|
Journal Entry #1 - 9/14/03 “Good” Site Design The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History http://www.gilderlehrman.org/index.html The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History website, although mostly a gateway to other sites and information on the web, has a terrific layout. While the opening page may not seem spectacular right off the bat, the header serves it’s purpose well as you navigate the site. Within each section the menu at the top never changes. In addition, you never forget where you are due to clearly labeled titles at the top of each section. As you get further into each level of a section the title changes appropriately. For instance, if you go to “The Collection” then “Treasures of the Collection”, both titles are shown in a hierarchical way at the top. The layout of each interior page is also consistent - pictures on the left, section information in the middle, and on the right side links to other sections and materials online related to the section you are currently in. Also, the icons and pictures they’ve chosen for the pages are good choices - they match the site’s content in addition to its background and layout. In terms of the text and colors, I personally like the choice of a faded yellow background with dark blue text, particularly because this site is not very text-intensive. If more reading were involved (i.e. long articles or such) then I’m not sure it would work since the blue might be harder to read than black. Also, I feel that the black background is too dark for the rest of the content. If the site plans to add more text-based materials in the future they should change this first. Lastly, it would be nice to have a menu at the bottom of the pages so you don't have to scroll up to the original menu again, although I don’t think their pages are long enough to necessitate this just yet. |  | ||
| “Bad” Site Design Louis XIV http://www.louis-xiv.de/ First off, I’m not quite sure how reputable this site is, in part because of the hideous design and in part because the author and institution are not clear (my guess is no institution supports it, which shows how much web design can affect your credit). Disregarding the splash screen and skipping right ahead to the introduction page, the very first thing straining the eyes is the busy background. Don’t even attempt to read more than one line - it’s virtually impossible. Also confusing is the frame navigation at the top of the page. The layout of it is such that there are too many sections, in no particular order, with things like “site map” and “guestbook” thrown in to the mix. The “Paypal - support my site” ads constrast so much with the dark background on the rest of the page that the eye is drawn to those before any of the site's links. If that doesn't make navigation hard enough already, the author neglected to create other colors for the “hover” and “visited” states of the links, so they default to purple and blue, extremely difficult to read on that background. The interior pages could each be torn apart as well but it's worth mentioning only two things on here about them. The author has chosen different backgrounds and fonts for each interior page. While the navigation stays the same in the frame at the top, it is not always clear what section you're in or even if you're still on the same site. This website needs a layout that follows a hierarchy of information and colors, backgrounds, fonts and patterns that are consistent. |  | ||
Journal Entry #2 - 9/21/03 George Catlin’s Indian Gallery http://americanart.si.edu/collections/exhibits/catlin/index.html Created and maintained by the Smithsonian American Art museum, Washington, D.C. Reviewed September 14-19, 2003 This site hosts the virtual exhibition George Catlin’s Indian Gallery, currently on display at the Smithsonian American Art museum. Complementing the virtual exhibition, the site also includes an extensive interactive project under the Catlin’s Classroom section called Campfire Stories: An Encounter of Two Cultures. Taking the user on a “virtual journey” the site compiles paintings, documents, and commentary in order to explore the cultural interaction between Catlin and his Indian counterparts. The materials presented on the site are numerous; however, getting to them is not necessarily obvious. The virtual exhibition itself only contains the 34 paintings currently on public display at the museum with brief descriptions beneath each. The exhibition is set up in a linear format to be paged through and there is no search or navigation mechanism to get quickly to a specific painting. However, many more materials, artworks, and even a search engine are available by clicking on Catlin’s Classroom. Created specifically for middle and high school teachers and their students, the most extensive section of the entire site, Campfire Stories: An Encounter of Two Cultures, resides here. Campfire Stories is divided into four sections: Ancestral Lands, Catlin’s Quest, Chiefs and Leaders, and Western Landscape. Each of these sections attempts to explore where the “two cultures meet” (that of Catlin’s and the Indians he encountered) by providing perspectives from different people. The section begins with an introduction from a scholar and three or four additional perspectives from people of different backgrounds: George Catlin (parts read aloud from his sketchbook), an art historian, artist, ecologist, and a Native American activist, to name a few. These perspectives are shared around a “campfire” and are viewed as flash movies with audio, music, and paintings scrolling to illustrate specific points as the scholars speak. Some of these movies, which include a biography and transcript for each person interviewed, also include some Quicktime Virtual Reality and 3D images under a “Multimedia” section. Each section also contains a “Gallery” of Catlin’s artwork (at least 15-20 paintings per section) pertaining to the topic being explored. Clicking on a gallery image will bring up more information on the painting, a “larger image” button, and an interactive map where the routes Catlin took across various states can be traced. “More Audio” includes extra audio in Quicktime format of the various scholars from their interviews. A feature that remains the same in every section is Catlin’s “Sketchbook” where the entire sketchbook page images can be viewed and read in original format or as text transcriptions. Also included is a feature call “Timeline” which notes other important events that occurred in American history during the time. Each event can be clicked on for a brief explanation. By clicking on the “For Teachers” section of the site, educators can access more information on the site’s creation, full transcriptions from the interviews conducted, as well as 14 lesson plans prepared for the classroom. American history teachers in middle and high school will find the site of particular use; the lesson plans outline what’s applicable to national history standards. More importantly, the plans link to primary and secondary sources located on the Campfire Stories site in addition to linking to other documents of use on the Library of Congress site. Teachers should be aware that most of the information presented on the Campfire Stories site, if not complemented by other outside primary and secondary source materials, may leave the student confused about the historical context of Catlin and his paintings. While the multiple perspectives of secondary sources, gallery of artworks, sketchbook, and virtual reality features present much on Indian culture, the site fails to go into depth on Catlin’s own culture, other than mentioning his travels and sketchbook. Here, the site creators probably could have chosen a more diverse set of people to include historians discussing Catlin in context. The site also fails to present much on the American government’s role. Though several of the scholars mention the Indian Removal Act and many other events are listed on the “Timeline”, the extremely brief explanations of these events are unsatisfactory. Therefore, teachers should consult the lesson plans for other sources to use when having students go through the Campfire Stories site. Overall, Campfire Stories has mastered one truly difficult aspect of current teaching websites: interactivity. Along with this notion comes the problem of accessibility—some people will not be able to view these pages. For these people, settling for the “virtual exhibition” portion of the site may have to do. However, the interactive site’s extensive amount of primary and secondary sources, tied in directly with lesson plans that make effective use of new technology and that link directly to national history standards, make it a sure hit for teachers and students alike. Amanda Shuman George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia |  Virtual Exhibition  Campfire Stories  Campfire Stories - Gallery View | ||
Journal Entry #3 - 9/29/03 David Staley’s Virtual Simulation Staley is referring to the limitations of history itself when he says “virtual re-creation is as abstract as a written narrative”(Staley, 90). His main argument for virtual reality is that it is an excellent tool for interpreting the past in a more visual way. A simulation is simply another kind of secondary source which gathers primary sources together (and more than any book could ever hold) and allows a historian to take on numerous perspectives to understand and interpret the past in different ways (8). Staley’s assertion that historians do not see visual history as “serious history” (10) is something that I find intriguing and at the same time disheartening. Not having been in the field of academic or “scholarly” history very long I wonder why this is. Other academic fields (and not just the sciences) have readily accepted visual simulations and models to express themselves and/or understand their field more. My belief here – and one that Staley seems to agree with (97)—is that “serious” historians want to separate themselves from the people who appreciate and embrace visual history: teachers, students, and the general public. I would agree with most historians that there should be no one narrative delivered to students in classrooms, which is generally what occurs today. A discussion of how and why different narratives exist is necessary. Virtual reality simulations could help resolve this issue. Students going through a simulation could take on different personas and play out events in history from different perspectives. Narratives written by different historians (112) could be embedded in the simulation so that students could navigate through one scenario or environment and then go back and try another. Simulations also offer a sense of spatial context and agency (92)—the ability to pick up an object and do something with it—which is just not possible with a book or documents. This immersive, participatory, and interactive nature of simulation is something that Janet Murray explores heavily in her book. Murray feels the immersive nature of simulation is exactly what makes it so incredibly powerful (Murray, 98-99). She sees simulation as an excellent way to allow a user to move around and shift perspectives (283). Murray is very much for breaking down the linear format of the book and allowing users to explore a narrative in whichever way they please (153). She would, however, agree with Staley that history simulations are secondary sources with a particular point of view and that the user must be aware of this. Games such as “Civilizations” present an interpretation of history based on rules set by the person who programmed it (89). Murray’s discussion of virtual reality simulations focuses more on the general public than the field of history. Here, I think she is somewhat limited by her own field in not being able to see how historians interpret narratives. I do, however, think most historians would agree with a conclusion she comes to: after people become used to using new technologies the story is what will matter. Certainly, as she proves, this was the case with books and television. Cronon would probably support Staley’s argument for the use of simulations despite the limitations. Cronon recognizes that multiple historical narratives must exist in “our efforts to understand both nature and the human past” (Cronon, 1367) especially to see how chronicled events and happenings are interconnected (1351). However, I think Cronon would disagree with Staley’s conclusion that “this is not the past” (Staley, 113). Cronon would probably argue that if narratives presented in simulations give meaning to the past then this is enough to justify it as being the past (Cronon, 1374). In Cronon’s view, these limitations on history Staley speaks of are inherent to the way humans present the past, that there is no one “true” history. A side note: I’m not sure whether Keith Jenkins would even view simulations as a beneficial form of historical inquiry. He believes that despite what historians say, in the end they still think that by combining realism and empiricism “the representation of the past as it actually, objectively was, can be achieved” (Jenkins, 11). Jenkins and Cronon both seem to agree on the notion that there is no one “true” history. However, Jenkins seems to also take the stance that history is foundationless and not really based on any hard facts at all. In general, Jenkins seemed to give up hope on history (it would be interesting to get his definition on what history is) while Cronon embraces multiple historical narratives as something peopel need in order to understand the past. | |||
Journal Entry #4 - 10/20/03 Digital Scholarship on the Web Two Examples of Digital Scholarship – Do they fulfill the promise of digital scholarship? Do they do anything genuinely new with new media? Do they do it well? Images of the French Revolution is a compilation of 7 scholarly essays (written by 7 scholars), 38 images with an imaging tool, and a section of discussions conducted through e-mail between the scholars who wrote the essays. It is clear from the navigation bar that the essays are probably the place to start and I would argue that if you don’t start here and go straight to the “image tool” you would get lost in the images. The essays are fairly easy to read and although much shorter than traditional academic journal articles they retain similar qualities. They are well-referenced and in terms of web design (the linked footnotes, text colors, and spacing) very readable. The embedded pictures that can be enlarged were extremely helpful to have right there without having to flip pages. Perhaps the best use of innovative new media on the site is the “image tool” that allows a user to zoom in and see specific details of an image and many of them at one time (great to use for comparison of the same people, events, etc). Though some of the images here are not specifically discussed in the essays, the tool opens in a new window so retrieving a specific essay to use for analysis (in the original window) is possible. As the scholars discuss in their e-mails, no book interpretation of images can do what this image tool does; electronic use of images has already been proven effective. However, the most fulfilling part of the site is the “discussion” where e-mails between the scholars are posted. The differences in approach are tied together here as the scholars analyze each other’s approaches to the same images and discuss specific issues and ideas more. The best part is that this discussion is not shared just among a few academics any more—other scholars, academics, and students can come here and read these. While I agreed with some of the concerns expressed by the scholars regarding the use of images in new media (the quality of the images online, the ability to see the format of the original) I would argue that the benefits far outweigh any of these concerns. The essays and e-mail discussions alone allow a novice to this subject (myself included) to explore the various interpretations in a much shorter amount of time than reading several books or articles. This site is an excellent example of digital scholarship. Its use of new media with the images, footnotes, image tool, and discussion section was presented in a fairly linear format which made it very easy to read. The only concern I have is with the images: who picked them? Are they truly representative of 30,000 images (or a subset of a couple thousand) and do the scholars agree on this? Dreaming Arnold Schwarzenegger is presented in a very non-linear format, as is stated upfront in the “about” section of the site and the numerous articles. However, I found myself heading to the “about” section, the essays and the site map right away, looking for a linear narrative to follow. My later attempts to maneuver the site without using these sections left me frustrated and I began to wonder if this multi-linear, “read the book wrong” and “deforming” approach was really worth my time at all. When reading through this site, I didn’t want to use my agency to discover a new path—I really just want to understand the authors’ point. And, while I know that part of this confusion was the point (the use of a multi-linear format to explore their dreams and Arnold) I’m not sure I got a conclusion out of it, something I feel is vital for any digital scholarship—tying up loose ends, no matter how loose they are. Reading the proposal and lengthy essays helped immensely, though I found myself lost trying to decipher the ‘evidence’. The embedded links in the essay sometimes threw me off a bit (such as linking to a news article on an outside site but the link title being so ambiguous you didn’t know where you would be sent to). My conclusion to the site is that it is an excellent attempt at the post modernism we have discussed in class. I say “attempt” because I’m still not really sure what post-modernism is. I think it might be some kind of “search for meaning” in things, especially through culture. The links to dreams and cultural references related to Arnold definitely represented a search for meaning in our culture. The use of new media to discover these meanings included an updated dreams list (though I wish there were at least anchor tags to the dates), numerous culture links and essays, and a strange QT VR ‘dream’. I do see how the authors found this medium (the web) as the best way to bring all their research material together since dreams do not present themselves in a linear format or with categories to work with. The web does present itself similar to a dream in many respects with multiple categorizations of the materials possible and hyperlinks to other potentially related materials. The essay links which I found confusing (as noted above) do prove that multiple ways of understanding the meaning in culture is possible. Then again, with a fairly clear thesis laid out in the proposal but no real conclusion I am just as confused as in my own dreams. Where does the site end? I really want it to (even though it isn’t supposed to), perhaps because I am so used to working with traditional scholarship. My fear is that this site is a good example of what we can expect post-modern history to look like... my fear stems from the fact that I don’t think I can handle either post-modernism or a website expressing it as a valid way of doing scholarship just yet. | |||
Journal Entry #5 - 11/10/03 “Popular” or “Public” History Online After viewing all the sites and reading through the questions listed I find the Pearl Harbor site is most effective both at conveying the past to a general audience and in its use of new media. Unlike the other sites, Pearl Harbor offers exactly what many people, especially those of a general audience want—less clicking and more watching. In the article written by John Vergo, he argues for more audio and video because people want to get the interpretation rather than attempting to create their own. And while it is not clear who the narrator is for Pearl Harbor, most people would trust National Geographic as a good source for educational, scholarly material and the “truth”. Though the interactive timeline forces the user to click around some, the audio, video, and photographs allow time to sit back and hear and view the story. And here, using new media, you can click around both the map of the island and the timeline to get a sense of a multi-linear way of going through a narrative (though one could argue that the timeline is set up fairly linear). The radio voice narration that gives a short contextual background of each event gives the average person just enough to want to click on and hear or read the personal accounts. The accompanying photographs and videos to these accounts give a sense of what these people are discussing in their accounts. Also, the ability to go and read more personal accounts in the archives or submit your own account allows people who were at Pearl Harbor (or have some relation to it) to share their thoughts and stories, thereby creating a community much like on the Brainerd, Kansas site. In addition to these features there are lesson plans for all different grade levels (k-12) that give ideas for using the materials in the classroom. These days, lessons such as these are a vital component to any site that wishes to be used extensively for education in the United States. Lastly, in striving to make the site for a very general audience, the creators have included numerous web links and other resources (including a bibliography for books) that are mostly non-academic and considered more along the lines of public history. And though there seems to be a clear bias in the narrative of this site (I haven’t studied enough on this subject to say how much of a bias), it does serve its purpose of effectively using new media in the way so that a general audience with little knowledge of the attack can get an idea of the events that occurred. For a more scholarly audience this site may not be as worthwhile, particularly the narrative portion. I would think, however, that anyone researching the topic (especially oral historians) would be interested in hearing and reading the personal accounts of so many different people. A side note: It should be noted that everything in the flash portion worked surprisingly well and was fairly intuitive in my opinion. In contrast, Devices of Wonder, while completely interactive, left me confused as to where to click on most objects. The ‘sparkles’ occasionally disappeared and I had to reload to see them again. Notes on the other sites: Without Sanctuary disturbed me quite a bit—the message was very powerful. However, I fail to see why new media was used here when a video could just as easily have been made and could have included a longer narration and more photos. Also, there wasn’t much to this site besides reading people’s comments on the forum and the movie. I really wanted the narrative to be more fully developed and I felt like so much was left out. Emotionally, it was gripping, but like many drama movies, it left me unfulfilled in the end. I wasn’t sure where to go next or where to go for more information. Devices of Wonder left me confused. What was the connection between the objects historically? What was their importance? I looked at the background information and read the little blurb about each object and could not find anything to answer the questions I had. The lesson plans included on the site were very generic and didn’t give much additional information. On the other hand, it was my favorite site to play on and trying to figure out where to click or watching something move around gave me a better sense of how the object actually worked (rather than viewing it in a museum collection case). HistoryWired, while giving information about specific objects in the American History museum, could have done more. I was looking for something to lead me through the items or weave a narrative for contextual purposes. Though this way is multi-linear and allows for exploring, it’s hard to navigate unless you are looking for something specific. In addition, I find that objects online to be rather frustrating because most lack the 3D experience one gets when actually at the museum. Devices of Wonder was better at trying to address this issue and perhaps HistoryWired could look into 3D rendering of some of the popular objects it owns as the technology evolves. History Channel: the speeches and clips were interesting and the timeline gave background but I was so sick of linking to something I’d have to buy or obtain by another means. However, using one of the audio or video clips in a classroom setting for groups of people who have never heard them before could enhance their learning experience. I know that as a student I have never heard or seen over 75% of the material presented in the video and audio sections. I viewed/listened to a bunch I’d never seen/heard (JFK’s funeral, some of the shuttle take offs, the Beatles speech, JFK vs Nixon speech, and more) and found them fascinating. My guess would be that the number of people under the age of 30-35 who have seen or heard these things is a very, very low number. | |||
Journal Entry #6 - 11/17/03 An Online Community: H-Asia I chose to observe H-Asia as an online community for reasons involving research and my final project. I decided early on (I traced the board back a year from this month) to focus on East Asia and mostly China because there were so many threads involved. After reading through the discussions posted here I have decided to join the list and look forward to reading more postings in the years to follow. I found it exciting and encouraging that I can simply go to the H-Asia site and read so many posts by different scholars and non-scholars with backgrounds that vary considerably. H-Asia, while not exclusively focusing on history (not all the editors are historians), provides mostly information aimed at the professional/academic historian. What was most encouraging to me was that in addition to the historians from literally all over the world posting discussion threads, there were also a great number of book and research queries posted by graduate and PhD students. Topics range from studying in Beijing and learning the Chinese language, to advice on books and other resources, to specific research topics for which they need assistance narrowing down proposed questions. In all cases, questions were always answered in one form or another. Though most of the discussion board is more like a newsletter or job announcement bulletin, I found many, many useful threads towards my own research. For instance, the Asian Studies WWW Monitor (part of the Asian Studies WWW-VL) posts relevant links with mini capsules and a rating system for new websites submitted. I found sites ranging from political and current news on China, a gateway site on missionary resources for China, and various educational sites for teaching Asia. Probably the most intriguing site I discovered was a collection called “What do Asians think?” that UCLA put together on Asian reactions (mostly Chinese) to 9-11, the war in Iraq, and other current events. All in all, these sites have been more helpful for final project research then any search engine I’ve used. Most of the discussions posted on this list follow one of two formats. I noticed first that when the war in Iraq broke out many threads were posted regarding the Chinese versus Japanese response and siding with the United States in regards to North Korea. Some posts regarding 9-11 and the war in Iraq became heated as someone mentioned “traveling while brown”. Another important sequence of threads, though mostly with links to other sites, occurred during the SARs outbreak. One scholar, living in Hong Kong, sent updated news and mentioned mid-May that her children had been out of school since March 29. Group leaders of study abroad programs in China messaged the board asking what others were doing and what the latest travel statements/advisories were. The other format for discussions on the board was more general. Many of the heated discussions started with either a student or scholar asking a general question or seeking advice on researching a controversial topic. These were by far the most interesting discussion threads to read. Particularly, the following discussions sparked my interest and many responses: calling a program “Asian Studies” versus “Oriental Studies” (Edward Said’s views were often mentioned), Gavin Menzies’ book 1421, transliteration of words in Asian ad campaigns, and funeral strippers in Taiwan. After observing H-Asia over the course of the year I would definitely say that this online community is serving a purpose not provided in other media. Contacting people across the world prior to the Internet was probably often time consuming and sometimes costly. Reading responses from Chinese scholars of very different backgrounds that live in the U.S., Canada, Western Europe (England, Germany, Netherlands), Scandinavia, China, Japan, and Australia (these are just the ones I noticed often) expands the horizons greatly. As someone who is e-mail and internet dependent these days I’d like to know how often these scholars got in touch with each other prior to these inventions. My guess would be only through the knowing someone who knows someone who knows someone, publication responses, and/or through conferences. While I still believe conferences are a great way to discuss issues and debate among other scholars, the online community method allows a lot more people to get in on the most current issues, and allows fast response time as well. A conference or in-person meeting is still the best way to get to know most people. However, unlike a conference, there is absolutely no travel required and no expense incurred on the part of the reader of these messages, something that hinders many people from being able to attend conferences on a regular basis (especially graduate students with limited time and money!). | |||