Hurrah No BBC weathers this am.
David
--
Regards,
David
<><
Please reply to News Group
David
Sorry missed a word out of header.
I'm on about weather maps and hate the new ones.
"David" <d.remo...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:%TjGe.17716$Hd4....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
:::Jerry::::
>
The weather always seemed better when they used those magnetic
maps.... :~)
Doctor D
> The weather always seemed better when they used those magnetic
> maps.... :~)
...............and talked about dropping the F in fog!
(I'll get my coat!)
Martin Underwood
> PS
> Sorry missed a word out of header.
> I'm on about weather maps and hate the new ones.
I'm gradually getting used to the new symbols for showing cloud (darker
brown than normal), rain (blue with rainfall animation) etc. I think the
light/dark brown is confusing - it would have been better if cloud cover had
been shown as grey rather than just a darker version of the default brown.
And I'm not convinced about their use of brown rather than (say) green for
the default colour: I know thay say that brown shows up better, but I'd be
interested to see comparisons to judge for myself.
But the thing that really bugs me is the fact that the map show the British
Isles obliquely - even if less so than at the beginning. WTF can't they show
the British Isles in a proper top-down layout like you see in any atlas? I
know that weather satellites view the UK obliquely, but surely (surely!)
that isn't the reason - it's not rocket science to correct for that.
Guy
"Martin Underwood" wrote
WTF can't they show
> the British Isles in a proper top-down layout like you see in any atlas? I
> know that weather satellites view the UK obliquely, but surely (surely!)
> that isn't the reason - it's not rocket science to correct for that.
I suspect that, if we were to be told the truth, the phrase 'focus group'
may feature. Enough said?
Bill
<d.remo...@tesco.net> writes
>Sorry missed a word out of header. I'm on about weather maps and hate
>the new ones.
Hating is not enough. Get out there and keep complaining loud and long.
"Our research also showed that viewers were often confused by the amount
of information presented to them. For example many people do not
understand pressure charts and feel disenfranchised when they are shown.
However, we will continue to use them when they help to tell the weather
story."
Maybe if the author of this statement, Andrew Lane, Manager of the BBC
Weather Centre, could be sent off to tell his stories elsewhere, we
might get back to a simple straightforward 2d graphic that shows some
useful information.
Sam Nelson
"Martin Underwood" <ne...@f9.net> writes:
> "David" <d.remo...@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:MVjGe.17717$Hd4....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > PS
> > Sorry missed a word out of header.
> > I'm on about weather maps and hate the new ones.
>
> I'm gradually getting used to the new symbols for showing cloud (darker
> brown than normal), rain (blue with rainfall animation) etc. I think the
> light/dark brown is confusing - it would have been better if cloud cover had
> been shown as grey rather than just a darker version of the default brown.
> And I'm not convinced about their use of brown rather than (say) green for
> the default colour: I know thay say that brown shows up better, but I'd be
> interested to see comparisons to judge for myself.
It's to do with colour blindness and colour perception for the visually
impaired, AIUI. Browns and blues are better than reds and greens. But
I'm fascinated to know how they'll do fog and snow: we haven't had any
wintry forecasts with the new kit yet.
> But the thing that really bugs me is the fact that the map show the British
> Isles obliquely - even if less so than at the beginning. WTF can't they show
> the British Isles in a proper top-down layout like you see in any atlas? I
> know that weather satellites view the UK obliquely, but surely (surely!)
> that isn't the reason - it's not rocket science to correct for that.
Note that Met Office HQ is in Exeter, which is almost mapped at street-level
on the new displays---while, when they put a dot on the map marked `Lerwick'
the dot obscures the whole of the Shetlands.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
Originally, we were told that research had told them that wind speeds and
directions were `only of minority interest', along with synoptic charts.
They've relented on that a little recently, and I note that the `masses of
arrowheads' method of displaying the wind seems to have disappeared, to
be replaced with the arrowed-circle-with-a-number-in-it as of old.
--
SAm.
Roderick Stewart
> "Our research also showed that viewers were often confused by the amount
> of information presented to them. For example many people do not
> understand pressure charts and feel disenfranchised when they are shown.
> However, we will continue to use them when they help to tell the weather
> story."
>
> Maybe if the author of this statement, Andrew Lane, Manager of the BBC
> Weather Centre, could be sent off to tell his stories elsewhere, we
> might get back to a simple straightforward 2d graphic that shows some
> useful information.
Maybe we could suggest a use for the so-called "interactive" button that's
actually useful. It's not interactive at all of course, just a way of
selecting an alternative channel, usually related in some way to the main
one. The main channel could adopt the current simplified "Ladybird book of
Weather" style chart for "England plus the other bits round the edges",
while the red button could lead us to a conventional map projection of the
whole of the British Isles with meaningful numbers and symbols for wind
speed, temperature, humidity, pollen count, tides, sunrise/sunset times,
and any other weather-related stuff that might interest intelligent adults.
Rod.
SpamTrapSeeSig
Stewart <rj...@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> writes
>The main channel could adopt the current simplified "Ladybird book of
>Weather"
We've got that somewhere, on the bookshelf up in the kids' playroom. I'm
sure it's far more sophisticated than the BBC's present weather map.
I have got the hang of it though now and it doesn't bother me. It's just
the cue to switch over, to catch a real forecast on ITV1.
Regards,
Simonm.
--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY, BRISTOL www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/
Sam Nelson
Bill <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> In message <MVjGe.17717$Hd4....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, David
> <d.remo...@tesco.net> writes
> >Sorry missed a word out of header. I'm on about weather maps and hate
> >the new ones.
>
> Hating is not enough. Get out there and keep complaining loud and long.
>
> "Our research also showed that viewers were often confused by the amount
> of information presented to them. For example many people do not
> understand pressure charts and feel disenfranchised when they are shown.
So, then, once a year or so, the Weather Centre produces a programme called
`Understainding The Weather' which lasts about an hour and is also easily
available on DVD and/or download from website. Anyone, anywhere, can watch
it, understand it, grasp a semantically-rich weather chart as a result.
Heck, there could even be a `Newsround Edition' for kids. How hard could
it be?
--
SAm.
M. J. Powell
Underwood <ne...@f9.net> writes
>"David" <d.remo...@tesco.net> wrote in message
>news:MVjGe.17717$Hd4....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> PS
>> Sorry missed a word out of header.
>> I'm on about weather maps and hate the new ones.
>
>I'm gradually getting used to the new symbols for showing cloud (darker
>brown than normal), rain (blue with rainfall animation) etc. I think the
>light/dark brown is confusing - it would have been better if cloud cover had
>been shown as grey rather than just a darker version of the default brown.
Think of it as the shadow of the clouds.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Zero Tolerance
>"For example many people do not
>understand pressure charts and feel disenfranchised when they are shown."
Just so long as there's no dumbing down, then...
Stuart Crow
news:42e9f409$0$3479$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:
> But the thing that really bugs me is the fact that the map show the
> British Isles obliquely - even if less so than at the beginning. WTF
> can't they show the British Isles in a proper top-down layout like you
> see in any atlas? I know that weather satellites view the UK
> obliquely, but surely (surely!) that isn't the reason - it's not
> rocket science to correct for that.
Weather satellites don't view the UK all that obliquely anyway, have
a look at
I use the animations of satellite images from that site and the rain radar
images from the Met Office website and decide for myself now what the
weather is likely to do. It's an accurate way of doing it for a period
of a day, which is all I need.
John Gilliver
[]
> But the thing that really bugs me is the fact that the map show the British
> Isles obliquely - even if less so than at the beginning. WTF can't they show
Less so than at the beginning, indeed: there were furious letters (in the RT)
from Scots who, justifiably I thought, didn't like the whole of their country
being shown the same size as a small English county!
It is still _somewhat_ irritating, in that the angles aren't _constant_; it
moves around in a sickening manner (though, again, less so, due to
complaints!), making the area "under the camera" appear distortedly (?) big.
(I'm sure that was the intention; it just doesn't really work in the context
of a national forecast in the time allotted.)
[]
--
(Amend return address when replying.)
--
J. P. Gilliver | Tel: VNET 333 4133 (+44 1245 242133)
England, United Kingdom. | Email: john.gilliver [] baesystems.com
| (replace "[]" with "@")
John Gilliver
[]
> Originally, we were told that research had told them that wind speeds and
> directions were `only of minority interest', along with synoptic charts.
> They've relented on that a little recently, and I note that the `masses of
> arrowheads' method of displaying the wind seems to have disappeared, to
> be replaced with the arrowed-circle-with-a-number-in-it as of old.
The trouble with that approach is, when you're not particularly close to one
of their little flags, you have to make a guess at what the wind is near you.
I'll admit I'm not that bothered about wind (not in the summer weather,
anyway), but I feel the same about temperature: I thought it was a stroke of
genius when they brought in colouring in the land in different temperatures,
rather than you having to try to guess which of the big yellow (or ...)
circles you were vaguely near to. But they've gone back to that, now - or
rather, a number "floating" over somewhere, which is harder to pin down (and I
think there are fewer of them too).
John Gilliver
[]
> >light/dark brown is confusing - it would have been better if cloud cover had
> >been shown as grey rather than just a darker version of the default brown.
> Think of it as the shadow of the clouds.
Unfortunately, when I first saw the new style, I thought that the dark browns
were supposed to be where it was damp, and am finding it difficult to get my
mind off that idea - light brown rock being sun-baked, as it were ... the
animated puddles probably _are_ clear enough, I just got the wrong idea in the
first place, and am having difficulty throwing it off.
David Taylor
> M. J. Powell (mi...@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk) wrote (Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:32:46 +0100):
> []
>> >light/dark brown is confusing - it would have been better if cloud cover had
>> >been shown as grey rather than just a darker version of the default brown.
>
>> Think of it as the shadow of the clouds.
>
> Unfortunately, when I first saw the new style, I thought that the dark browns
> were supposed to be where it was damp, and am finding it difficult to get my
> mind off that idea - light brown rock being sun-baked, as it were ... the
> animated puddles probably _are_ clear enough, I just got the wrong idea in the
> first place, and am having difficulty throwing it off.
The main problem I have with the new maps is the idea they were brought
it to make the weather "simpler" to understand.
I don't know about anyone else, but I understood the old maps a lot
better...
(Perhaps because there was actually more content than style in them)
--
David Taylor
Peter Hayes
> "Martin Underwood" <ne...@f9.net> wrote in
> news:42e9f409$0$3479$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:
>
>
> > But the thing that really bugs me is the fact that the map show the
> > British Isles obliquely - even if less so than at the beginning. WTF
> > can't they show the British Isles in a proper top-down layout like you
> > see in any atlas? I know that weather satellites view the UK
> > obliquely, but surely (surely!) that isn't the reason - it's not
> > rocket science to correct for that.
>
> Weather satellites don't view the UK all that obliquely anyway, have
> a look at
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9bar9
If that's not oblique I'd like to see your definition of oblique.
The whole idea of slanting the UK is fundamentally flawed, typical style
over substance thinking that distorts children's education.
--
Peter
charles
Peter Hayes <pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The whole idea of slanting the UK is fundamentally flawed, typical style
> over substance thinking that distorts children's education.
>
Isn't it just a "designer's" way of getting the UK to fit into a 16x9 screen
when it really should be on a 9x16 one? ;-)
--
From KT24 - in "leafy" Surrey
Using a RISC OS5 computer
Roderick Stewart
> > The whole idea of slanting the UK is fundamentally flawed, typical style
> > over substance thinking that distorts children's education.
> >
> Isn't it just a "designer's" way of getting the UK to fit into a 16x9 screen
> when it really should be on a 9x16 one? ;-)
If it is, then what is the point of zooming in on parts of it?
Rod.
Peter Hayes
> In article <1h0i980.gt3uy8sp1eg5N%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
> Peter Hayes <pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The whole idea of slanting the UK is fundamentally flawed, typical style
> > over substance thinking that distorts children's education.
> >
> Isn't it just a "designer's" way of getting the UK to fit into a 16x9 screen
> when it really should be on a 9x16 one? ;-)
Yeup, style over substance.
Curiously, BBC Scotland also distort Scotland in the same manner, when
there's really no need to.
--
Peter
M. J. Powell
<g6...@gmrc.gecm.com> writes
>M. J. Powell (mi...@DeLeTe.pickmere.demon.co.uk) wrote (Fri, 29 Jul 2005
>15:32:46 +0100):
>[]
>> >light/dark brown is confusing - it would have been better if cloud cover had
>> >been shown as grey rather than just a darker version of the default brown.
>
>> Think of it as the shadow of the clouds.
>
>Unfortunately, when I first saw the new style, I thought that the dark browns
>were supposed to be where it was damp, and am finding it difficult to get my
>mind off that idea - light brown rock being sun-baked, as it were ... the
>animated puddles probably _are_ clear enough, I just got the wrong idea in the
>first place, and am having difficulty throwing it off.
Struggle harder!
Mike
charles
Peter Hayes <pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Yeup, style over substance.
> Curiously, BBC Scotland also distort Scotland in the same manner, when
> there's really no need to.
Having spent most of the last fortnight seeing this, I can assure you that
Scotland does not fit into a 16x9 format either. However, the oblique view
mean that the presenter is always standing in front of some of the map.
Usually this was the Western Isles - where we were staying - so we never saw
the pictorial bit of that area and it wasn't usually mentioned either. R4's
shipping forecast was a lot more use.
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> "Our research also showed that viewers were often confused by the amount
> of information presented to them. For example many people do not
> understand pressure charts and feel disenfranchised when they are shown.
What he means is that Dead Ringers started taking the Mick.
I don't mind some of the forecasts dropping pressure and fronts and
just telling me very clearly about any rain or snow that'll fall on my
head over the next five days, what the temperature will be, whether
it'll be stupidly windy, whether they're be too much sun or pollen for
my own good etc.
The problem is that the old forecast just about did that, while the new
forecast doesn't at all.
I was quite happy with them talking about the fronts that were bringing
us the weather before telling us what the weather itself was going to
be. They don't need to be short of time - just drop a trailer and make
the forecast a bit longer!
FWIW the more annoying problem is that I can get three completely
different forecasts from Radio 4, DTT and BBC1 - all supposedly from
the Met Office. When one says "you're going to get soaked", the other
promises sunshine, and the reality is a dry cloudy day, then it doesn't
matter what map they use!
Cheers,
David.
charles
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> FWIW the more annoying problem is that I can get three completely
> different forecasts from Radio 4, DTT and BBC1 - all supposedly from
> the Met Office. When one says "you're going to get soaked", the other
> promises sunshine, and the reality is a dry cloudy day, then it doesn't
> matter what map they use!
or you can go to the Met Office's website: www.met-office.gov.uk any time
you want, rather than waiting for the broadcast bulletin.
Bill
<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> writes
The advantage for me of the old BBC1 weather maps was that I only had to
catch a quick glance after the news and I could take in the isobars, the
wind speeds and rainfall predictions and make my own guess whether it
was worth setting off on an 80mile drive across Wales to the boat. The
thing now zooms around, rarely mentions anything but rain and needs all
my limited processing power to see past the animated raindrops and
confusing colours. I used to feel in control of the guesswork, now I
don't.
Going to the computer and navigating round the Met Office site leads to
complaints by the distaff side of the household saying "You're at that
computer again, not listening to me".
Didn't BBC2 used to have a decent weather forecast after Newsnight? What
happened to that?
Alan White
>The advantage for me of the old BBC1 weather maps was that I only had to
>catch a quick glance after the news and I could take in the isobars, the
>wind speeds and rainfall predictions and make my own guess whether it
>was worth setting off on an 80mile drive across Wales to the boat. The
>thing now zooms around, rarely mentions anything but rain and needs all
>my limited processing power to see past the animated raindrops and
>confusing colours. I used to feel in control of the guesswork, now I
>don't.
Those are my thoughts, exactly.
It's a mess.
--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam and weather:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather/kabcam.htm
Some walks and treks:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks/index.html
Hyphen
> FWIW the more annoying problem is that I can get three completely
> different forecasts from Radio 4, DTT and BBC1 - all supposedly from
> the Met Office. When one says "you're going to get soaked", the other
> promises sunshine, and the reality is a dry cloudy day, then it
> doesn't matter what map they use!
What I find even worse is BBC.co.uk/weather.
I live in Nottingham. If I look at the UK version,
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?id=2803)
it tells me what it believes is the weather. However, the World version
seems to disagree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?world=4704 certainly gives
different temperature, pressure and wind readings but sometimes can say
it's raining when UK says it's sunny.
Just strikes me as very bad as Nottingham's weather comes from the
weather station at Nottingham East Midlands Airport so how can it
disagree with itself?
--
Hyphen
http://www.khyle.org.uk/
charles
surely the simplest UK weather forecast is "if it's not raining, it will be
shortly"
Hyphen
> surely the simplest UK weather forecast is "if it's not raining, it will be
> shortly"
*looks out window*
*grins*
Oh how accurate that is ;-)
--
Hyphen
http://www.khyle.org.uk/
David Wilson Clarke
> Just strikes me as very bad as Nottingham's weather comes from the
> weather station at Nottingham East Midlands Airport so how can it
> disagree with itself?
Maybe if Nottingham East Midlands Airport was in Nottinghamshire, it would
show Nottingham's weather :}
--
Dave Clarke
Hyphen
> Maybe if Nottingham East Midlands Airport was in Nottinghamshire, it would
> show Nottingham's weather :}
That one never ceases to amuse me! The airport is in Leicestershire,
it's closest to the city centre of Derby yet somebody decided to splat
'Nottingham' on the front of it.
Yet when an airport in Yorkshire opens up with the words 'Robin Hood' in
it, all hell breaks loose from our council... ;-)
--
Hyphen
http://www.khyle.org.uk/
David Wilson Clarke
> David Wilson Clarke wrote:
>> Maybe if Nottingham East Midlands Airport was in Nottinghamshire, it
>> would show Nottingham's weather :}
>
> That one never ceases to amuse me! The airport is in Leicestershire,
> it's closest to the city centre of Derby yet somebody decided to splat
> 'Nottingham' on the front of it.
And there is also a Nottingham Airport, to add to the confusion.
> Yet when an airport in Yorkshire opens up with the words 'Robin Hood' in
> it, all hell breaks loose from our council... ;-)
Made me laugh, as well.
--
Dave Clarke
Martin Underwood
news:dcm8lm$avb$2...@odyssey.colin-jones.co.uk...
> David Wilson Clarke wrote:
>> Maybe if Nottingham East Midlands Airport was in Nottinghamshire, it
>> would
>> show Nottingham's weather :}
>
> That one never ceases to amuse me! The airport is in Leicestershire, it's
> closest to the city centre of Derby yet somebody decided to splat
> 'Nottingham' on the front of it.
How long's it been called *Nottingham* East Midlands Airport? I thought it
was just East Midlands Airport. I'm surprised that it's closer to Derby than
to Nottinghasm, but a quick look at the map shows that Derby is closer to
the M1 and Nottingham is further from the M1 than I'd imagined so EMA *is*
closer to Derby.
Paul Sherwin
wrote:
I just know it as 'Castle Donnington', which is the place it's
actually close to :-)
Best regards, Paul
--
Paul Sherwin Consulting http://paulsherwin.co.uk
Hyphen
> How long's it been called *Nottingham* East Midlands Airport?
Quite a while. Can't find an exact date, although it's hard to get
Google to give me a straight answer at this time of night...!
> I thought it
> was just East Midlands Airport.
It was until the name was changed, seemingly by BMIBaby who wanted to
market it to foreigners. They apparently did a load of market research
in cities they fly to from there, and out of Leicester, Derby and
Nottingham, the latter is the only one they'd heard of (Robin Hood,
Sherwood Forest, etc, etc). Personally couldn't care less what it's
called - all I do care about is the fact that I'm above the flight
path... :-(
> I'm surprised that it's closer to Derby than
> to Nottinghasm, but a quick look at the map shows that Derby is closer to
> the M1 and Nottingham is further from the M1 than I'd imagined so EMA *is*
> closer to Derby.
Yes, and I live on the arterial route from the M1 to Nottingham. Combine
that with the flight path and it's not the quietest of places to live ;-)
--
Hyphen
http://www.khyle.org.uk/
Hyphen
> And there is also a Nottingham Airport, to add to the confusion.
Although that's a crappy little one in the middle of nowhere with no
international flights!
--
Hyphen
http://www.khyle.org.uk/
David Wilson Clarke
Nah, Diseworth, or maybe Isley Walton.
--
Dave Clarke
David Wilson Clarke
> David Wilson Clarke wrote:
>> And there is also a Nottingham Airport, to add to the confusion.
>
> Although that's a crappy little one in the middle of nowhere
All airports are in the middle of nowhere (well most).
> with no international flights!
Yes, but some people still want to use it.
--
Dave Clarke
Dave Liquorice
> - all I do care about is the fact that I'm above the flight path...
> :-(
<snip>
> Yes, and I live on the arterial route from the M1 to Nottingham.
> Combine that with the flight path and it's not the quietest of
> places to live ;-)
How do you and the traffic stay up there?
--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
Linker3000
> Pity they did not use the old ones.
>
I've given up with the Beeb's forcast and use the Firefox Web browser
with the ForecastFox weather plugin to get a now/next + 5-day synopsis
of the weather in my area displayed as icons at the foot of the browser
- very cute.