ADH 5.0

One of the biggest things that we found to be helpful while navigating through the sites given were the visual appeal and the easy navigation. Font sizes and colors played a big part in being able to understand the content. If we couldn’t read we would skip it. The layout was also important and how spread out the content was on the page for making it easier to use. Some sites would direct us into other pages, while others would be tedious and open several tabs. We also liked how some websites made it so that you could search the content in a historic document, while also being able to see the original documents. Clickable images that linked to the content were also helpful in the navigation. Finally the images and graphics need to have enough information and context to be understandable, but succinct enough for people to read it.

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.

For valley of shadow we thought we could use the home page style for our site potentially. However, we felt it had too much of a museum feel.

For the French Revolution site was not conducive to how to set up our site. Yet we agreed we need a search bar. 

The emancipation project was not with our style.

For the Gilded age site we really liked the interactive map, however we unsure if we could do something similar with the Diaries data.

The Great Molasses flood site had a good concept but very crowded, and slightly confusing. We did like Dublin Core meta data.

Map Scholar we liked the style of the document front and center with transcription on side, and the scroll through. 

For the Digital History site we liked the info being present at the bottom in categories, not so much the scroll function.

The Emile Davis Diaries was the site we liked the most. The idea of potentially allowing comments to get better transcriptions was appealing. We liked the annotations, but not the tags function. However we thought it needed a separate about page, and an probably intro page.

The Digital Scholarship lab site was more interactive and data driven then our needs.

The Mapping the Republic of Letters site we really disliked most of it. However the color scheme of red and tan was nice.

The Virtual Paul’s Cross Project, was less our style.  We thought it should include info with images not leave them separate from larger image. 

Trans atlantic slave trade database did not work.

Imagining the Past had a exhibit like structure, but was too text heavy.

Grad Student DH Projects at UNC were confusing to navigate and the sites were pretty empty. It was also clearly more blog like, which we did not like.

For How did they make that?, it was too a clearly course site, hard to separate from that.

We also came up with the idea of a featured page with a randomly generated diary page on the front page.

Taking a look as a group to the entire set list of web pages we were assigned to surf, we find a mixture of helpful and not so helpful tools and utilization of web-space. Together we came to a conclusion that (http://dsl.richmond.edu/) showed an all around intuitive and user friendly format, that offered creativity and information in abundance. While on some of the sights we found their ideas are great but didn’t hit the mark for example; 1919 Molasses Flood site looks good as an initial concept, but appears to be poorly executed and difficult to navigate. Overall this list of sights gave us adequate in sight to the possibilities for our group project. An inspiration we have would to utilize the idea of displaying the buildings lay outs though virtual mapping similar to the Valley of Shadow (http://valley.lib.virginia.edu/), maybe even adding video formatting.

 

Other thoughts:

• Digital Scholarship Lab is very well organized, visually wonderful, and has a great mix of AV and text information. A+ in all categories.
• Imagining the past is well executed and doesn’t suffer from being somewhat plain.
• French Revolution website uses colors that lack contrast, text covers images, no neutral color space, the alignment is off, and the font is difficult to read. Each takes a chunk out of the experience.[
• Emancipation website is a strange mixture of visually bland and intuitively confusing although for content it is bursting at the seams.
• Slave trade link is broken, hopefully it’s not lost forever.
  
  [

  
  

  [

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. [Be playful with your ideas here.]]

Although I have never used Zotero before, I have definitely used WordPress blog in the past. In addition to using WordPress for personal reflection purposes, I believe that a WordPress site could be used for a small/local  business or restaurant website. The WordPress blog is user friendly platform for people who are creating a website that might not have a lot of experience with digital technology. Another benefit of WordPress is that it is easy to navigate for internet users. Omeka can be used for a museum collection, a library collection, and for learning and teaching school curriculum.

2) Based on your review of the Digital History websites above: 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?

For the second part of the assignment, I looked at six Digital history websites including: Great Molasses Flood, Map Scholar University of Huston Digital History, Emile Davis Diaries, UNC and the Omeka based cite The Civil War in Art website at http://www.civilwarinart.org

• Great Molasses Flood
  • Pros: The website’s first page is a front page of a newspaper with many words, letters and titles that you can click on for more information about the historic event. The bright color of the clickable information on the first page makes the website visually appealing and it encourages internet users to interact with the website.
  • Cons:As a Mac user, the website felt unnatural and uncomfortable to navigate.The information provided on the page was not well organized  and became very cluttered if you clicked on multiple links on the home page for more information.

• Map Scholar
  • Pros: Great Resource for cartographers and geographers, easy to navigate and provides links to instructions o to create your own Map Scholar collection online. The news tab provides updated information about map collections, map news and map resources.
  • Cons: Website could be more visually appealing and creative

• University of Huston Digital History
  • Pros: Website is visually appealing, well organized and provides a link to printable versions of web pages. Has a plethora of resources including  primary and secondary sources, images, audio clips, movie trailers, links to additional information and quizzes for students.
  • Cons: Many of the links open up a new window that is not connected to the main website. Therefore, a internet user has to keep the main website page open at all times.

• Emile Davis Diaries
  • Pros:Easy to navigate. Emile’s diary entries are easy to locate on the front page and web designers allow internet users to  write comments about Emile’s daily diary entires. Visually appealing and professional.
  • Cons: Very little critical analysis or historical context is provided in addition to the diary entires.

• UNC Chapel Hill
  • Pros: Links are at the top of the page therefore, it is easy to navigate for internet users and has a very simple design.
  • Cons: Boring color scheme, unimaginative design and an overall lack of creativity.Projects under the heading “projects” are not centered around a common theme.

• #1 Omeka Based Site: The Civil War in Art
  • Pros: A search box is provided on the first page with links to social media sites.Visually appealing and creative. Includes text, primary documents (text and pictures), teaching resources and suggestions for educators, a glossary of terms for students and additional links to more information about the topic. Suggested links on sub-topic pages. Tags are used to help people find specific information.
  • Cons:Some exhibit pages only provide a few paragraphs about the specific sub-topic.

This week we were assigned a list of websites to look through and pick apart, in order to get a greater understanding for the creative possibilities to further our options for the final group website. After looking through these sights I realized the potential for the site, and it is honestly a bit exciting. One of the sights (http://republicofletters.stanford.edu/) really showed the wide range of historic portrayal capable through a single web page. With mapping, links, and captions. Another page I looked at was the winner of the DH (digital History 2014) award for best data visualization. With this award/title I expected to be blown away, but maybe had expectations that were to high. To me the sight seemed basic, and I will admit it is probably because I do not know what it took to create the visuals, and the interface. The sight seemed to be filled with hyperlinks and the information that is provided seems to be scares. The site that surprised me the most was (http://dsl.richmond.edu/april1865/) this site offers an amazing visual aspect that was not met by some of the other links provided. The layout of the site is very simple and clean while also providing an intuitive interface that can be utilized without strain. I am not yet sure what parts will be able to utilize in our group project, but after looking through the catalog of websites proved I am now optimistic of our endless possibilities.

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.