Author: kmacindo

Prior to writing the group contract, I felt slightly overwhelmed at the volume of work that our website was nonetheless going to necessitate.  However, now that we have divided the tasks and set milestones for their completion, I feel much more confident about the direction of our project.  Our contract divides the work evenly among our four group members, and everyone’s tasks are spread out throughout the semester, meaning that one or two people will not become overwhelmed by constantly having a looming due date.  Currently, our first milestone is to finish scanning Slaughter’s and Murray’s letters, scanning the typed transcriptions of Murray’s letters, and typing the handwritten transcriptions of Slaughter’s letters.  It is essential that we get this done soon as our subsequent tasks for the construction of the website revolve around their digitization, which include creating online exhibits for the letters.  I also think that when it comes time to create our digital exhibits, Omeka will be very helpful.  My group created our site last class, and when you click on “Add an Item,” Omeka prompts you to enter the appropriate metadata for the document or other primary source you are uploading.  This will help keep our website consistent, as all group members will be reporting the same kinds of information to describe each letter.

The one difficulty that I could potentially see my group running into is finding sufficient information on Montgomery Slaughter and George Murray so that their introductory blurbs will give site visitors a solid context with which to read the letters.  However, the National Park Service has already helped with this, as a basic biographical sketch on Murray’s activities during the Civil War were delivered to UMW along with his letters and transcriptions.  Additionally, when we make our visit to the Chancellorsville Battlefield Visitor Center and Museum to look at George Murray’s possessions, we can speak with Ms. Luisa Dispenzirie, the museum curator, so she can give us more information about these two men.

After reading through Chapter 5 this week, a few questions arose as to my group’s project.  Firstly, who exactly will our website’s audience be?  Our project will be connected to the National Park Service, and I envision them serving several different groups of people.  These would include historians and other scholars, tourists, and teachers and students.  Since these groups will most likely vary widely in their needs, our website must be able to accommodate them.  It may be helpful to have different tabs on our website to make sure traffic flows to the area of the site that is appropriate for their uses.  For example, our tabs could read “research,” “tourism,” and “teachers and students.”

A second question that arose was how do we advertise to increase traffic to our site?  We do not have money to pay for something like this, but our site will be connected to the NPS, a prominent organization and resource for Civil War history.  Because of this affiliation, I assume that we will not have to worry too much about this, but instead focus on what key words we can put on our site to make it come up in search engines such as Yahoo and Google.

A final question I had was about site maintenance and if our group will be responsible for things such as fixing broken links even after this semester has ended.  Since we will be connected with the NPS, an established and respected organization, it would look unprofessional if a site created for them was not up-to-date.  I know that Omeka installs updates automatically, but am unsure if this will be enough to keep our site looking fresh.

I could not figure out how to embed my map and timeline in my post so I have included links to them below.  If someone could tell me how to embed I would much appreciate it!

Link to StoryMapJS:  https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.knightlab.com/storymapjs/1b1645ccdb0a879bd498ee30d5cd3887/map-practice/index.html

Link to TimeLineJS:  https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1OMANCn46MKhiS5pP5xYQiQhBC31L4491uanvpAN5zBI&font=Default&lang=en&initial_zoom=2&height=650

Creating the map and timeline was not as easy as I expected.  I am not the best at figuring out how to use new digital tools, so this was a good experience for me.  While creating the map (which shows places I would like to travel to), I did have some difficulties looking at the finished product.  I clicked “preview” and sometimes the map would not zoom in enough to see the exact location on the map.  I was able to correct this, but I wonder if I was looking at the actual presentation and not simply a preview if it would work properly (which it does).  On the other hand, I had a more difficult time putting the timeline (mine showed the various taxes the British government imposed on the American colonies) together as opposed to viewing it after I had finished.  I opened up the spreadsheet and clicked “publish” several times before I finally understood that I was supposed to enter in my own data before doing clicking that option.  I completely missed this part in the instructions and so it took me a few tries before I realized what I was supposed to do.  My prior experience with instructions for digital tools has not always been helpful, but these directions were, so I need to break this bad habit of not reading things all the way through.  Once I figured out how to use the timeline I was able to create one and view it with no issues.

I like certain aspects of StoryMapJS and TimeLineJS, but I am still unsure if my group should incorporate them into our project.  For the map, I like that the it zooms from one location to the other and connects the dots for you.  I also like that the location on the map is marked and along with it comes an actual picture and description.  My concern with this is that the screen looks too cluttered as there is a chunk of information in the margin.  Also, the gray map does not make the presentation look very exciting.  If there were a way to thin out the information and create more space as well as change the color of the map, then it might be an interesting tool to use for our work with the Slaughter and Murray letters, perhaps showing troop movements, especially those of the 114th Pennsylvania, Murray’s regiment, which would give site users more context for reading his letters.  For the timeline, I like the idea of this, but it was frustrating and a bit confusing that the bottom line (which shows years and months) kept moving and changed with every event.  It was hard to understand the bigger picture of how the events fit together when I could not see all the previous events on the timeline while I focused on one particular slide.  The timeline feature could be helpful for my group’s project as far as showing the progression of the Civil War and which events Slaughter and Murray either experienced themselves or heard about, but for me personally a tool that shows all events at once with the ability to focus on one at a time would help me put things in perspective, whereas with the timeline I feel like I am just looking at separate events and not a collection of them.

 

Here also is a screen shot of my Feedly.  In the left hand margin, it shows I subscribed to everyone’s blog and then to Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s and Bryan Alexander’s from the Digital Humanities Compendium.

 

Our group went through many of the sites listed on the syllabus together (a couple links are either not working or pose a security risk) and discussed what we liked and did not like about a select few that we thought were the best or the worst:

1.  Emilie Davis Diaries (Omeka)

• Pros:  On the whole, our group really liked this site.  Firstly, it uses space well and it includes actual pictures of the original diary pages, which makes for a more interactive experience with the documents.  Secondly, there were two forms of navigation around the site.  You can click “Pages” and click on a specific range of dates, or click one of the numbers on the menu across the top of the screen to find the same thing.

• Cons:  Firstly, we did not like that there were comments included on the website.  They can become distracting so for our site we plan to disable comments.  Secondly, this site also has a drop-down menu to look at different pages, but you cannot click out of this box and are forced to click one of the selections with diary entries.  Thirdly, we did not like that when you search the name “Davis,” the section that describes what the site is about comes up, when we think that only diary entries should come up.  Lastly, older posts on the website are actually the most recent diary entries, which is counter-intuitive.

 

2.  The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database

• Pros:  The layout of the site is not cluttered, but it is not that helpful either.

• Cons:  Firstly, the font on this website was too small and was hard to read.  Secondly, there is a map on the home page, but you cannot click on it to enlarge it.  Thirdly, the actual layout of the site is fine, but when you get into the database itself it is confusing and requires a 40 page PDF to explain how to navigate through it.  For example, we clicked on a table with estimates, but it did not explain what the estimates were of and the table’s title was simply “Table.”  So, we need to make sure that we clearly identify what our information is and make the font large enough so site users can read it easily.

 

3.  Mapping the Republic of Letters

• Pros:  The site itself is easy to navigate.

• Cons:  Firstly, we did not like that you could not enlarge the graphs and pictures.  These things could have had very helpful and useful information on them, but it could not be obtained due to the small size.  Secondly, on the home page, the picture at the top of the screen is very cluttered and is too visually stimulating.

 

4.  French Revolution

• Pros:  We did not like anything in particular about this site.

• Cons:  Firstly, this site was very cluttered and a waste of space.  All the content is squished onto the left-hand side of the screen.  The links to all the primary sources are contained in the left margin and you have to open a separate window to view many of them.  Secondly, maps and other images are able to be enlarged but you also have to open several windows to get to the larger image.  Thirdly, the archive of documents do not seem to be organized into any particular order, which makes it hard to navigate through them.  So, if you were just seeing if this site had any useful sources without knowing what specifically to look for, then it could be cumbersome and frustrating.  After looking at this site, our group again sees the need for good and deliberate organization.

 

5.  9/11 Living Memorial Digital Archive (Omeka)

• Pros:  The home page was simple, but easy to navigate.

• Cons:  The whole site was not terribly interesting.  Firstly, when looking through the “Browse Items” tab, there was not much organization and was cluttered and some of the tags do not work when you click on them.  On the whole, this site was unimpressive.  This site showed our group that we need to make our site attractive and do not need to compromise visual appeal for effective organization.

 

Overall, many of the sites that we looked at were simply laid out and easy to navigate, but we were not overly impressed with them.  The big takeaways we can apply to our project are:  (1) organize the site well so users do not become frustrated, (2) make the site attractive so users will want to engage with it, (3) clearly identify primary sources and statistics if and when we put them on our website, and (4) clearly describe what the site is about and what a user can expect from it as succinctly as possible on the home page.

1) Some creative uses of the tools we’ve learned about so far. [e.g., how might you use Zotero for something other than citation/research? What could a WordPress blog be used for other than personal reflection? What creative ways can you think of to use Omeka? How might you use these tools in combination with each other or with others you’ve used outside of class.

I do not have much experience with WordPress blogs and most of that experience involved personal reflection.  However, a friend and I do have a WordPress for a Church group we conduct for young ladies.  On our blog, we include recommended books, saint biographies, calendars with upcoming meeting dates, and links to Google Docs that list supplies we need for meetings.  Our blog was also open for comments, questions, and suggestions, so it became a way for us to interact with each other and grow spiritually.  I think WordPress works well for things that you do not necessarily want published online, and you can make accounts private or only accessible to those who have the URL.

With Zotero, I do not think I have ever used this site, but I have used a similar one called EasyBib.  I am unsure if this exists on Zotero, but an interesting feature could be a way to locate more sources similar to the one you are citing.  For example, after you find the source you need to cite, Zotero could give you suggestions for other sources that are similar/related to the one you just worked with, making it easier to locate more.  EasyBib has a feature somewhat like this where you type in the name of your source and it gives you a possible list of sources that you could be referring to.  Scanning through this list could be helpful in constructing comprehensive or annotated bibliographies.

Lastly, for Omeka, I think that historians could use this tool to create ways to virtually analyze primary sources, and teach people how to approach this.  In light of the Great Molasses Flood website, I think it would be interesting to take many different types of primaries, such as clothing, furniture, documents, everyday objects, etc.  The way the newspaper was set up, it looked as if it was pointing out important information to pay attention to.  This kind of thing would be beneficial to history educators, because from what I have seen in my practicums, primary source analysis is not prioritized, and by teaching it to younger students, this could make for a stronger base of historians in the future.  These three tools, WordPress, Zotero, and Omeka could be used to build upon one another.  For example, WordPress could be used as a communication forum for historians to talk with each other about digital resources, one of which could be Omeka.  The blog could have a link to an Omeka site that contains interactive primary sources, cited using Zotero.

 

Based on your review of the Digital History websites: Think about what you like about these websites as a whole, and what you don’t.  What works and what doesn’t?  What elements would you want to incorporate and which do you want to avoid in your own project?

I reviewed the following websites: Gilded Age Murder, Great Molasses Flood, Valley of the Shadow, 9/11 Living Memorial Digital Archive (found under the “Omeka-based sites” link in the syllabus), and Map Scholar.  As I began exploring these websites, I found that they all had a button to take you back to the home page, which makes navigating more manageable.  The home pages also all had clearly-defined tabs to click to look at different things, which helped in moving around the sites.  Even each tab clicked upon on the home page also leads to a whole new set of organized tabs so you never get lost.  In short, the good organization of these sites is very helpful and effective.  All the sites also had an interactive component.  For example, the Gilded Age Murder site lets users move through a map of Lincoln, NE; the Great Molasses Flood lets you click on different parts of a newspaper front page to learn different bits of information; the Valley of the Shadow has interactive battle maps; and Map Scholar lets you build high quality historical maps.  I especially like these interactive components because it complements the text and helps keep my attention better than just reading.  Aside from the animation itself most of the sites with interactive components also include instructions for how to use these features.

A couple things I did not like with these websites was, in some cases, the lack of information.  For example, the Great Molasses Flood is interesting in that you can interact with the newspaper, but I am unsure how all these tiny bits of information relate to each other and form a bigger picture.  Also, on the 9/11 Living Memorial Digital Archive, I am unsure what the difference between “collections” and “exhibits” are and this does not seem to be explained anywhere on the site, although I do like the idea of having items grouped together and organized.  After reviewing these sites, I would definitely say that for my group’s project with the Slaughter and Murray letters, it would be good to categorize the letters in some way and put them under different tabs on our website’s home page.  With some of the more important letters, it also might be interesting to do interactive document pages modeled after the Great Molasses Flood.  Using maps built on Map Scholar could also be useful for giving general background information about the letters and their authors, while having a graphic organizer site map like the Valley of the Shadow does would make for easy navigation for site users.  I think my group needs to avoid pages with information that has not been contextualized and make sure that it is all crisply organized so that users know what we are doing, where we are doing certain things, and the purpose for it.