Once again… all this chatter about digital history! What’s it all about? Harry has put up an interesting post focusing on a piece written by Robert Frost. He uses it to help explain his interest in the potential for digital history. I get what Harry is saying.
Also, consider this…
Do we really realize just how tuned-in to technology we have become or is it so transparent that we aren’t concious of it? If we aren’t conscious of it, are we doing an injustice to history on the Web or an injustice to the Web through our history? In practices on the Web, are we still writing/transcribing/evaluating history and conveying our thoughts in the same manner as before (ink on paper) AND to the same audience as we had before? OR, are we adapting to the new environment AND, truly, a new audience? Has not the audience changed based on new expectations built-in through the use of more sophisticated technology (most especially considering the advanced game systems)? If the audience hasn’t changed completely, maybe we might gain a larger audience by delivering history more dynamically. Like I said in the title, and borrowing a bit from the Cadillac commercial… “when you turn history on… does it return the favor?” Sounds like something that History (formerly known as The History Channel) could learn from.
When considering the practice of digital history (and that includes blogging) are we a guided by traditional practice in our approach as historians/practitioners of history/aficianados of history/consumers of history/etc., or do we approach it conscious of the dynamic paths made possible through the new environment? When it comes to the Web, I’m thinking that we need to focus on two disciplines, not just the one focused on history.
Cenantua's Blog 
Michael Aubrecht
November 21, 2008
Interesting post Robert. I would say that as a 36-year old, I have been working on/with computers since the sixth-grade. I have had at least 4 (up to 6) computers in my house at all times. I spend approx. 10 hours a day on them (5 days of the week) and I would not be an Art Director or a professional writer if I had to do anything ‘by hand.’ I have not written cursive in so long that the only legible scribble you’ll get out of me is my signature, and the ONLY aspect of my career that has remained ‘traditional’ is the reading of books and archive research. Still, even with that I am scanning, photographing, or typing information into a laptop. So I guess what I am trying to say is that the computer is such an extension of my ‘hands’ that the technology is virtually transparent. It’s always been there and I’ve always used it in one form or another with my work. Same with the web (for all my adult life I’ve been online in one form or another). I’ve designed and maintained websites for almost 14 years now and I am amazed when I do speaking or signing events with other (mostly older) historians who have no experience with computers. It seems to me they are limiting not only their book sales, but their abilities to share their message with a worldwide audience. I could not even begin to imagine what it takes to research, write, edit, produce, and market a book with no technology. I’d be far too lazy to even try.
Harry Smeltzer
November 21, 2008
We are cruising on the same plane, I believe. I would stress though that I’m not totally convinced that the possibilities presented by the web (and is it really the web, or simply computers?), if realized, will produce a better history than traditional narrative. As a delivery system, narrative is pretty good. But we’re talking a whole ‘nother animal with DH. A different reality altogether from the one created by narrative. Closer to the real reality? I’m not sure yet. But I think the big chore now is to get people to understand that it’s a different game, with different – and maybe fewer – rules.
Good Lord, I think I’m a radical! In ’68, my sister was a campus hippie activist and my brother was a Marine in ‘Nam. I’m some sort of sick hybrid, I guess.
cenantua
November 21, 2008
Michael,
Thanks for commenting.
I see what you are saying about the computer as an extension of your hands, but I’m thinking of the Web as a visual tool through which dynamic conveyance of concepts is possible (and not necessarily through narrative). This is where I think I’m starting to see Harry’s point that this might be somewhat like comparing apples to oranges (interactive narrative vs. dynamic Web applications). For example, from what I am reading through your comments, I think you are thinking of the Web in terms of advertising and, I think, limited extensions of the actual published works (and ideas delivered in the published works). I’m leaning more toward dynamic conveyance of concepts and it isn’t necessarily through the “architecture of words.” Of course, I also think that the Web can be used as somewhat of a dynamic conveyance of ideas found in published works (giving pieces of ideas without giving away the cow… the cow being the entire published-on-paper work).
Harry, I’m not sure that computers is the focal point for presentation on the Web. We use the computer as a tool to put things on the Web, but the actions of the actual on-line applications are controlled through the coding which is placed on the Web. The interaction between the reader and the content does not require the computer through which the applications were placed on the Web, and therefore, the Web is the platform for interaction.
Now, narrative and dynamic Web applications, ok, I’m starting to work my way through this and the apples to oranges metaphor is working in helping me sort the two from one another. You are right about helping people to understand the different game. However, in some sense, why do we need to make the interaction process obvious? I think we need to keep the two separate as the focus is us making the interaction process work and them (the users), performing the interaction without awareness of the process (because it might be distracting in the process of conveying, for example, an historical concept).
Michael Aubrecht
November 21, 2008
I see and great points all. I started out my career as a defense contractor working on a team that developed multimedia training aids for the N32 Sr. Officer-staff at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (AEGIS program). I did this for almost 7 years and then had to get out. This included what (at the time was cutting-edge interactive training aids and simulation for war-fighters). We had the top of the line systems, software, and development tools. We had teams of geeks, and artists, and engineers developing all kinds of neat custom applications for both classroom and secure internet use. The media was then used in house at the AEGIS Training Center and broadcasted out to the Navy battle groups.
What we found was that it didn’t matter how intelligent, or interactive, or dynamic the media was, if the ‘student’ did not understand the fundamentals of war-fighting, all the techy-stuff in the world could not benefit them. All it did was create more distraction. In other words, if your target audience doesn’t know how to add or subtract, it doesn’t matter how whiz-bang your calculator is. It’s useless. IMO. The same can be said for all technical training (and/or educational aids). Digital history and the presentation of it will only be as good as the person receiving it. Yes I said ‘receiving.’
Just like advertising and marketing, you need to know your target demographic. Then you have a make a BIG decision… Do you intentionally ‘baseline your technology’ to work for both average and above average users (in other words lower to bar to accommodate less-techy people), or do you create what you consider to be the best material, while acknowledging that others will be left by the wayside. It’s the ‘No child left behind mentality’ technically speaking.
We had senior-level war-vet commanders who were tactical geniuses, but couldn’t even turn a computer on. We also had younger officers who grew up with video games. The trick was to find something that would appeal to both. The verdict was that the seniors would never be as good with computers as the young guys, and the young guys would never have as much insight as the seniors. Technology has an amazing way of highlighting people’s weakness just as much as it helps to compensate for them. Personally I think the BIGGEST benefit in digital media is the speed at which it can be updated and edited. It would take months to get training manuals reprinted, but our online material could be revised instantly.
cenantua
November 21, 2008
Michael,
Yes, and this ties back to what Harry is saying, I think, in regard to “the big chore… to get people to understand that it’s a different game, with different – and maybe fewer – rules.” Transparent or not, from that perspective, just creating dynamic stuff based on user-centered design does not, in itself, create a larger audience. It might tap into a different audience, but it doesn’t cover a wider range of people.
Yet, since it isn’t our focus to train everyone and bring them up to speed, we have to create stuff that taps into the dynamic while not leaving the non-techies (and even levels of techies not quite on the level of “high-end techies”) out of the picture. If we go too far forward, the non-techies won’t even “play.” If we set our goals too low, the techies get bored.
So then, the real question now is, “what is it, exactly, that could make up the middle ground?”
cenantua
November 21, 2008
Some additional thoughts…
Considering what has been said so far, do we now have two (at least, so far) paths of approach to “dynamic” digital history?
1. Remediation (unconventional or using dynamic features available exclusively in the Web environment and other applications available through the Web) of narrative
2. Other-than-narrative opportunities presented for digital historians within the environment of the Web
Harry Smeltzer
November 21, 2008
Do you guys notice that only a very few people take the time to comment on these DH posts? Other than Michael, just entering the fray so to speak, we’ve only heard from practitioners of the sort of DH we’re talking about. I kinda sorta thought we’d hear from some “traditional” academic historians and writers with blogs. I know in the case of Bull Runnings it’s probably because to them my blog is akin to a trailer park, but Robert and Craig, you guys are real historians!
cenantua
November 21, 2008
Harry, It is interesting that we haven’t seen anyone else stop by and give some thoughts. Michael gave some very interesting perspective on today’s discussion. I wish more folks would chime in, but I think we’re having a good time doing this. Not only that, but I was surprised a few minutes ago to see that this post has been viewed almost 35 times today.
Oh, and regarding your work at Bull Runnings, I think what you are doing is time-consuming and a real contribution to the Civil War on the Web. Not everyone can keep the pace necessary to keep such a blog fresh.
With the mention of what historians are and do… it reminds me that I need to clarify an earlier post that I made about a month ago. The post was a frustrated rant that stemmed from my frustrations with a book that appears to have not been written for historical value, but anger-evoking against, more or less, the memory of Union soldiers.
Don
November 24, 2008
I think it would be very interesting to hear what someone like the folks at Civil Warriors have to say about the discussion, but I agree with Robert that it’s interesting enough in its own right. These discussions have made me spend many hours thinking about such things than I otherwise would have.
After looking at Robert’s and Harry’s sides of the discussion and spending a great deal of time thinking about them, I still find myself somewhere in the middle. I (now) see Robert’s points about the potential for web-based history, and different directions that it can go. Enough so, in fact, that I’m conducting a very limited scale virtual battlefield experiment with Craig Swain. I think I said it somewhere already, but that was a brilliant idea, Robert. At the same time, I appreciate Harry’s points about the value of narrative history.
Even the virtual battlefield is going to offer some sort of narrative history at some point, I believe. And there is where you catch up the computer-savvy with those who aren’t. Such a site would offer something for everyone, which strictly narrative sites as a rule don’t.
In the end, I personally view the fancy digital effects as a way to bring more to view the history, be it narrative or otherwise. And if it does that, through narrative or hypertext, apples or oranges, I’ll have another case, please.
cenantua
November 24, 2008
Thanks for the comment Don. I’m still working on the virtual battlefield idea. I hope to have some sort of deliverable ready to add to the blog by mid-December. The focus is on the Battle of Piedmont (June 5, 1864). Like I mentioned before, this is a project that I have been developing for my interaction design course.
However, in that you mention that you and Craig are working on a virtual battlefield experiment, I am intrigued and can’t wait to hear more. This makes me wonder if a collaborative project might be worthwhile. I think our flow of thinking is headed in the same general direction.
Eric Wittenberg
November 24, 2008
Here’s my two cents worth, for what it’s worth…
As I said in a comment that I left on Harry’s blog, (a) I like my blog the way it is, and am not terribly inclined to change it and (b) after spending tens of thousands of dollars to turn up obscure primary source material over the last twenty years, I am NOT inclined to just give it away for no return. Call me mercenary if you like, and if that goes against the grain, I can live with that.
At the same time, I think that what you guys have been discussing is both worthwhile and worthy, and I commend you for it. I just don’t have an appetite for giving away what I’ve spent so much on. At least with my books, I get some return and some prospect of breaking even, which is how I am able to justify the continuing expenditures to my wife. Without that hope, I can’t envision her permitting me to continue to spend what I spend on the Civil War, and I wouldn’t blame her.
Eric
cenantua
November 24, 2008
Eric, Thanks for commenting… and your two cents are worth a great deal in this exchange. I think you make an excellent point. There is a lot of work behind history, and both time and money are major factors… not to mention the impact of wives 🙂 I don’t think it could be said that you are going against the grain or a mercenary. I think your concerns are probably felt by the majority.
I agree that it’s easier to justify time spent on research when we have some financial return. There is also reasonable concern over the thought of exposing “ideas” through the Web to the general public. If we lay-out ideas for a project, for example, who is to say that someone won’t grab it, run with it quicker than we can, and start reaping the rewards from our original ideas while we get bent all out of shape? What safeguards are there to protect us? If there are some in place, how solid do they hold-up in court?
On the other hand, despite the fact that major projects like Valley of the Shadow have been out there for over a decade, the potential of digital history remains wide open and there is room for folks to make their way into this niche. That’s not to say however, that making a splash in the practice of digital history limits one’s long-term prospects to that practice alone. I think major independent projects, effectively and creatively done, can lead to a paradigm shift in the delivery of educational materials. Like most “new frontiers,” there is just a lot of work involved, and perhaps a like amount of risk.
Eric Wittenberg
November 24, 2008
Robert,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
If there’s a way to add a financial component, then I’m all for it. The lack of any sort of royalties being paid is why I was so vehemently opposed to Google’s book scanning project where items that are still subject to copyright protection are involved.
And, your point about having ideas stolen is quite valid. JD Petruzzi had a ton of really good stuff on his Buford’s Boys site that was just plain plagiarized over the years, and I am extremely cautious as a consequence.
As for safeguards, the only real safeguard is to file a copyright registration with the Library of Congress once the site goes up. That is solid as solid can be legally, but it’s a pain, and it means that you would have to do a re-registration after any significant updating. The copyright laws are struggling hard to catch up to the technological earthquakes of the last fifteen years or so, and they’re not doing well at all. Look at the RIAA’s campaign against music swapping if you want an example of what I’m talking about here……
Eric