meteorologist Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ridge2/newmap/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Road Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 i don't like it. what information does it convey besides whether or not there is a watch out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
28storms Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Too slow on mediocre connections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hate it. The graphs when you click on certain locations are cool, but the relay of important information is much worse than the current version. It doesn't help me much to know that there's a "watch" out for half of the continental united states. Maybe just a personal opinion, but I am not a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NortheastPAWx Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Don't like it. "Other" is just way too broad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Don't forget to add your comments and suggestions about this by clicking on the appropriate link above the test graphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I never understood why slapping an interactive map on things makes it more appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Dislike it. Current format is much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I never understood why slapping an interactive map on things makes it more appealing. This. The current format is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaculaWeather Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I like it, I have much more information with a single click than I could ever get from the other maps. I see watches/warnings/forecast/current conditions and graphs. Turn off the things you don't want to see zoom in or search for your location, and use permalink to save it. I don't see it as a watch/warning/advisory page as a general information page. The info does load slowly and sometimes not at all. I've added the page to my site to test with http://www.daculawea.../nwswarning.php I think the contrast layer is too dark and I turn that off. For watches and warnings, I'd rather use this http://www.daculawea...evere_alert.php although sometimes the maps don't always load. The loading issues are all with the NWS servers, not the scripts. Sometimes the data has to come from multiple sources which slows down the transfer of images and data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Not a fan. The NWS needs to upgrade their servers before they keep adding memory intensive websites. In fact, I wish we'd get rid of half the graphical displays on our sites. How many ways do we need to relay the same information to our customers anyway? We've been accused of having a convoluted website with too much info and I agree. When the media (folks who are supposedly journalism majors) can't navigate and find what they are looking for on our sites, that probably means we need to "dumb it down" a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaculaWeather Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hell, I can't even find all the stuff on your servers and I do this all the time! I agree though, it doesn't make sense to keep adding the graphical stuff without a corresponding increase in bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hell, I can't even find all the stuff on your servers and I do this all the time! I agree though, it doesn't make sense to keep adding the graphical stuff without a corresponding increase in bandwidth. See what I mean? Let Accuweather have all the gobbly-gook bells and whistles. I wish the NWS would go back to just issuing zones, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flwxwatcher45 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I like the current format . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaculaWeather Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I'm sitting here playing with the current format (which I've rarely to never used). The current format requires too many back and forth clicks for my taste. Almost everything you click on is a text product, they should just display the text below the map box without taking you to another page. It would reduce the bandwidth requirements somewhat and allow the user to click right through every tab without leaving the page. Part of my frustration with the NWS pages is the fact that they are inconsistent, depending on the office you go to. Each office does things their own way, and I understand each office has data that's specific to their own area, so I can understand that to some extent. But there are things buried deep in some of these pages that can't be found any other way except by digging down into each page and finding links. How much user input is actually used when they come up with these changes? I don't suppose they do any usability testing with general users before they put this stuff out do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 How much user input is actually used when they come up with these changes? I don't suppose they do any usability testing with general users before they put this stuff out do they? No not really. The current format was designed primarilly because of differences btw office sites noted by Jack Kelly's wife. True story. There is a program underway right now tho that is working on standardizing all NWS websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 add me to the "it sucks" column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaculaWeather Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I'm still not getting WHY it sucks. It sounds like the same thing with WU's site and their new look. No one likes changes AT ALL. I don't care if it's the latest and greatest widget in the world. If you upset the apple cart, people are going to not like it. I much as I hate to admit it, everything is going graphical, it's just the trend of the internet. I guess as much as I do web design work, I just take the graphical stuff for granted, I don't guess it bothers me and I'm old! All of you younger people should already be use to it by now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunder Road Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Perhaps less-broad categories would be better? Blue for winter weather watches, yellow for severe weather watches, red for all warnings, green for all flood watches, white for all "other" watches/advisories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I'm still not getting WHY it sucks. It sounds like the same thing with WU's site and their new look. No one likes changes AT ALL. I don't care if it's the latest and greatest widget in the world. If you upset the apple cart, people are going to not like it. I much as I hate to admit it, everything is going graphical, it's just the trend of the internet. I guess as much as I do web design work, I just take the graphical stuff for granted, I don't guess it bothers me and I'm old! All of you younger people should already be use to it by now! My primary beef is how slow it is. Secondary problems include lumping too many different warnings together and the fact that the old system works fine for me, leading me to ask why is there a need for a change in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaculaWeather Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 It is slow right now, but it is beta. I'm sure they're not tossing it on any of their main servers until they're done. I'm sure you know this but you do realize you get more than just watches and warnings? As I said previously, I wouldn't use the watches/warnings layer much, other than to see the big picture. What I like is the pop-up with the detail for that particular area. The pop-up loads slow but that is related more to a Google issue than the NWS. On my Google NEXRAD loops, if you click on the maker on the map, you'll notice my pop-up is slow to load too. If you could place the info box in the center of the page so that the page didn't have to scroll and move around, it would be quicker. The page auto refreshes too and that includes the watches/warnings and radar. I just like consolidation, I hate going from site to site trying to find what I'm looking for, which is one reason I created my site. Using this I get forecast, watches/warnings, radar, current conditions (from 3 locations), and some graphs that display trends. And basically with one click for any location in the country. How easy can you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 If google is the problem, then why tie themselves to that platform? I don't trust that it will ever be not slow...especially during important events. The NWS servers crashed during the midwest blizzard a few weeks ago and they had to disable a ton of functions. Why add more bells and whistles that just hog bandwith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternLI Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 I never understood why slapping an interactive map on things makes it more appealing. This. Another one in the dislike column here. Current one is perfect as is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternLI Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 If google is the problem, then why tie themselves to that platform? I don't trust that it will ever be not slow...especially during important events. The NWS servers crashed during the midwest blizzard a few weeks ago and they had to disable a ton of functions. Why add more bells and whistles that just hog bandwith? True this also, it seems that the servers always crash during every big event. That should be something that is looked into first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I just like consolidation, Well then that is why you like the new format. For me, consolidating all watches into orange and warnings into red just doesn't get it done. The current format is way better in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wall_cloud Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 the thing we have to remember is that we are all at least somewhat weather savvy. The idea was to simplify the information by putting it into three categories...watch, warning, advisory. The problem is that the average American cannot tell you the definition of these three classes of products while those of us that can feel that that the information is being dumbed down way to far. We, as an agency, have a problem conveying information to our users in easy to understand products. Does my wife know the difference between a flood warning, flash flood warning, or river flood warning? No, she just wants to know if there is something she needs to do to remain safe. I think this is a good step to circumvent the problem with confusing products since these hard to understand (by most people) warnings/advisories don't seem to be going anywhere. However, I do think that it should be more clear as to the severity of the warning. Obviously a tornado warning is something that requires immediate action and should have a color all of its own. Certain NWEM messages should fall into the same category (Fire Warnings, Shelter in Place...etc). Personally, I don't like the move because it requires an additional step to find the information that you are looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brettjrob Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not a fan. But that goes for just about anything that uses Google Maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaculaWeather Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not sure how practical it is, but I'm going to suggest that when you hover over a watch/warning area, that they have a little quick loading pop-up text box (like a tool tip) stating the type of watch or advisory it might be. All of the serious warnings use box outlines instead of shading so they stand out from everything else anyway. I know people don't like it but with it in beta, it's coming. Make your suggestions. They're too far along to make any major changes it looks like but usability is in the details anyway. Why do you not like Google Maps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Not sure how practical it is, but I'm going to suggest that when you hover over a watch/warning area, that they have a little quick loading pop-up text box (like a tool tip) stating the type of watch or advisory it might be. All of the serious warnings use box outlines instead of shading so they stand out from everything else anyway. I know people don't like it but with it in beta, it's coming. Make your suggestions. They're too far along to make any major changes it looks like but usability is in the details anyway. Why do you not like Google Maps? Google maps is slow to load for one thing and then this is just piggybacking on something that is already slow. As for my personal opinion beyond the speed issue, which many noted, the fact that they only specify severe, tornado and flash flood warnings as special color would make things a bit confusing, For example, under this system, ice storm winter storm and blizzard watches/warnings are all one color. So are red flag/high wind warnings, as are tropical storm/hurricane watches/warnings. Tell me there wont be some confusion there. I think its trying to dumb down a system that didn't need to be dumbed down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerball Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I agree with what everyone but DaculaWeather said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.