brockett

Well I was certainly happy to read about the Bridgeman/Corel case in Digital History, since it addresses exactly what I planned to do to put some images on my site (in my case, take digital pictures of images already reprinted in books). I imagine the book publisher had to pay the libraries to use the images, but I have to say, if the only difference is that I could go down to the Library of Congress and take a picture of the picture there, I don’t feel all that guilty. The fact that Corbis can claim the rights to images in the public domain, though, is pretty shocking.

Also shocking is the fact that music will not be in the public domain until 2067! Unfortunately, I would recommend steering clear of getting into music licensing if you can avoid it…we had a lawyer and signed a contract about licensing rights and publishing rights (two separate things–two separate costs–two separate groups who make money) and I still don’t understand it all. This seems a shame, though, to lose access to historical music, since the Internet would grant access to it as never before (especially music recorded in outdated formats). Hopefully we can talk about this more with our guest speaker.

In contrast, it was somewhat refreshing to read the standards for fair use in filmmaking. At least there it seems like there is some leeway (assuming you can get your hands on whatever it is you want to use). I thought all of their points were logical and, well, fair. It’s interesting, though, that these same standards can’t quite be applied to music…

An example of good design is the exploredc.org site, mostly because it is highly structured and yet very easy to navigate. This is especially apparent when you get into the content of the site. The color scheme gives it a nice uniformity and the colors are unobtrusive. More importantly, they are used well to delineate different sections of each page (menu bar on the side for the topic at hand, menu bar across the top for all the topics, and white for body text). Links and layers (photographs, audio, lesson plans) are all neatly laid out and are accessible either as a group from the home page or in relation to a topic (linked from the topic page). The use of art is minimal (only as menu headers), which makes the page seem very professional.

The emphasis on accessibility in the two readings was interesting, since I’d never considered it before today. Interestingly, it just came up this afternoon…someone was complaining that census.gov hasn’t put the manuscript census online yet because they can’t figure out how to make it accessible to the blind which, by law, all federal sites have to do. I didn’t realize there were already so many ways to make the internet accessible (braille readers, etc). Good to know.

As historians, it’s great to get some pointers on layout, and it’s true, it would be beneficial to look at it as an artistic form of graphic design. I especially like the idea that the layout itself can encourage the viewer to think a certain way (association), or to move their eyes in the order you want them to (through a pattern). I wonder if our generation is used to thinking this way already?

And the final lesson of the week: subtlety is always better. Nothing says amateur like lime green font on a bright red background. I appreciated the suggestions for using neutral background colors to compliment text layout.  Something I’ll definitely keep in mind for my project…

Once again, I’ve revised the concept of my final project. I had intended to focus on neighborhood history in Brooklyn, until I realized that the Brooklyn Historical Society archives are undergoing serious cataloging and aren’t readily available. For another class I’m working on a project on Eastern Market, so I thought maybe I’d transfer my idea to DC, with Capitol Hill as a neighborhood prototype.

I did a quick web survey, and found that these two sites are closest to what I want to do: Explore DC and Cultural Tourism DC. The target audience of Cultural Tourism is out-of-town tourists, with the aim of luring them off the Mall by promising shopping and restaurants in other historic districts. Explore DC provides much more information, with historical summaries of different neighborhoods and a few contemporary photographs. The audience for this site seems more general.

I’d like to target the local audience in an effort to inform them about the history they see around them every day. I think there’d be a good audience for this in DC, especially since house histories have become popular and as people are investing in real estate in the city again. They would take away from the site a better understanding of their environment, and of the importance of local history. Therefore I’d like to make a site that sort of functions like an online walking tour but with more detailed historic information.

The first page would show a map of the district with different neighborhoods delineated by colors and labeled. The viewer would click on a neighborhood to enter the site. Each neighborhood would have the same metadata/structure: a written summary of the neighborhood’s history (very short), a map, and a menu across the top. The map (probably a Google map) would contain street names and points of interest (like the 9/11 site), and by rolling the mouse over these points, the viewer would call up a historic image or possibly a quote from a primary source. I would try to balance historical periods across the points. The viewer would click on the image/quote to open a new window with information particular to that site. I hope to use a lot of images, because I think they convey a sense of place, and the intent is to have the viewer, who presumably is a resident, compare the “then” of these images with the “now” with which he/she is familiar. I’d like to include pertinent quotes from historic sources, along with summary information of the place/object/person. Lastly, I hope to use voice board technology (courtesy of a friend) so that residents can share memories about the neighborhood by leaving a message.

The site, then, is not intended to cater to tourists. Some locations may be familiar ones, like Eastern Market, but others may be unmarked houses, or street corners, or longtime neighborhood businesses or churches. Hopefully residents of the neighborhood (and DC at large) will learn to appreciate the history of the familiar around them. This also compliments my research in local history this semester.

There were several interesting points in this week’s readings, and they seemed to hit a bit closer to home than some of the other articles we’ve read. The AJH’s experiment with hypertext essays, for instance, is something we might all reasonably do in the next couple of years. When I first looked at the samples I was a bit disappointed, because I thought “these look more like traditional text…why not just make it a full-on website?” Then I realized that 1) I apparently am used to the “look” of websites (even something as simple as a background color) and more importantly, 2) these actually are a great bridge between traditional scholarship and new media. And I think that’s absolutely necessary in a time of transition such as this, when scholars are more willing to use the Internet as a tool, but not so open to completely rethinking the concept of scholarship presentation itself. That said, I thought these attempts were good, and that the strongest, as a user, had solid structures (metadata/menus/navigation).

One thing that stuck in my mind was the mention that the Arnold S. site included “the kinds of discoveries and reflections more traditionally relegated to the margins of research.” Here it seems like hypertext/web use could push the boundaries of scholarship conceptually (and where we might find the most resistence). Of course the possibility of expanding to include secondary/sideline kinds of research (and also new sources) is appealing, but I wonder if it could endanger or shift the standards of scholarship? Might we at some point get confused between blogging and presenting scholarship?

Finally, I was glad to read Bell’s essay because it reflects some of the concerns I’ve had. It responded well to the Hermalin essay, which seemed a bit idealistic and was clearly written from the scholar’s point of view, without taking into consideration the realities of the publishing industry. I was not aware of the booklike technology that Bell mentions and would be interested to find out more. But what most resonated with me was Bell’s discussion about reading itself, and I’m very curious to know what kinds of psychological studies are going on about how people interact with computers. Because I do think that reading online is different, and I think those differences change how we read. It is taxing and somehow more tedious, to me anyway, and it just doesn’t carry the same weight. I don’t remember what I’ve read as soon as the lines have scrolled up off the page. But then, I am of a transitional generation, and I’m sure people who grow up online will have a much easier time of it. I just don’t like or trust virtual text…give me a good old fashioned table of content, an index, and page layout. Then I’ve got something whole to work with, and it’s easier to keep that whole in mind as I’m reading. For some reason it’s much harder to keep the context and the thesis/point in mind with something digital, or else I just haven’t learned to take online reading seriously.