shown in the Fit Model window in a "guided mode." For context, this is an extremely common model in the social sciences, is easy in other software, but in Fit Model it requires the specification of a rather complicated effects structure to get the correct linear mixed effects model, something that's way beyond the level of knowledge of most data practitioners in the field. But, the model design is easy to generate with just a few fields populated. I suspect there are a number of other models like this (and Phil mentioned some) where the structure is relatively easy to generate programmatically if we ask the right questions. If we had a structure/affordance in Fit Model to design those options we could make the most common models easy for users.
@SamGardner , yes I agree. Definitely on the right track with Easy DOE. And it will be a challenge to find a way that generalizes to all models. But I just feel that specifying common models, e.g. RSM, is currently not at all intuitive. You need to know to select all the factor columns, which also means that you need to know how to use shift/ctrl + click. And then you need to know to click in Macros.
I'm not sure my JSL is good enough for prototyping anything like this but I will have a think about it!
@Phil_Kay interesting idea. I believe we are on the right track with this in Easy DOE, but for more general modeling situations I am wondering if it would be challenging to generalize a way to specify types of models. Surfacing the Macro options and making them more readily viewable may help.
Perhaps prototyping an approach with JSL could help us come up with some ideas on how to make this easier.
Hi @Phil_Kay, thank you for your suggestion! We have captured your request and will take it under consideration.
@Phil_Kay thanks for these suggestions. EasyDOE addresses some of these ideas. Moving to not planned for now, but potential to re-evaluate for a future release.
