Clio Wired (History 696)

1. Which of these sites most effectively conveys the past to a "general" audience? (And why?)

When it camedown to it, I had a difficult time choosing between the Julia Child and History Channel sites. Although the Vergo article relates to museum and cultural sites, it was easy to see how the History Channel site could meet the expectations of general users—it provided information (times and dates of when shows would be aired), had video and audio, and was not too texty. It had a shop, which, as it turns out, is probably not that important to users. Furthermore, it provides stories timely, topical stories, complete with videos. For example, I liked the section that attempts to separate the myths from the realities of the first Thanksgiving.

The site profiling Julia Child has similar characteristics. Furthermore, it was tightly focused, offering a glimpse of life in the 20th century with Child as a central character. We learn a bit about the history of educational programming, and how Child influenced both popular culture and how/what Americans consume. I had thought drinking wine with dinner, for example, was the norm. The site invites readers to come to D.C. to learn more about this remarkable woman. In my estimation, Julia wins.

As far as the other sites go, I liked what Getty has to offer; however, it forces users to scroll too long. With its teacher’s resource section, I can see it being an interesting site for children. I liked the Deerfield site, but it is far, far too texty, and the font size made it difficult to read. I was not overly impressed with the other Smithsonian site. It seemed as if the creators wanted to post every exhibit they have, and allow the viewers to decide what remains a main feature and what should be archived on another part of the site. I can see many viewers becoming flummoxed by this site.

2. Which of these sites makes the most effective use of new media? (And how?)

Four of the sites used new media at least somewhat effectively. Despite its sometimes over-reliance on text, the Deerfield site includes some “neat” interactive features. (the maps and audio versions of songs from all profiled cultures). Unfortunately, the design was a bit flawed in some parts (ack). I do however, really like this page.

I like how the Getty site allows one to learn about various objects; however, I could not always get the site to function properly. (e.g., the facial expressions video).

I like Julia, but I think the History Channel does the best overall job. It integrates text, audio, video, polls, and games, to enlighten and entertain. A message board is included, but, as Vergo points out, this feature will probably not be of much interest to the average viewer. I think most people who come to the site are either looking to see what time their program comes on, or to find out more information about a topic they have seen on a show. The site allows for this, and much more.

3. Which of these sites has a design and interface that most effectively communicates its message and serves its audience?

The Julia Child site, in my estimation, most effectively communicates its message. Here is a pioneering woman, who influenced how and what we eat. She changed the face of educational programming. I was able to grasp the message immediately, with their use of a timeline and an interactive kitchen (though they need to slow that viewer down! I had a hard time pointing on the objects to learn more!)

4. Which of these sites has an interpretation of the past that either: a. best reflects current scholarship or b. challenges its audiences?

Deerfield is most reflective of current scholarship. It seems to be updated rather frequently (September 2005 is the most recent date). Furthermore, it incorporates the narratives of groups that might have been previously ignored, i.e., the native folks. It looks at the history from not purely a military standpoint, but also examines the social milieu, inspecting religion and the varying cultures of the three tribes, the English, and French.