Always thought to see the critics first and improve after to meet our goal.
Some improove very fast in climbing, using triangle technique even before knowing how to use there crampon, and when they face the critics, they just be frustrated because they invest time and money with poor results.
I critics the avy avalanche. Here is some improvement I think:
low danger: text explain the site of recent avalanche and localise the path of it when it is visible for each gully. For example, in the second pitch of pinacle, you can see some day a broking line of three feet hight just after the belay. The avalacnhe is about twenty feet wide and his path cross the easy section of ice below where people climb ordinarly.
moderate danger: text explain all the data use in each analysis. As a climber, we often don't have time to dig a tranche and wait an hour to know the stability of the snow. After the data, a short analysis of what you see in the ravine for each gully and zone that most be avoid (snow pocket, powder avalanche, wet avalanche, etc)
high danger: explain that the data is at a critical level in each gully and emphasis on contribut factor, like winds, that increase the danger. particularly attention most be done to warn the climber to the technique necessary to climb safe (route finding between snow pocket, crossing an avalanche path, self belay, self arrest, necessity of a rock anchor, etc)
extreme danger: explain that the rescue service is suspended for a certain period and that the climber who risk an adventure into the wild do it at his own risk. Nobody is ging to help them even if they call the 911 because the danger for the rescue is too hight.
I don't know, but I think that one will think twice before going in the mountain, but as they learned and train...more good cimber will have great adventure???