we do not have more dumbing down of the graphics with fewer and fewer details
Sorry, but unfortunately this is a growing trend in the industry. The less info there is, the less confusion there is for the viewer.
Perhaps at the national level this is true, but it seems like the opposite locally. Local stations want to appear that they're actually "microcasting" for your hometown and/or neighborhood, making maps appear more cluttered or making it seem like the weather segment lasts a few maps too long. WGN's Tom Skilling (truly the weather master) actually switched to regional temperature maps that are too detailed with their HD update. I think the lack of detail is one factor that makes watching the local forecast videos (if your city is actually big enough for a true segment) on either weather.com or on Accuweather less satisfying than a local newscast; it's just too vague. The Weather Channel could show more cities if they went back to the way they did the regional maps in the 90s by not showing a forecast icon after every temperature and instead placing icons in key spots to indicate weather conditions.
As for making things simpler, I think the big cold snap was actually an example of how the national maps are too dumbed down. There were not enough cities showing on the map to effectively illustrate the breadth of the cold air, and instead of one good map showing a spread of midwest temps, the OCMs have to click through multiple frames (here's Chicago <click and frame transition> here's Minneapolis. I think another example is during severe weather, where the OCMs geographical knowledge is so poor and no city name is close by that they just speak in generalities or point over there (even the geographically magnificent Bill Kenelly has fallen off, not to mention folks like Warren Madden [major city/Hurricane Hunter name dropper] or Stephanie [okay, unfair]).
While it is always a good idea to make things clear, TWC's attempts at simplification oftentimes makes things worse. An example is the map named "Isobars/Precipitation". If they want to be simple, replace "Isobar" with "Pressure", and go through the trouble of animating H's and L's like local forecasters do. Another example is the strict adherence to the 4-color rain and snow scheme. We have had big snows in the east, and yet the detail of where the snow has actually fallen gets washed out in a sea of violet because no one has the sense to use more gradations of color?
And mentioning trends, TWC seems to be a follower and never a leader, at least when it comes to actual weather and not ratings gimmicks. I give credit for their HD transition. However, remember how long it took for TWC to start showing actual city names on the radar? To show topography on their maps? To use color shading on the temperature maps? To start using winter precipitation radar? And when they try to innovate, the results are often poor. I really wanted to like TruPoint, but using the poor resolution and unlabeled Google map background so you can't really tell where you are on the map is not an example of good simplicity. They never could incorporate dropsonde data well or consistently, either, during hurricane season. Most local weathercasters can display forecast models better than showing them off a website, for another example, and apart from a few like Jim or Carl most OCMs seem ill-equipped. That ultimately may be why TWC needs to simplify, not because it betters understanding, but because it cannot present weather complexity with sufficient finesse across all of its OCMs.
twcfan
