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.
