flavors
08 Nov 2010 5 Comments
There is a lot of neat information in The Difference Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American Communities by Will Thomas and Edward Ayers, but I don’t know that I agree with the method in which they chose to present their data. I couldn’t tell what was meant to be important. I guess it depends on what you’re looking for but, is it all important? Is it meant to just allow users to pick and choose what parts of the topic they wish to explore?
I do like that “Evidence” is separate, so you can view all the graphs, charts, data, etc. But I do wish they had incorporated links to the evidence throughout the “Summary of Argument” as well. That way you know what it’s related to and have the information you can reference also linked to the evidence. I guess I don’t feel like everything flows together and I lose the idea of why they put all this history together into a web site. This digital history is also available to read in a related book – I couldn’t find it cited on the website – but I had to read it for a previous class at GM: In the Presence of Mine Enemies: War in the Heart of America, 1859-1863 by Edward Ayers. It’s essentially the same idea just in printed form.
I enjoyed exploring PhilaPlace and the Euclid Corridor because they each digitally present history in a vastly different form. These two sites offer an experience of a location and its history through social, cultural means as well as collective memory. I prefer this presentation versus a transformation of a book into a digital format. I do realize that you can’t really compare these sites because their final goals are different. However, I do believe they’re all good beginning examples of the different methods that can be used to present various topics of history digitally.
Nov 08, 2010 @ 19:40:20
Do you feel the ‘transformation from a book into a digital format’ just doesn’t cut it or this particular example? I do see how they can compliment each other and increase access, but what I’m wondering is if this is innovative enough? Is it too ‘by the book’ (bad pun, I know)?
Laura had touched on this in her blog/comments, but what stuck out at me about PhilaPlace and HyperCities was that the presentation was immediately new. With ‘Slavery’ I first thought ‘oh this is like a book on the web’. Is that a bad thing?
Nov 08, 2010 @ 22:54:34
I think that is punny (hah!), but I think you’re right. I think they went too ‘by the book’. I didn’t really see their method as being innovative, more just that they’re using a digital resource to summarize a book or topic. It felt a lot like a textbook and less like a web experience. It’s not terrible, or even that far off from being a good resource online. They’re making an attempt and it’s better than not trying at all.
Nov 08, 2010 @ 20:58:20
I do not believe that Thomas and Ayers intended for the reader to examine every element they included. How deep someone explores the article depends on what they wants to gain from the article and their level of knowledge on the subject. As I read through the article, I accessed maps or tables when I needed clarification on a point they were making, or I was simply curious as to the specific data they referenced. So, to answer your question, yes, it is up to the user to decide what they choose to explore.
Nov 08, 2010 @ 22:35:04
I agree with your assessment. I think Thomas and Ayers remained too literal and very much attached to the print idea rather than taking advantage of the medium in which their research was published. It seems to me that their use of digital tools was limited to the design of their research, but fell short when it came to using the Web environment as another digital tool to enrich their narrative. I, too, would have appreciated a more seamless integration of the narrative and the evidence used to support their argument. And while I understand their intention in letting the user design his or her own digital path to their arguments and conclusion, I still think they could have enriched the site by connecting their materials and medium more imaginatively and organically.
Nov 09, 2010 @ 17:07:28
It’s a good point about PhilaPlace and Euclid Corridor-they’re not trying to transform books into websites, and that gives them more freedom in the digital environment. Rather than always trying to turn a book or an exhibition into a website, I think it’s better to take content that simply doesn’t exist in the aggregate, and give it a digital environment.