Design Meeting Internal July 6, 2021

Participants

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

Minutes

Tiegan Presenting Latest Wireframes

• This version includes input from external stakeholders
• Malaika: Which stakeholders provided feedback?
  • Tiegan:
    • City of Vancouver
    • Strathcona Regional District
• Malaika: how will Kibana differ from Risk Profiler
  • Tiegan: RiskProfiler is canned for the masses, Kibana is open and flexible
• Probabilistic risk of less interest to some stakeholders
  • Hence, some UI changes to focus on Scenarios
• Malaika: Can we rename probabilistic risks to probabilistic earthquake risks?
  • Tiegan: yes
• Sahar: for scenarios probability/likelihood is important
  • Tiegan: for some scenarios, this is easy to do, for others, we don’t have the data yet
    • likelihood will be coming in the next version

Tiegan walkthrough of Probabilistic Page

• Added retrofit no retrofit
• Will add a disclaimer
• Need to select a variable to begin
• Limiting probabilistic indicators for now

Tiegan walkthrough of Earthquake Scenarios Page

• Disclaimer prominent now
• Malaika: what will we do about the overlapping dots representing scenarios
  • Tiegan: we will let the designers work that out
• Users can interact with the bins on the bottom of the maps to filter/highlight the areas represented by the value/range
• Description of Scenario, Deaths, Damage, Dollars displayed prominently to provide context - flagged as important by external stakeholders
• Local Authority to replace Municipality in the UI based on external feedback
• Phil: the scale of the data is concerning, we need to review and figure out how comfortable we are
  • Tiegan: in urban areas the DA is small, but in rural areas they are large, so perhaps we can find a balance, different levels of aggregations might be required, let users know that they should be looking at patterns