Printable View
Would appreciate input on this "draft" of the new Utah Avalanche Center advisory. "Avalanche Concerns" will be posted as needed, with no more than three used on one day, ussually just one. Still need to add the links to more info on WX, Pics, etc. Just would like some overall impressions.
Thanks!
http://www.avalanche.org/~uac/newadvisory
Sarge
Too much twisted vocabulary.Quote:
inverting-core acceptor deflects the complex chronotron-feedback analysis, try to provoke a coil-composition reflex and several quantum biosphere resonances, this will create a restricted isovolumic cochrane graviton-prediction
Graviton prediction?????
that shit is basic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
You need to study up!
i'd like to see a real one but so far the format looks good.
edit: by that i mean easily understood.
If the UAC wants something that EVERYONE can access and take away life saving info, then it needs to be in a compatible format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountainman
I can talk medical riff raff to my patients, and they stare at me with a dumbfounded look. This format presented by UAC is the same thing. It is not geared toward the laymen.
it looks like it is more geared toward the lay-person than the previous ones the issued.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
There is an active and lively discussion forum over here, sarge, perhaps more receptive to producing meaningful input on the latest and greatest in danger rating graphics.
My personal comment would be, okay, fine with me, now can we get the weather?
JC,
New format looks great. Seems quick and easy.
I wonder if people will develop a tendency to overlook the more nuanced text discussion and just take a quick peek at the graphical representations of the hazard (the aspect circle and the pointers indicating hazard). Probably not, as most BC users are hungry for information.
Summary, I think it looks great and is part of an impressive effort to improve avy awareness and education.
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by powderdave
i think, as you've already mentioned, those who will just take a quick look will be same ones that weren't very likely to read the old one the whole way through.
Thanks for the feedback so far. I'll try to insert a sample forecast in place of the filler text.
What we are trying to do is supply the same information as the old advisory, with graphical representations as well. The new system should allow the forecasters to insert all the information that they did before (including their personal touch). The biggest change I see is that it presentation will be more structured into categories, as opposed to one long rolling narrative like before.
Keep the comments comming, they are really helping us fine tune this thing.
Sarge
http://www.avalanche.org/~uac/newadvisory
Didn't the folks at the Colorado forecast center have a similar format? That seemed pretty nice.
colorado has had the danger rose for the past few years, maybe longer.
But the text is more of a one long narrative, but not hard at all to read and very informative, quick, and to the point. I really like their format. In the past few years while reading back and forth between utah and colorado, colorado's has been my favorite as far as ease to digest.
here is an example of one of the last reports they did last year for the northern zone, when the danger rose was still being updated. This report is probably shorter than most since it's so late in the year, not awhole lot was going on:
http://geosurvey.state.co.us/Avalanc...rea=1&nav=1901
Here is another when things were a little more exciting, again for the northern zone:
http://geosurvey.state.co.us/Avalanc...rea=1&nav=1699
I like your new format. Maybe add a category for news blips about conditions in surrounding areas? Maybe I'm not skiing in that area, but it's kind of nice the way colorado does that.
You might think about doing multiple colors in each zone on the danger rose to show pockets of danger. It would give you a higher resolution of the dangers.
Thanks for the continued input. Here is the latest revision with a sample advisory this time. We've added a "locator rose" to each Concern to let users know where the problem is. Does this work for you guys? It's similar to the danger rose except just designates the location of the concern. The text and other graphics give information as to the magnitude of the concern.
Interested to see what you guys think.
Thanks
Sarge
That form looks extremely good. Good,clear presentation with lot of information.
I wonder when we could get anything remotely that informative,clear and aviable information here in europe...
Different resorts,be it in france,italy,swizerland or austria, post usually a very broad and general one paragraph text, wich they photocopy with a crappy photocopier and post on a icy-no-see-through window.
Then they give you attitude when you go and ask if anyone could tell the days conditions in english,since nobody understand the language in wich is written.
Damn this multiculturality.
Looks good. I think you've succeeded in providing information for both the layman and those more experienced. The rose in most likely all the less educated user can handle. The concerns section in helpful for helping with issue identification. I.e. when someone digs a pit they are more likely to make a "no go" voice bases on finding something (wind slab, surface hoar) etc. they the report identified. I also am a huge fan of the size info. It goes a long way in helping establish consequences with I see routinely overlooked. For example, the rose has a difficulty distinquishing between a very likely 4" soft slap and a not very likely 2' deep slab release. In summary, I think the text and graphics work well to give a very good picture of the conditions. One thing to think about is an perhaps a graphical archive. For somebody that just goes out on the weekend, it may to helpful to present sometype of histogram of conditions in order to display the dynamic nature of the snowpack.
Hey Sarge,
My roomie, who you've been working with on this project from my understanding, just launched this format here at the Sawtooth NFAC. He asked for my feedback so I'll tell you the same thing. Overall, I really love it. I think it's great for anyone with any sort of understanding of avalanche safety and snowpack. My concern was that I know a TON OF FOLKS around these parts with really very little to no knowledge who regularly and incorrectly rely on the advisory to determine their routes and their respective risk. For those people, I think more information presented in such a format as this might be misleading. For instance, they might think that a small slab danger means it's okay...afterall, it's only small slabs, right? Or they might think that if there's a high windslab danger that by default, everything else is okay since that particular danger was the only one with graphics depicited as risky, though it might be a different story for the aspect that they're on. Finally, images are great but sometimes people subsequently skim the real meat (the written advisory) and then concentrate on the pictures.
I believe, obviously, in a lowest common denominator. Sorry to be downer, but it's just my $.02!
Floater:
I don't think there is anyway to resolve the issue of just how much and what to put on any advisory. I empathise with your situation up there and am actually pretty surpised to hear that the level of education up there isn't higher. I always thought Sun Valley was a quite little hard core ski town (some of the best skiers I know are from there), I would think uneducated users would be the minority.
I agree with your point that some may selectively take what they want from the graphic forecast. On the other hand what were they taking from the text only version. One thing I think the graphics do, is make them begin to think spatially (the roses). It also encourages them to begin to make decisions based on mutiple factors such as probabilty, size, and trend. I really think this is an important step for most backcountry users to take.
Additionally, some people just learn more and respond better to graphic images than they do from text (I remember that from my cognitive psych classes). So hopefully this could help make things more clear for them.
The goal of the graphics is to give a quick overview of the current forecast and hopefully draw people into reading the text. And hopefully make the advisories more accessable to a younger user group that have almost come to expect this type of presentation. I know it's a bit USA Today, but hopefully it will be better for a broader user group.
Thanks for the feedback
Sarge
Best freaking advisory I have seen so far (beyond any given detailed discussion).
Having mostly used the Teton forecast, I like the whole idea of using the compass/elevation rose diagram, but you have taken that one step further with the sub charts of Probability vs. Size and also Trend for each of your given avalanche concerns.
Provided that your forecasters are comfortable sticking their necks out in such detail and precision, it is great. I just hope some enterprising and weasely lawyer doesnt use it to sue you when his dumbass client dies.
Seriously, I really think it is a great easy to understand format.
Outstanding!!!
It couldn't be clearer. Even morons should be able to read and understand that.
It maintains all the detailed information as well for the savvy reader. Great work! That is what all public forecast sites should look like. CAIC take note of the avalanche concern graphical format.
not sure how I missed this before...
I like it a lot. I do think the concerns item could benefit from a full color rose as well. I really like the detailed weather that the CAIC gives b/c it is likely the best specific mtn forecast. It should be easy for the UAC to pull in as text a general mtn blurb but even better the cottonwoods forecast.
I am a huge fan of the danger rose if only b/c it makes it snap easy to visualize the aspects, especially when out and about.
looks good
one thing:
Make sure you guys put the date on there some where. I read that, and suspected it was a mock report, but realized there was no place to read a date. Maybe after or replace "Todays Avalanche Report" to "DATE's Avalanche Report"
Looks really good. :yourock:
If you're still looking for feedback, I really like it. Foggy's and Rev's points about relative danger are well taken, but this format is a great step.
I would just add the date at the top, so you're sure you're getting the most recent update. (It says "Today's Forecast," but it says that every day, right?)