Thanks a lot for the great first website version, @pat-schmitt . Here are already some small things to discuss/adapt:
I like the map on the first page a lot. I hope it will still work for more glaciers, but otherwise, we could eventually only show a selection of glaciers on the map, and the others would just be in the "country" list? A potential idea could also be to include some additional information into the list of glaciers (such as the deglaciation year), but I also like the minimal style as it is now!
[x] typo: goodby --> goodbye
individual glacier sites:
[x] I would put the first sentence (e.g. "Gebroulaz has a volume of 0.162 km³ in 2020") before the 3D visualisation as it is maybe nice to know?
[x] After the 3D visualisation, we could directly add the deglaciation year sentence. ... "Gebroulaz will be gone around 2068 (Range: 2057 - 2087) with + 2.7°C global warming ( current policy prediction)."... I think that this information should appear without needing to click somewhere because this is the main information that people see on the signposts
[x] We also need to think here a bit more about how to best name this as it is currently 10% that still remains...I think it would be great to be consistent with the figure annotations, and I have a few sentence ideas for changing the sentence from above.
Gebroulaz is projected to basically disappear around 2068 (with a likely range between 2057 and 2087) under +2.7°C global warming (current policy prediction).
disadvantage: deglaciation year not mentioned, but could rename figure annotation to "Estimated year to basically disappear"...
For Gebroulaz, models estimate a [deglaciation year](link to deglaciation year description) around 2068 (likely range: 2057-2087) with a projected global warming of +2.7°C under current policies.
advantage: deglaciation year mentioned, disadvantage: maybe deglaciation year is too "complex"
Models project that Gebroulaz will be almost entirely gone around 2068 (likely range: 2057-2087) with a projected global warming of +2.7°C under current policies. This year, called the deglaciation year, marks the point when less than 10% of the glacier's 2020 volume is expected to remain.
advantage: simple first sentence ... second sentence directly explains what we mean here with "almost entirely gone". An option could also be that a variant of a second sentence only appears when clicking to see the first figure variant. ...
[x] I would put the link to the methods at the end (i.e. below the two clickable options) and write instead: "If you want to learn how this animation and the figures were created, check out the Methods."
[x] also link "likely range" to methods where this will be explained: [likely range](link to methods where the meaning is explained)
[x] there are a few glaciers where we can estimate e.g. a median deglaciation year but not an upper range 83%-ile deglaciation year (in the csv list I added there a NaN). I would suggest writing for these cases "after 2100". At the moment, for e.g. the Rhone glacier, it is just written "0".
Once we have discussed these things, I can do a pull request to change these things. I will also work on the methods page and the regional page and then add the respective links. Eventually I might also add one figure to the regional page that visualises the "deglaciation year" statistics for the glaciers in the European Alps...
Thanks a lot for the great first website version, @pat-schmitt . Here are already some small things to discuss/adapt:
I like the map on the first page a lot. I hope it will still work for more glaciers, but otherwise, we could eventually only show a selection of glaciers on the map, and the others would just be in the "country" list? A potential idea could also be to include some additional information into the list of glaciers (such as the deglaciation year), but I also like the minimal style as it is now!
[x] typo: goodby --> goodbye
individual glacier sites:
[x] I would put the first sentence (e.g. "Gebroulaz has a volume of 0.162 km³ in 2020") before the 3D visualisation as it is maybe nice to know?
[x] After the 3D visualisation, we could directly add the deglaciation year sentence. ... "Gebroulaz will be gone around 2068 (Range: 2057 - 2087) with + 2.7°C global warming ( current policy prediction)."... I think that this information should appear without needing to click somewhere because this is the main information that people see on the signposts
[x] We also need to think here a bit more about how to best name this as it is currently 10% that still remains...I think it would be great to be consistent with the figure annotations, and I have a few sentence ideas for changing the sentence from above.
Gebroulaz is projected to basically disappear around 2068 (with a likely range between 2057 and 2087) under +2.7°C global warming (current policy prediction). disadvantage: deglaciation year not mentioned, but could rename figure annotation to "Estimated year to basically disappear"...
For Gebroulaz, models estimate a [deglaciation year](link to deglaciation year description) around 2068 (likely range: 2057-2087) with a projected global warming of +2.7°C under current policies. advantage: deglaciation year mentioned, disadvantage: maybe deglaciation year is too "complex"
Models project that Gebroulaz will be almost entirely gone around 2068 (likely range: 2057-2087) with a projected global warming of +2.7°C under current policies. This year, called the deglaciation year, marks the point when less than 10% of the glacier's 2020 volume is expected to remain. advantage: simple first sentence ... second sentence directly explains what we mean here with "almost entirely gone". An option could also be that a variant of a second sentence only appears when clicking to see the first figure variant. ...
[x] I would put the link to the methods at the end (i.e. below the two clickable options) and write instead: "If you want to learn how this animation and the figures were created, check out the Methods."
[x] also link "likely range" to methods where this will be explained: [likely range](link to methods where the meaning is explained)
[x] there are a few glaciers where we can estimate e.g. a median deglaciation year but not an upper range 83%-ile deglaciation year (in the csv list I added there a NaN). I would suggest writing for these cases "after 2100". At the moment, for e.g. the Rhone glacier, it is just written "0".
Once we have discussed these things, I can do a pull request to change these things. I will also work on the methods page and the regional page and then add the respective links. Eventually I might also add one figure to the regional page that visualises the "deglaciation year" statistics for the glaciers in the European Alps...