I am traveling through time. My vehicle is the Wayback Machine. I enter the Smithsonian on June 6th, 2000, which I will compare with the Smithsonian's current state. Of course, the Smithsonian has changed their site dramatically within the past twelve years. The most obvious difference that I notice immediately is the aesthetics, but there are other aspects of these two times that should be considered.
The main page of the 2000 site is very simple and mostly text based, but has a picture of the Smithsonian that looks like it was rendered in The Sims (which actually came out that same year...) in the center of the page. When I click on the text links surrounding the picture, I am redirected to pages that are solely text or only contain a few small images with a wall of text. Many of the pages that I am redirected to (such as "Planning Your Visit" vs. "About the Smithsonian") are totally different formats; the pages do not even appear to be apart of the same website. This definitely has a negative effect on the fluidity of the page. This is contrasted with the Smithsonian's modern page in which images take up a larger portion of the main page than the text, but there are links that are text and links that are images. This site seems to be uniform throughout, using a similar format for all pages. Because Smithsonian 2000 is so simple, it is very easy to navigate and understand. I actually find myself a bit overwhelmed looking at the current Smithsonian page. The images make it prettier, but there's so much going on, I don't know where to look! The center of the page is scrolling, there are text links at the top of the page, and then a massive amount of much smaller text beneath the large images. There are even small pictures mixed in with the smaller text beneath the main images. I think the goal of the current site is to have no unused space, since the developers (in addition to the surplus of pictures and text) felt the need to have social connection links as a bar at the top of the page, then the same links repeated in a different format further down the page. I now believe there can be such a thing as too many images! Blank space can be useful, especially when communicating clarity and organization. I feel like the current Smithsonian website is trying too hard to grab my attention, and it seems overly complicated. This is probably a usability issue for many visitors.
Now that I've exited the Wayback Machine, I've realized it is a useful tool for digital historians. The ability to utilize internet archives is beneficial in examining various types of digital media since the 1990s (generally), which allows us to improve website communication/usability through comparative analyses. Technology is constantly building on itself, and digital history can (and should) do the same by using tools like the Wayback Machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000606112742/http://www.si.edu/
http://si.edu/
Thursday, August 30, 2012
What Is Digital History?
After reading the introduction and the first chapter in Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web, I broadly (and simply) consider digital history to be all forms of digital media that contribute to history. This obviously encompasses a large amount of materials and includes media that is used for research and presentation. The fact that digital history is so much directs us towards some of the main points discussed within the reading. First, while digital history is beneficial, there are some trade-offs that must be considered. In regard to its own history, digital history developed slowly at first, then (as with most technology) began expanding exponentially.
While the book specifically points out seven possible positives and five negatives of digital history, I'm going to focus on what I thought was interesting. So, what is digital history? As mentioned above, digital history takes many forms: videos, sounds, articles...the list could most likely continue with no end. It also takes different forms in regard to what kind of storage is selected, which brings up issues of preservation throughout time. Yet, digital history is more than that. It's also the ability to communicate with other historians, or utilize information, from the other side of the world while sitting at your desk. It is being able to quickly and efficiently find various kinds of sources. It is the possibility for interaction and exciting, nonlinear methods of disseminating information. It is a fantastic tool!
The deeper I read into this book (and the article "Digital Age Presents New Problems for Historians"), the more I felt very biased. The authors in the book seem to maintain a balance of the positives and negatives of digital history, and that article goes straight into a surplus of perceived issues. I think the beneficial aspects greatly outweigh the trade-offs. Maybe that's just me being a product of my generation. Maybe not. It seems many of the negatives the authors in Digital History focus on were issues within history before the creation of digital history, and the authors point this out. I admit digital history has exacerbated issues of authenticity and created somewhat new problems with inaccessibility and durability, but I also believe we now have more tools at our disposal to combat these issues. Before the digital age, historians found methods to work against the problems that arose, and I think digital history is simply a new form of this. Historians just need to stretch their techniques to include those that minimize problems working in the digital age. We have programs that can aid us in figuring out whether or not a photograph is legit or not. We still have the same reasoning and logic that we used before the internet to separate good sources from bad ones, along with Google, which gives us the option of further investigating a source. I planned on delving deeper into all the problems from both texts, but I don't want to spend all my time on that! The topic of solutions would be great for class discussion.
Moving into the first chapter, the authors give a history of digital history. I noticed that like most technology, digital history and the internet started off rather slowly, then exploded into production. I found it interesting that amateur historians were the first to participate in creating digital history. For some reason, this concept makes me further ponder who should preserve digital history, and what should be preserved? I'm thinking this much should probably be decided by academics...nevertheless, digital history is in a very different state than it was in 1993, and I'm looking forward to seeing its future states. While I think digital history can be a bit complex, I don't think it's as complicated and challenging as it's made out to be. I view digital history as an endless possibility, and I hope HIST 6330 will confirm this!
While the book specifically points out seven possible positives and five negatives of digital history, I'm going to focus on what I thought was interesting. So, what is digital history? As mentioned above, digital history takes many forms: videos, sounds, articles...the list could most likely continue with no end. It also takes different forms in regard to what kind of storage is selected, which brings up issues of preservation throughout time. Yet, digital history is more than that. It's also the ability to communicate with other historians, or utilize information, from the other side of the world while sitting at your desk. It is being able to quickly and efficiently find various kinds of sources. It is the possibility for interaction and exciting, nonlinear methods of disseminating information. It is a fantastic tool!
The deeper I read into this book (and the article "Digital Age Presents New Problems for Historians"), the more I felt very biased. The authors in the book seem to maintain a balance of the positives and negatives of digital history, and that article goes straight into a surplus of perceived issues. I think the beneficial aspects greatly outweigh the trade-offs. Maybe that's just me being a product of my generation. Maybe not. It seems many of the negatives the authors in Digital History focus on were issues within history before the creation of digital history, and the authors point this out. I admit digital history has exacerbated issues of authenticity and created somewhat new problems with inaccessibility and durability, but I also believe we now have more tools at our disposal to combat these issues. Before the digital age, historians found methods to work against the problems that arose, and I think digital history is simply a new form of this. Historians just need to stretch their techniques to include those that minimize problems working in the digital age. We have programs that can aid us in figuring out whether or not a photograph is legit or not. We still have the same reasoning and logic that we used before the internet to separate good sources from bad ones, along with Google, which gives us the option of further investigating a source. I planned on delving deeper into all the problems from both texts, but I don't want to spend all my time on that! The topic of solutions would be great for class discussion.
Moving into the first chapter, the authors give a history of digital history. I noticed that like most technology, digital history and the internet started off rather slowly, then exploded into production. I found it interesting that amateur historians were the first to participate in creating digital history. For some reason, this concept makes me further ponder who should preserve digital history, and what should be preserved? I'm thinking this much should probably be decided by academics...nevertheless, digital history is in a very different state than it was in 1993, and I'm looking forward to seeing its future states. While I think digital history can be a bit complex, I don't think it's as complicated and challenging as it's made out to be. I view digital history as an endless possibility, and I hope HIST 6330 will confirm this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)