Open colinmurphy01 opened 1 year ago
From Shad in slack Here's some relevant policy that governs Area Forecast Discussion (AFDs). I've asked many if they prefer to use plain language or technical when they write AFDs, and often those that use a lot of technical will say b/c other meteorologists are reading it (e.g. TV mets) or b/c it serves as good read-in for the next shift at the WFO. You'll notice on page 6 there's no mention of impacts. This may be a case of being aware of policy but not letting it dictate the future of weather.gov 2.0. I don't think this policy supports effective communication to public/EMs. https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01005003curr.pdf
Need to understand first
Then we will rescope this research to be more targeted
This could be something we explore in later rounds of research with forecasters (possibly paired with CMS exploration)
Description
We heard that forecasters often use technical jargon in how they communicate weather, which creates an impediment to user understanding.
Related Boulder: #55
Questions to consider
Research considerations