Right. Some of the "popular interpretations" dismissed in the article are correct, or wrong only in degree rather than in kind. Your home is more in danger inside the cone than out of it, and it is more in danger at the centre of the projected path than at the fringes of the cone.
If the problem is that people with a low to moderate risk of losing their home or their lives don't prepare enough, then yeah, show a wider area, or the two-level nuance of "red threat" and "yellow threat". And balance it against the inevitable "well, the last four times the government said there was a storm threat it didn't come near here, hell, the last time it made landfall 400 miles away".
But probably is not intensity.
Half chance of full intensity doesn't mean full chance of half intensity. If you'd evacuate the red zone but not the yellow understand, do you really understand the bet you are making?
If the problem is that people with a low to moderate risk of losing their home or their lives don't prepare enough, then yeah, show a wider area, or the two-level nuance of "red threat" and "yellow threat". And balance it against the inevitable "well, the last four times the government said there was a storm threat it didn't come near here, hell, the last time it made landfall 400 miles away".