You're not missing anything, still not possible. And something that definitely needs to be addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by North
Printable View
You're not missing anything, still not possible. And something that definitely needs to be addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by North
One of my peeves with the new website is that they did away with the "news" section on the home page. They used to put information on the home page that let you know if there had been a recent serious avalanche incident, along with a link to a preliminary or final report. Now you have to dig into the site further to find out about any recent serious incidents.
Any product, especially from a state agency, that relies upon instagram for timely dissemination of critical information is a failure.
Yep. Doesn't matter, they stuck with the previous afternoon "best guess" forecast rather than do an update from what I saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by North
I follow a few other centers, and I'm sorry but the CAIC is near the bottom of the list with the product that they put out.
I like the 430 day-before forecasts. But agree that the dynamic regions is not that helpful - and a surprising number of times I've been planning somewhere right along a forecast border. Also, in the process, I feel like something is lost in the "discussion" now. It used to be specific to the set regions, and I'd get a good feel for the trending situation of the 1-2 most relevant zones by reading each day. But now the discussions cover much broader areas with then references within each to front range, park range, flat tops, etc. so from one day to the next, they tend to jumble together and I don't maintain as much general trend knowledge of my most relevant zone(s). Am I right on that? Am I remembering the prior discussion sections accurately?
The forecast discussions the past few years had been trending into the "regional" style discussions like we're seeing now. They weren't always identical between zones... but if you read multiple zones it was very common for the discussion to be copy/pasted between zones within the same region.
^^^ Got it, some misremembering on my end
Appreciate the thoughtful and honest comments here.
CAIC is working with Simon Fraiser University and NCAR researchers to formalize user research and testing of its products. This is part of a broader effort by SFU which has similar research panels being constructed in Europe and Canada. If you're interested in participating -- you can signup here: https://caicsignup.avalancheresearch.ca/en/
This is great, I filled it out, happy to help if I can
Sweet. The cool thing about the panel is that CAIC will be able to systematically understand how products impact differentially impact various user groups. Last week was the first big kickoff meeting of the project -- so don't expect immediate survey's in your inbox as research priorities are defined, questions/activities are designed, ethics reviews are passed, etc. Hopefully panelists will start getting regular interactions late this summer or next fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by tang
Folks curious about the folks at SFU behind this can read more at http://www.avalancheresearch.ca/ or follow them on IG: https://www.instagram.com/sfu_avalancheresearch/