I don’t think I’m in agreement with the thoughts of some (maybe more than some) others about the progress of digital history as a practice. I think it has a lot to do with the current graduate program that I am in. I’ve spent so much time focused, especially within the last three semesters, on hypertext theory, interaction design, social interaction design, user experience, and digital rhetoric (to name a few things) that I think digital history may have (metaphorically) “landed” in the “new world,” and even spread out beyond the “fall line” and into the Blue Ridge, but I think the practice of digital history hasn’t made its way past the “Appalachians” yet… and the break (aka “independence”) from thinking in terms of traditional practice alone is not quite on the horizon. What’s that? Put a date on it? Hmmm, maybe we are somewhere between 1660 and 1710… I’m not sure.
Anyway, yes, Clio has been wired, but the wiring is still in its early stages. Don’t get me wrong, there has been a lot of progress, but I think the practice is limited as long as we approach the technology as historians, and don’t integrate ourselves more with the theory behind the technology and the fact that traditional practices, such as writing style, do not fully tap the potential of the Web and our own potential in that space. There is a requirement to think differently…
Now, let me put on my hypertext theory hat, and lay aside my history hat for a second… I’m now thinking in terms of the power of the Web and hypertext from the view of a hypertext techy… that we have moved beyond the theories considered in the 1990s, have had time to practice in the space, and are now not only taking the lessons from experience gained and are reconsidering the theories of the 1990s, but are also developing new theories that are reflective of that time spent in the environment of the Web, and most especially Web 2.0. So, is digital history keeping pace?
I know that there are some who are doing it, but I wonder how many digital historians are reconfiguring themselves, their writing, and their overall presentations in order to take advantage of this environment that is much more dynamic than print. More importantly, I wonder how many are truly conscious of the shift in practice and are really considering the theory behind it? Someone might ask, “is it even really that important?” To this, I would probably show an expression of shock on my face and say, “duhhhh!!!!” (or any number of 80s expressions that linger with me and seem to come to mind). O.k…. as a professional, no, I couldn’t do that… but I can’t help to think that this is what I would be wanting to do. I would have to restrain myself… as hard as that might be.
O.k. now… back to work on my thesis.
Harry Smeltzer
April 1, 2009
My brain hurts.
I try to think “outside the box”. But I’m starting to feel old, like I do when I watch my son and his friends on PlayStation. So many buttons and knobs. This is not meant as a knock, so hopefully it won’t rankle, but until academics – I’m talking traditional history departments here – start to approach digital history like eight-year-olds and not like parents (or grandparents), I don’t anticipate anything more than a scratching of the surface. Maybe we’re still a generation away. Their kids will be better at this than they are.
cenantua
April 1, 2009
LOL! That is my favorite expression, “my brain hurts” or “my head hurts,” when it comes to this stuff! I can’t tell you how many times I have heard it in classes like hypertext theory and digital rhetoric, but it’s all good.
What’s so incredibly cool about this stuff is the power to express passion and convey knowledge so much more (I think) effectively than the traditional linear and one dimensional presentation platform of print media. In retrospect, to some degree I think traditional practices turned-off so many people through the years. Yet, through the technology, I think we can interest more people. It’s not about turning everyone into historians, but making history more enjoyable and meaningful for larger audiences. I think this is critical in regaining ground lost by the profession over the past… recapturing respect and appreciation for history and its meaning to our society.
Also, I heard something about a year ago that stuck with me. Essentially, it boils down to “playing games is great, but designing games is where it is at.” I think the same applies to history. I think we need to refine the art of presentation, which entails empowering the user/reader in their interactions with and immersions in the subject matter. Creating those interfaces and trying to figure out how to present concepts, I think, holds a lot of fun in it as the designer. Of course, the reward of the designer is seeing a reader/user/student who walks away with a better grasp of the complexities of our past.
Craig Swain
April 1, 2009
On one engagement I had the responsibility as “pitch man” for a digital records managment system to the customer. Customer required it, but didn’t want it – if you know what I mean. The system was a masterpiece of technical innovation, if I may say so myself – from the time the artifact was “born” as an email or document it started acquiring the right tags for which it would need when reaching maturity as a record. So when sent to the “happy hunting ground” that all records go to eventually, the item had all this wonderful metadata what made filing a breeze.
The solution depended upon the user actually knowing and selecting prescribed categories at different stages of the life cycle. Say for instance selecting “TPS Report” as document type when creating a new TPS Report (assuming the right template was chosen, didn’t you get that memo?). When the TPS report arrived at the engineering director’s desk he needed to tag either “approved” or “disapproved” or “optioned” or “discussed” or what ever to indicate how it was handled. And so on at every stage of the evolution. Basically some indication that said person did their job along the way.
That was just “too much work” according to the CIO. Nobody, he felt, would want to take the time to select categories and status codes from pull down menus. And of course the query, “Why can’t you get this system to just fill that out for us?”
Finally he closed his response with, “This is not the system I invisioned.”
My response, “Well this system isn’t designed for you, but rather so your replacement is able to put the peices togather easier when you leave.” Sometimes the Jerry ‘the King’ Lawler jumping piledriver is not a good sales approach I guess….
cenantua
April 1, 2009
The “fix it” via technology but don’t make us do any more work client didn’t grasp that what little work that was going into the new system along the way was actually going to save headaches and serve as a solution to the problem. I rather liked your closing “Jerry ‘The King’ Lawler” response to the clients absolute failure to get it…