Feb. 21, 2006 readings — getting started
The Getting Started chapter of Digital History pointed me to a number of things that I hadn’t seriously considered when thinking about my final project. I know I want to do a timeline with layers of information, but I still don’t know how I’m going to do that.
Based on the Thinking about Your Website’s Genres and Features section, it seems I’m on the right track since I’m still focused on content and what I want the site to accomplish. I can definitely see how technology can become a distraction when creating websites. Is everyone else starting with the content for their site and then seeking out the technology that will make the site work? Or is anyone (with far more technological knowledge than I) thinking about the technology first? I can see the advantages of spending at least a few hours thinking and learning about technology before planning the conceptual side of a website. If I know that databases take too long to program or are simply more complicated than I can manage on my own, I know to plan a site that doesn’t rely on a database — or, I know to find someone to help me before I get too caught up in my project. However, the authors’ view that historians should be the archetechs of websites rather than the plumbers is very important. After all, I know I can find someone who understands the technology if I decide that the only way to make my site work is through a database.
I also appreciated the parallels between the process of researching/writing history and designing websites. Presenting a website as another form of publishing helped shake me out of the mindset that I must do all of the work on my website myself. Granted, I will probably do most of the work on this website myself (since it’s basically a paper ), but in the future when I want to construct a website more on the scale of a book, I will quickly turn to the experts. After all, I certainly wouldn’t invest in printing equipment to publish my books, so why should I obsess over production details for my website?
Naming Your Site and Presenting it to the World again speaks to the question of credibility. Even though private websites can have perfectly valid and useful information, I still tend to trust .org and .edu websites more than .com sites. Ignoring my biases, how important do you see the domain of a website in establishing credibility? Of course, the authors and sources of any pages/sites should be clear, but if they are is there any quanlitative difference between domains? I don’t think so, but at the same time, perceptions are central to evaluation. After all, if every book published by Harvard University Press had advertisements at the top and bottom of the page (as do many websites), I would probably start to view that press differently. Thoughts?
When I look up information on a website the domain is probably one of the first things I look at when gathering information. I would say .edu and .org are the most “trustworthy” but even then I make sure to pay attention to the last updated date, the author and the place in which the materials are posted within the website.
Comment by Priya — February 20, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
I agree. I also think .org and .edu are the most trustworthy TLDs. However, I also look at the SLD. For instance, if I’m conducting a Google search and the name of a site appears too quirky or off topic, I probably won’t take the time to visit it. It may be the most relevant site for my purposes, but an offputting domain name would prevent me from checking it out.
Comment by Jodi Boyle — February 20, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
I do not pay attention to the TLDs at all. I tend to look more at the same criteria as I would for a book, do they cite sources, is it overtly biased, etc. There is also the question of the nature of the institution backing the page, not just whether it has a .edu or a .org.
Comment by Liz — February 20, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
I agree with most of you who believe .edu and .org to be more trustworthy. It seems a pretty reliable and easy way to make sure the website you are using is legitimate. And I think that the most reliable sources are probably the ones with .edu and .org. That could be just my perception however.
Also, I do find myself thinking about the content of my site and figuring that I’ll deal with the technology later. I’ve given the media / site setup some general thought, but right now I feel slightly more concerned with the actual content. I guess it is the well trained student in me…and I’m sure if I was more technologically “in the know”, I’d probably work the opposite way. I guess ideally you would balance both factors during the planning stage.
Comment by Emily — February 21, 2006 @ 8:14 am
As a quick reply to your comments about whether people are worrying more about content or technological things, I am definitely focused on content. However, I did discuss my idea with someone who had a lot more technological expertise and he gave me a good idea of how much time and effort my idea would require. It was a good wake-up call and made me think that as I organize the content, I should make clear breaks where the project could be halted and built in smaller chunks.
Comment by Ed Conroy — February 21, 2006 @ 2:27 pm