Apparently, I need to do some more blog surfing because I missed this post by Mark Grimsley. In a follow-up post, Mark posted Anne Rubin’s presentation that details her “disenchantment” with digital history as it relates to the Civil War. Her “Sherman’s March” project sounds ambitious, but well-worth the effort.
Rubin is absolutely on target about the current state of the Civil War on the Web. It is archival in nature and this is great for those (myself included) who want to have easier access to quality resources, but it misses the potential of the Web. When the big splash of digital history kicked off in the 90s, I think, in articles such as this one (written by Edward L. Ayers), we could see so much potential. More recently, Cohen and Rosenzweig also suggested ambitious moves in their book, Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web. While the digital archives has grown on the Web and historians have clearly found the gathering and preserving part a great feature, the presenting part needs some tweaking. I’ve mentioned it before, but we really need to take advantage of what we have in front of us, not only in the software and hardware, but in the way we can apply many other principles (the use of color, typography, and principles of cognitive learning… just to name a few) that make our presentations more effective and meaningful, especially considering the Nintendo DS and Wii generation that is growing up on games that are both interactive and immersive. It’s time to move beyond the book and make history come alive.
Cenantua's Blog 
caswain01
October 28, 2008
I probably need to spend time composing a blog entry dedicated to my thoughts, but here’s a dime tour of my two cents worth.
First off, digital historians, if I may call them that, face issues beyond the traditional book historians. The book is a directed presentation. You go where the author wants to lead. The consumer expects, on the other hand, for a digital resource to allow for “open range” information presentations. They wish to move about in the topic where their preferences or interests take them.
Second off, many digital historians have become focused on the dressing, while forgetting the underlying formation. For a digital presentation to work right, there must be a very well crafted and connected data schema underneath. That applies if you are working a history site, news site, or even a knitting circle site. If the data is scattered, so will the logic of site navigation. It won’t support searching, user browsing, and simple information recognition. End story – users will not understand what is presented.
Lastly, and what I’ve seen as an issue in my line of work, reluctance by the formal community to accept collaborative tool sets as a support for the system. Call this “I’m afraid of what the unwashed masses might say” issue. there are simply three ways to deal with this – Make the unwashed masses register and become “known” and less likely to say things better left on cave paintings. OR Ruthlessly monitor and manage collaborative input. OR clean the unwashed masses by way of eduction before allowing them to speak in your forum! (Yes, that noise in the background is Robert making the settings to block future posts from my account….)
For all its warts, Wikipedia is actually a functional example of information presentation within the digital world. It is far from perfect. But who hasn’t used it from time to time, and ended up chasing a thread through links to other wiki-topics?
I agree, historians should be using the tools available. The traditional shelf book as we know it today will probably die out as the century progresses – Kindle, books on tape/iPod, and the web are making that the case. I would offer that historians shouldn’t consider their lot any different than other disciplines.
I’ve worked in the tech sector for years. Twenty years ago my cube had dozens of books. Fifteen years ago, about a quarter of those were in PDF format, some resources were on the web, but still most were books on the shelf. Five years ago, I realized that the most up to date sources I could find and rely upon were on the web.
Now I have two books on the work shelf, and five dozen tech site links (mostly blogs) as favorites in my browser. That’s the direction human information exchange is headed. For better or worse.
cenantua
October 28, 2008
Craig – Thanks for the comment. I agree that the Web is different from the book, but even in a book, shouldn’t the author be writing for the largest possible user audience? In some ways, my user-centric/interaction design studies have forced me to reflect on something that we may have been missing all along in creating books. It makes me wonder if academia needs to change focus on the way history is written, not to intimidate through a lot of verbage, but to get to the points more effectively (not writing from the academy to the academy).
Even so, the Web does offer far more for one to consider than when writing books or articles; and this takes me back to the need to understand design principles for the Web… and of course, my argument that a history degree could/should be available in forms other than the standard issue B.A. or M.A. The “science” side of learning how to develop for Web presentation is essential before one should even think of themselves as a “digital historian.” (and this leads to even larger issues that dance in my head about the need to develop levels of certification in historical practice… another post altogether).
When you mention the underlying formation, are you referring to the conceptual design focus first, followed by wireframing? If so, I know what you mean. I think a lot of folks plunge right in and start making pages without looking at the nuts and bolts first (not of the historical content to be laid-out on the Web, but of the design). There is a different form of organization than when developing a book.
LOL, no I’m not blocking your comments! You use your name when you comment and you are bringing up some interesting points. However, I think I know what you are talking about in this respect. By plunging into the Web environment, in a blog for example, how much is a historian ready to yield to the reader and his/her approach to the author’s words/ideas. I think in most cases, Landow might agree that it’s not perfect, but those of us who have developed blogs and practice history have taken the first important steps. Of course, some might think hypertext theory rather Marxist in approach (oh boy, if that isn’t another can of worms). How much can an historian really yield to the reader in allowing the reader to become a reader/author (the “collaborative” partner)?
Fantastic comment Craig. Thanks!
caswain01
October 30, 2008
Robert, I guess my ten second sound byte would be “Historians shouldn’t change the way the write history, but rather change the way they present history.”
I wouldn’t say that historians need to get their hands dirty learning HTML or the science of web presentation. While my formal schooling is a History degree, informally I’ve learned those technical tasks. None of it was driven by my “history” job, rather driven by the demands of a career decidedly in a “non-liberal arts” field. Those web presentation skills you mention are best learned, in my opinion, in the field, doing the job. Shame to put some historian in that billet just to cut his teeth! But the historian should be skilled at relating his topic to those who have Master Ninja Level 9 Web Presentation skills.
As for underlying formation, I’m referring to the information mapping, which should be translated into a data schema map. IN other words, some organization of your knowledge.
Take an non-history site for example – http://www.imdb.com. One can spend hours there browsing through old movies. Find a title, then find an actor you like, then find movies he did with some other actor, then find a quote you like, then find a director from that movie, and so on, and so on……
Maybe it is “entertainment history” by some definition, but the main point I’d make is the site has a data map that allows users to “graze” through the body of knowledge. It is not directed from page to page, or from click to click.
I really need to make this a blog entry….too much to say!