> It ain't pretty, but it works and you've already paid for it.
I've been following the public weather data scene for a long time and I'm pretty sure that UX for all the NOAA/NWS web sites is horrible by design, so to speak.
After all, there are plenty of well designed .gov sites (e.g. https://recreation.gov/), but just try browsing around weather.gov for a few minutes. It's horrible. I mean, the data is top-notch and it technically works, but the experience is awful. Weather.gov has had the exact same site for at least a decade.
This is completely speculative, but I would not be surprised to find a link between campaign contributions from the likes of the The Weather Channel and the decision to completely underfund the web development teams at NWS. Nothing else explains why some of the United States most valuable public data is presented on a web site barely more functional than Craigslist.
They lobbied to prevent open access to tax payer funded data. NOAA is intentionally underfunded to prevent them from making a modern site as a compromise.
There may be a level of lobbying involved but I would also say websites like recreation are consumer facing, the weather data is used by actual researchers and practitioners. Layouts become a lot more sticky and efficient when people like that are your target.
An interesting story is when Trump nominated the CEO of Accuweather to be the head of NOAA. This is someone who would have benefited from keeping NOAA and the National Weather Service from doing their jobs. Typically the head of NOAA is a scientist, not a businessman with obvious conflicts of interest. Fortunately, it didn't stick. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/12/trump-noaa-chief-a...
I've been following the public weather data scene for a long time and I'm pretty sure that UX for all the NOAA/NWS web sites is horrible by design, so to speak.
After all, there are plenty of well designed .gov sites (e.g. https://recreation.gov/), but just try browsing around weather.gov for a few minutes. It's horrible. I mean, the data is top-notch and it technically works, but the experience is awful. Weather.gov has had the exact same site for at least a decade.
This is completely speculative, but I would not be surprised to find a link between campaign contributions from the likes of the The Weather Channel and the decision to completely underfund the web development teams at NWS. Nothing else explains why some of the United States most valuable public data is presented on a web site barely more functional than Craigslist.