Is the new stuff working? I went to www4.americanwhitwater.org and the first thing that I see is:


<\/a>') } random_imglink() //--> //]]> -->

My web browser is Firefox Version 3.0.9.

When I login, the message goes away. Then I go to the National River Database, click on WV and I see the list of rivers/reaches in WV. If I click on the Level R.C. indicator for any reach, I see a little popup with the AW Logo and a big X. When I click on the popup, it disappears.

The same think happens when I do it using IE 7.

Can we change the level descriptions from "med" to "running" and the numbers that show on the river list from "M0..M0" to "R0..R9".

It's very confusing for a river to be "low" or "high", but have the AW site say it's a some level of "medium".

/Skip

Yes! I am cleaning up the correlations where I can. I need to change the key in the summary page. I changed the wording on the correlation editor (which is now very granular). I decided to make sure that M0...M9 read as "boatable" Ls and Hs are dangerous or discouraged. You can leave a general gauge comment now and comment on each specific level. You can describe High runnable, Low runnable and perfect on any ranges you want.


Ryan

Quote:

When I login, the message goes away. Then I go to the National River Database, click on WV and I see the list of rivers/reaches in WV. If I click on the Level R.C. indicator for any reach, I see a little popup with the AW Logo and a big X. When I click on the popup, it disappears.

OK, RCs got fixed today. I am revising how they work to give you more control over what is high runnable and low runnable.

The funny ---?} whatever are due to the nightly update. I disabled scripts and stying in articles, river descriptions, etc. I need to get rid of the artifacts. It had more to do with staff cutting and pasting word documents, but some scripts were killing the site's menus too.

Some of you embed google maps, right? If so, let me know how and I'll try to make an exception for that. See if that is still working on the test site.

Thanks,

Ryan

Rob, I saw your work on:

[www4.americanwhitewater.org]

What do you think? Also, the new site resets every night. So the levels stuff will go away tomorrow, should I try to save it?

Also, wanted to mention that gauge comments will appear on the river summary after the first gauge correlation (next gauge update). You will see a little (i) next to the flow when we get a usgs update.



Ryan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2009 12:51PM by rgroth.

If it's convenient to save what I had done, cool, otherwise no big deal.

A far as comments about the system/functionality, first let me say I'm absolutely thrilled to see implementation whereby StreamTeam volunteers will have the OPTION of specifying varying flow ranges, and (even more importantly) specifying differing ratings (class of whitewater) for each different flow range. THIS WILL BE AWESOME!!! This will truly distinguish AW from any other site I'm aware of!!!

So, comments:

1) On the pull-down list, I'm bothered by the choices.
a) Suggesting any level as 'optimum' is highly subjective. Optimum for who or for what?
It seems this really is supposed to be 'medium' runnable levels, which may not be 'optimum' for much of anyone or anything. Case in point, my favorite river, a mile from my house! The 'medium' levels are too high for easy, beginner/intermediate play, and too low for awesome advanced/expert play. Low-water eddies have disappeared, but high-water eddies do not yet exist, so play on most features is 'one-shot'. The wording as it currently exists will tell folks this is 'optimal', when in fact it the levels which are obviously 'moderate', are the absolutely LEAST optimal!
b) I am also not thrilled with "Dangerously High (not fun, kills people) (H1, H2)" and "Instant Death High Water (H2+)". Heck, some of our rivers have plenty of lower levels at which they've killed people. And there a some boaters who've run many rivers at highest recorded flows and survived, and (in their way) find such levels absolutely 'fun'. I'm not sure how many STers are qualified to suggest that some level is "Instant Death High Water".

2) the pull-down list of choices seems a bit confusing. Is there some way to 'group' things (perhaps by putting some separator line) so it is more apparent that one is specifying either:
a) one overall range (as exists today in production), defined by just a 'min' and 'max'
b) two ranges: a 'low runnable' range (R0-R5) AND a 'high runnable' range (R5-R9), where the top of the 'low' range and the bottom of the 'high' range SHOULD BE THE SAME VALUE (so all flow values are covered).
c) three ranges: a 'low runnable' range (R0-R4) AND an 'moderate runnable' range (R4-R6) AND a 'high runnable' range (R6-R9), again where the top of the 'low' range and the bottom of the 'medium' range should be the same value, and the top of the 'medium' range and the bottom of the 'high' range should be the same value (again, so all flow values are covered).

3) In conjunction with the above, perhaps it would be better (less confusing?) if the 'pop up' window for specifying a 'new range' were to be divided into three sections, one for each case listed in item 2 above. Then the volunteer would be able to enter all requisite values (for whichever case they wish to implement) at one time, making less work and less confusion. Fixed text on that pop-up window would instruct them to use only one of the sections. (Not sure how easy that would be to implement programmatically, though.)

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

What determines where the 'abstract' pops up?

Looking at the new (beta) system, I see the 'abstract' pops up when I 'mouse over' the river/reach-name. Sometimes (most times) it pops up well over to the right of the page, sometimes it pops up relatively in the middle of the page, and occasionally it pops up rather near the left of the page (near the river/reach name, where the cursor/pointer actually is).

Is there some way of 'standardizing' where this appears? It seems like it 'should' pop up near where the cursor is (near the river/reach name), so people will notice it immediately (since they're generally looking at the cursor, at where they planned to 'click').

And . . . I don't know . . . maybe it's no big deal . . . but maybe we could/should pop up a "Sorry, no abstract available." or (since folks may not know what is meant by an 'abstract') "Sorry, no summary description available." . . . just so we know that the computer/server isn't just being slow, or that we aren't just 'hovering' in the wrong spot? (Just a thought.)

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

Just noticed, when I pull up photos on beta site, "Date" is not displaying correctly.

It appears that (maybe) the field is not 'defined' as a 'date', therefore is displaying the raw numeric value (or 'code') which is used internally (computeristically?) to represent a date.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

Quote:

Also, what is the criteria for the Stream Team Editor listed on the RiverMain tab? The logical criteria would be a one-to-one correspondence between this listing in the new system and the StreamTeam Member that adopted the reach in the old system, assuming the reach had been adopted.

It shows the last stream editor to edit the reach. Credits shows everyone who can edit the reach. I will change this with the next incremental release.

Site goes live on Monday morning.