Week 7 Response

This week's readings with Dr. Cohen start quite hilariously, as he points out a true fact in the statement that "But if historians typically have few preconceived notions about server set up or audio sampling rates, many hold firm opinions about web design". So perhaps we historians to a large extent are not very tech savvy in this area, but we still have no problems being back seat drivers and holding opinions about what is the best interface or website template. Fonts, Colors, e.t.c..., each of us is sure to a certain extent, or at least we would be after taking a course on digital history. In fact, our course itself is essentially, is some Buffalo Bill aficionado explaining to us what he feels is the best interpretation of this new medium of digital history, and Dr. Cebula knows I could not resist that jab.

Add on top of this the fact that there's no mysterious board of elder scholars setting standards, and everyone has something different or so it seems, like historychannel.com to name one example. In some ways this is an excellent thing, because you have so many users, whether it be students or scholars coming up with so many ideas about what standards should be, and what websites should look like, that there is a lot of creativity which is very nice; and surely out of all that creativity, a standard set of rules could emerge, although in my view, since the web is so individualistic, and really crafted to the individual, that I think there will always be people in our field of digital history with their views on what a website should be to present information. I can envision Universities competing, each with a group of scholars or students that design and develop websites. It's kind of like now with the whole "I've got a better program, look at these thesis and books our people made recently", and that sort of thing. Beyond that I do feel there will always be competing ideas about web design and how the scholarly community should do it.

I was also reading about graphical elements. By that meaning how they can both help and hinder a site's design and purpose. For example if we look at YouTube.com. I'm building a website about day to day resistance to slavery, and I have mostly documents, maybe some photographs that might illustrate to a certain extent that resistance like pictures of everyday punishments like whip marks. But do I want a YouTube design on this? Do I want to have something, where you can watch videos of flipping through documents and you having to squint to read them! No, but on the other hand, one student's trash is another student's treasure, perhaps someone else is doing Pearl Harbor, and they use an interface like that to have videos of survivors talking about the incident and what it meant, along with perhaps radio announcements, or Roosevelt's speech.

Or take a site like funny-games.biz, full of ads and eye popping color graphics. Is that the hallmark of a scholarly site where students and scholars can go to access information, and not stare at all the colors? I think not. What about having all the text in Old English font because I like that? Or as we discussed last week, making my information of use to Professors but perhaps not to students, or to genealogists and not to anyone else? So there is definitely room for a few standards in my view, and I think it will be the Universities, with students and scholars like ourselves that will be leading the way in this field.

In "Collecting History" the discussion revolves around this and asks various questions, like why collect history, as well as discussing what could be a good subject, bad subject, an what kind of characteristics make a good site. I found the discussion very interesting, I liked reading the varying degrees to which websites attempt to address these questions. The hallmark example given was folklore.org set up by an early Apple engineer, the idea being to collect recollections and experiences from those early days, which was a big hit, as would I think a similar site for Windows or Linux users. That was a good example of a site that has a narrow base, but strong support. Then there was the video store owner/employee site, where people involved in video stores before they went out of business because of Blockbuster and others bankrupted or bought them. There's a unique topic that did indeed strike a chord. I also found the discussion revolving around the level of technology on a site refreshing, in that I had been sort of aware of it's implications but not completely. As it said "Not everybody needs a Library of Congress-grade archival system. One must carefully select what tools to use, do "I" need video software, flash, a search engine if there are a lot of documents, or just a menu?

And lets not forget the minefield that is contributors, both in the sense of monetary contribution, and intellectual contribution. If I am a scholar looking for some material, I don't want to see ads on the site I am visiting, which automatically casts suspicion on the operator amongst a community like ours, that prides itself on reputation; and with intellectual contributions, one has to worry about, do I moderate content, verify contributor credentials. Perhaps you have a serious scholarly site, and you don't want it getting out of hand without good material being written. Do you want there to be a forum on your site for chatting and comments? All important questions I hope to discuss (*wink) and explore in the future.

I liked the Museum 2.0 discussion, 2.o referring to the idea of a social network like face book combined with a Museum. Does it need that, do all Museums need that? I think that it depends on what a Museum wants to do online. If a Museum wants you to be able to see it's exhibits online as well as in person, then I think the website would be designed to capable of handling that level of interaction. If it's a site, where they have a text list of the titles of their paintings, contact info, hours of operation, online gift shop, then perhaps not eh?

I loved this "Online Learners Project" and it's attempts to make Museums digitally available in some sense, particularly to schools meaning teachers, students, e.t.c. I loved the Baroque style exhibit, and the hat exhibit. This I think is a prime example of a Museum site being capable of having, if not already, a 2.0 as mentioned above.