Random Thoughts of history on the web

    While trying to come up  with a design for class I went back to asking the question "Why?" Not why do we need to design the site, but "Why do we put historical data on the web in great looking sites?" Luckily Jeff and Carl had put some examples up that gave me some ideas that have been rattling around in my head. My first question is what is the value added of making a site. Nobody puts enough information on a web site to replace a book, so what are we doing. Then I viewed Jeff's design assignment. His design has a definite purpose and I think shows the advantage of making a professional looking site for a specific purpose.  His syllabus also includes a link to a project by the University of Virginia, that actually does put all the primary sources for a book on the web. Wow, is this useful. But that is a ton of work. (Also notice the first page - it looks like someone took Professor P's class.) This site add a lot of value to a work. There are search engines for census records, letters, etc. There are photocopys of old newspapers. (Although someone did not take Professor P's class in restoration.) Overall there is a resource that is more than text and pictures.

Then I looked at Carl's site. It looks as if his information was presented in a paper for an earlier class. Adding pictures and a look and feel is nothing more than people have been doing for Atlases and picture history books. Then I stopped to think. How many times have I gone into a book store and perused those types of books, just because they added the "sizzle to the steak." How many people will come look at our sites and be initially interested in them because of their professional look and stay around to read what we have to say.

Is the fact that our work can be seen by many more people without going through the publishing hoops enough of a value added. By making a professional looking site we get more people interested in our work and that, in and of itself, is enough reason to spend about a million hours getting our colors correct but adding nothing more to the discussion of the historical topic.

I think this gets back to Professor Petrik's caution at the beginning of class. We have to know when to say stop. But the only way we know when this is if we have clearly defined why we are making our site. We need to define who we are developing the site for. Jeff has this defined perfectly. I am totally lost for my site.

I posted my design site off of my portfolio site and it also available here. Any comments are welcome.

 

Comments

[Carl Young]

John -

Thanks for the riveting and pointed question to my blog. Instead of painting my house like I should be in preparation for my move... I felt I had to write a thesis to comment! :-)

I think you comments regarding what I call "the hook" and you call "the sizzle of the steak" are right on.

At base, we professional historians should ply our trade to make our research available to the most people possible. That is exactly what the Internet does best. The Internet helps us share and play nice with others... well sometimes.

We have to work to polish our material so that it will get that critical second look.

We have to present ourselves for what we are as to clearly identify what we are about so that we won't waste our viewers time.

KISS is a critical principal as to NOT detract from the material at hand. I for one, need to spend a little more time on the pictures for my content after having spend substantial time on the graphics for the site.

The material is all ready to go.

Just my thoughts. Thank you for yours. CAY

[John Henry]

As I have been going back and forth with this I agree. The techniques we are learning in this class is to get that second or extended look. Beyond that our content has to be what keeps people on our site and is what is really important in our work.

[John Aiken]

John,

I think your second post should also be considered required reading. The question about "value added" is very well worth it. After almost a year in digital humanities courses I'm willing to go out on a limb and say many web projects (as well as applications)fail to fullfill their purpose.

I am convinced this is because people don't understand the medium of the web and where the value needs to be. There are way too many digital projects that appear to be a waste of time. They fail to bring anything new to the medium and rightfully so they receed into the forgotten realm.

As I've mentioned before we can use the web to make visual arguements and to have an open forum. However, you're dead on. There needs to be more to the project than just a sexy image and a narrative. The time spent pushing pixels will only be worth it if it is actually contributing to the conclusion of the site. The difficulty of course is thinking of how to do this.

Much to (Elara's and probably Carl's) chagrin, I cast my vote in the Henry school of skepticism.

[Kira]

I think the question of why are we bothering to spend time on a good looking site brings us back to the point that we discussed earlier in the semester; attractive things work better. I think that by bothering to make our sites look professional and appealing, we are also bothering to make sure that all of our links work, and our fonts show up, and our site is accessible. Essentially, we are trying to break the mold that scholarly sites are just papers posted on a boring looking website. At the same time, our sites need to stand up to the criticism from historians, researchers, and web designers, adding more pressure. I think we need to build our website as if everyone from middle school students to PhD students to people researching for fun are going to use it. Besides, if we don't want anyone to see our site, and use the information, then what's the point of putting in all the effort? Although, I guess that goes back to your original question of value, so here goes the circle again!