Wow, this story is annoying me a lot more than I expected. There's a whole lot of shaming of the layperson in here, with a wink wink nudge nudge that if people would just _think a little_, they could save themselves a lot of trouble.
> Graphics like these need to be read closely and carefully. Only then can we grasp what they're really saying.
Well, that's ridiculous. If these graphics were in an app, we'd tear them apart for the poor user experience. Look at this: https://imgur.com/a/Ko2Z4uM
There is nothing there to indicate that what you're looking at is the probability distribution of the center of the storm. The very obvious interpretation of this graphic, without additional context, is that this cone is the area that could be affected by the hurricane. This is reinforced by:
1. The size of the start of the cone is the same as the size of the hurricane
2. There is a well defined border to the path
3. There is no additional shading outside the cone that indicates "could also face danger"
Furthermore, "probable path of the storm center" is not something the general public cares about! That is not the question that needs answered! What people want to know is, "will I be in the path of the hurricane?"
There is a big box with a bunch of text at the top of the graphic saying that it is showing the probable path of the storm's center, but does not show the size of the storm. This is different than saying "the storm may extend beyond the edges of the cone". And the next line is "hazardous conditions may occur outside the cone." Okay, every time there's a thunderstorm or 50mph wind gusts, there's an alert in my weather app about hazardous conditions. That information is too vague to be actionable. This doesn't even touch on the design aspects of this graphic, such as how the massive amount of text, size, color, spacing, etc, seems to draw the eye away from that message at the top.
But getting back to a point from a previous paragraph, why is this even disseminated widely at all, when this graphic is so misleading and also not what people need to know? Is it the NHS pushing it out to the public? Is it the media? It seems wildly irresponsible. The tropical storm force wind speeds graphic mentioned in TFA would be a much better product to deliver. Or, just create a graphic that is what the article has already identified as the natural interpretation - a cone of the possible area that could be affected by the hurricane!
Sorry, but excuses for poor design are a real pet peeve of mine.
Seriously. I already know everything in the aricle (because I've read similar before) and yet I still have trouble remembering it when reading a map and trying to visualize the area I actually care about. I can't imagine how the heck purple are supposed to just deal with this and wrap their head around it, especially regarding an emergency.
I'm wondering if the people who didn't prepare due to a misleading map despite a technically accurate prediction can sue for damage? Not that I would enjoy seeing NOAA et al. in a lawsuit, but if nothing else has gotten them to fix these, maybe a lawsuit will?
I did not come away with that impression. Rather, what I came away with was: people tend to misunderstand these visualizations, so we should re-evaluate using them.
You're constructing a straw man here. All your points are explained by the NWS themselves on the plot, and this is but one of the many products you can avail yourself of, along with the different wind speed probability plots, etc.
As to why this particular one is shown by the media, I guess you have to ask them.
> Graphics like these need to be read closely and carefully. Only then can we grasp what they're really saying.
Well, that's ridiculous. If these graphics were in an app, we'd tear them apart for the poor user experience. Look at this: https://imgur.com/a/Ko2Z4uM
There is nothing there to indicate that what you're looking at is the probability distribution of the center of the storm. The very obvious interpretation of this graphic, without additional context, is that this cone is the area that could be affected by the hurricane. This is reinforced by:
1. The size of the start of the cone is the same as the size of the hurricane 2. There is a well defined border to the path 3. There is no additional shading outside the cone that indicates "could also face danger"
Furthermore, "probable path of the storm center" is not something the general public cares about! That is not the question that needs answered! What people want to know is, "will I be in the path of the hurricane?"
Even the official NHC product has its faults: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT05/refresh/AL05201...
There is a big box with a bunch of text at the top of the graphic saying that it is showing the probable path of the storm's center, but does not show the size of the storm. This is different than saying "the storm may extend beyond the edges of the cone". And the next line is "hazardous conditions may occur outside the cone." Okay, every time there's a thunderstorm or 50mph wind gusts, there's an alert in my weather app about hazardous conditions. That information is too vague to be actionable. This doesn't even touch on the design aspects of this graphic, such as how the massive amount of text, size, color, spacing, etc, seems to draw the eye away from that message at the top.
But getting back to a point from a previous paragraph, why is this even disseminated widely at all, when this graphic is so misleading and also not what people need to know? Is it the NHS pushing it out to the public? Is it the media? It seems wildly irresponsible. The tropical storm force wind speeds graphic mentioned in TFA would be a much better product to deliver. Or, just create a graphic that is what the article has already identified as the natural interpretation - a cone of the possible area that could be affected by the hurricane!
Sorry, but excuses for poor design are a real pet peeve of mine.