Design Meeting Internal June 1, 2021

Participants

• Jamie H.
• Murray J.
• Joost v.
• Tiegan H.
• Karolina P.
• Drew R.
• Will C.
• Malaika U.
• Nicky H.
• Sahar S.
• Philip L.
• Anthony F.

Minutes

Tiegan:

• will hold off on the probabilistic piece, for now, still have some work to do on the data validation

Jamie:

• Review the current state of wireframes
  • Tiegan: focus on scenarios

Feedback on Home Page

• Tiegan: we can hold off on training
• Jamie: Remove the data by area for now?
  • Tiegan: no let's leave it since we’ll have the data ready in a few weeks
• Sahar: Did we settle on “Data by:” or “View By:”?
  • Tiegan: we should get feedback from users
  • Jamie: we can change this easily later
  • Tiegan: noted
• Murray: where does the Learn More button take you?
  • Jamie: this will take you to the about page
  • Tiegan: Phil will take on the about section

Feedback on Scenario Page

• Tiegan: we will look at the wording of the scenario landing page
  • Joost: users may search using any terms, not just municipality
• Sahar: “data” can be intimidating, perhaps we want to use “information”, or just “view”
• Drew: a lot of scenarios are overlapping spatially
  • Tiegan: we’ve explored some visualization techniques in past meetings
    • Jamie: we can do this using a few different techniques
• Murray:
  • in the left column, can we use a qualitative scale to get a sense of the magnitude of risk across the scenarios
  • Should it be qualitative or quantitative?
  • Tiegan: magnitude and dollars are probably generally understood but would be good to indicate impact (low, med, high or perhaps local, provincial, national)
    • We’ll ask our users and adjust
• Sahar: what are these scenarios? Are they the most significant?
  • Tiegan: significance is subjective, we should be flexible
    • Sahar: how many scenarios will we have?
      • Tiegan: we will have 5-10 initially
        • Emergency manager will look at worst-case scenario or likely scenario based on current knowledge
  • Likelihood of the scenario is probably important (probability of this happening)
    • Tiegan: agree in principle but we won’t have this ready for v1.0
      • We should be clear that this catalogue doesn’t include all scenarios
  • Sahar: can we show a range of values instead of an exact number
    • Not everyone understands “downtime”
      • Tiegan: it will be called “damage” not “downtime” and we’ll round the numbers
• Phil: disclaimer popup required
  • Tuna’s review shows that we need to note what’s not included in the numbers
  • Tiegan: document what’s included and what’s not included in the scenarios
    • disclaimer for model results
• Murray: reference map is critical, perhaps use the MMI map?
  • way to contextualize the scenarios that people are looking at, correlate the box colour with the map elements
    • Tiegan: this is feasible and would be effective

Review Scenario Page

• Tiegan: interacting with map updates the content on the right
• Malaika: Not clear what the charts are referencing
  • Default should be ground shaking
  • Tiegan: default will be the shakemap and then you can select different indicators (e.g. fatalities)
  • Jamie: we can put the dropdown in the right column
    • Does choosing the indicator change the map?
      • Tiegan: yes
  • Tiegan: the summary would stay the same regardless of what region you are focused on
    • Sahar: so the charts will show the regional data?
      • Tiegan: yes, ideally but perhaps we can show totals
      • Jamie: we’ll have overlapping polygons (i.e. scenario polygon, muni polygon)
        • Data on the right is for a polygon
          • Tiegan: yes
        • We’ll need a back button to go back to the whole scenario
    • Murray: can we rank the municipalities to show relative impact in the list view?
      • Tiegan: great suggestion, we can do this
        • Murray, perhaps use the indicator selected?
          • Tiegan: will consider
• Phil: What is the download workflow?
  • Joost: we’ll point to GitHub
  • Tiegan: we should add a download link that will take you to the GitHub resources
• Phil: Is there a narrative for the scenario?
  • Tiegan: noted, perhaps this is a v2 enhancement, but we can add something
• Phil: in a future version would be nice to see the scenarios in a matrix

Chat Notes

Malaika U. to Everyone (10:56 AM) Perhaps a colour scale for the background of the scenarios? Dots could correspond with the colours as well. But based on what risk metric?

Jamie H. to Everyone (11:00 AM) https://projects.invisionapp.com/d/main?origin=v7#/console/21299984/449574477/preview?scrollOffset=0 https://invis.io/NR10Q7VTSJ4B#/449574477_RiskProfiler_SCENARIO_HOVER-OVER

Murray J. to Everyone (11:04 AM) If we wanted to show a range of values, the USGS impact scales may be of interest:https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/images/pager_back.pdf

Malaika U. to Everyone (11:08 AM) Do we want to consider a return period threshold for scenarios that are included in the library?

Nicky H. to Everyone (11:10 AM) In future - you could add a note as to whether or not the scenario can trigger a tsunami - perhaps at the event page.

Sahar S. to Everyone (11:14 AM) I vote for more clear note on what is included what is not. This has always been a source of confusion

Malaika U. to Everyone (11:18 AM) I remember Jamie suggesting the little question mark or "i" icon after each indicator as well so there can be a pop-up that explains what is included and what is not and what it means.

Nicky H.s to Everyone (11:30 AM) I like the clean and simple layout. Is there a narrative associated with each scenario?

Nicky H. to Everyone (11:37 AM) similar to the USGS pager sheet? https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pager/onepager.php

Nicky H. to Everyone (11:43 AM) perhaps worth developing a narrative template for each scenario so that each scenario captures the same points