What’s In A Web Page? A Crash Course In Web Design
I like to think I have a pretty good understanding of the general workings of the web. Words like “hypertext” and “html” are parts of my vocabulary, and although I don’t pretend to know all of the specifics, I could certainly hold a reasonably intelligent conversation about the nature of websites. But if someone asked me what I know about web design, my answer would be “very little.” I don’t know the first thing about writing HTML, let along creating a web page with flash and other interactives. So if someone like myself, a twenty-six year old graduate student who grew up with the web, has only the foggiest inkling of how to create a webpage…how many more people are saying, “html? Hypertext what?”
For those of us who kind of get it (but not really), Daniel Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig are the proverbial, all-knowing “gods of web design.” In Digital History: A Guide To Gathering, Preserving and Presenting the Past On the Web, Cohen and Rosenzweig present a basic yet concise overview of the technologies behind the web, and persuasively convince readers that you do not have to be Bill Gates to create an informative and well-designed webpage. They quickly point out that website do not have to be intricately complex. If say, a professor is trying to create a webpage that provides basic class information such as a syllabus and useful web links, and maybe even has an online forum for class discussions, there is no reason to fret if the website does not resemble that of the Library of Congress. As Cohen and Rosenzweig point out, basic tools that most computer users are familiar with, such as Powerpoint and Word, are perfectly acceptable mediums for creating a website. While there are more sophisticated web design tools, such as Dreamweaver and Front Page, there are other fundamental tools, like Word, that can be used when putting together a site. Another particularly helpful tidbit of advise that Cohen and Rosenzweig offer to their readers is that they ask potential website creators to first ask themselves, “what is the genre of the site? What do you hope to accomplish through the site?” There is no point stressing about advanced and pricey technological requirements if they are not necessary for the site. If the design of the site is more technologically advanced, Cohen and Rosenzweig cite a number of resources and tools that can be used to create a more aesthetically pleasing and enlightening site, such as Photoshop, Windows Media and Flash.
Now lets say you master the basics of organizing and creating text, photos, maybe even some podcasts, into an easily navigable and engaging site….how do you present your creation to the world? Cohen and Rosenzweig also do an excellent job of providing a basic overview on creating and obtaining a domain name, expected costs, and the pluses and minuses of hosting your own site. I found this information to be extremely helpful. As I work for a small non-profit Museum, funding for technological upgrades is minimal. Cohen and Rosenzweig’s chapter on the nature of websites and what is needed to create one certainly helped me understand the basic concepts of website, and provided me with the necessary information to recognize and utilize the tools that are available to every day web users like myself.
So now I have the basics…can I use Cohen and Rosenzweig’s guidelines to design for the history web and “spice up” the New England Carousel Museum’s website? I’m going to have to try it out and as Sarah Palin would say, “I’ll get back to ya.”
Cyberinfrastructure, Application Program Interfaces, Data Mining….It Sounds Intimidating!
I was in Pennsylvania this weekend for a bridal shower and bachelorette party (hence why my posting is a tad on the late side), and I ended up staying at my parents house the night before the festivities. I got to my parents house later than expected, and I was bummed that I missed the beginning of the Presidential debate. As I am a political junkie, I used my iphone (my parents do not own a computer) to go to CNN.com and see if there was anything earth shattering that I happened to miss. Being that my parent’s house is surrounded by trees and cornfields, my internet connection was on the slow side. As I muttered obscenities underneath my breath, my mother looked at me and said, “Stop complaining. Your father and I are primitive.” Primitive is an understatement. They still do not know how to operate the DVD player, let along use a computer. But it got me thinking. When I think of someone or something being “primitive,” I immediately picture a horse and buggy instead of a car or someone rubbing two sticks together to create a fire. It is hard to imagine that not having the internet, a world wide phenomenon that was virtually unheard of until CERN[i] launched its World Wide Web project in the early 1990’s, is considered primitive. But it is. I shudder to think what would happen tomorrow if the computer, the very life blood of millions of businesses and thousands of college campuses, ceased to exist. Chaos would ensue. Hell, I might even think the world was coming to an end. Have we grown that attached to the computer and the internet that we would fail to function without them?
Of course the world would not end (we got by without computers for thousands of years, right?) but the idea that a society could be come so dependent on a mechanical box filled with microchips and wires in such a short amount of time is frightening to a generation of people who grew up using old fashioned pen and paper. Just when people have figured out how to master Microsoft works, the program is considered obsolete and something better has replaced it; people finally learn how to use basic search engines (does anyone remember Gopher?) and then all of the sudden, words like “hypertext,” “html,” and “programming interfaces,” are thrown into the mix, and people go, “huh?” So what exactly are algorithms and electro-optical components, how can they be used to help make sense of the human record, and why are people so intimidated?
The American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), an organization committed to the advancement of the humanities and the social sciences, coined the term cyberinfrastructure to denote the make up of the web as a layer of information, expertise, standards, policies, tools and services that can be used to broadly share information and pose inquiries for specific scholarly purposes. The ACLS argues that the web has revolutionized the way we find and process information, communicate and do research. Journals, books, reports, art, etc…can be easily accessed via the web, thus resulting in more efficient research and the creation of online communities where people can share information in a matter of seconds. Yet, many people are still resistant to this “digital scholarship.” The ACLS certainly makes a clear and convincing argument in, Our Cultural Commonwealth, the Report of the American Council of Learned Societies On Cyberinfrastructure For the Humanities and the Social Sciences, as to why we should embrace cyberinfrastructure and digital scholarship: yes, it will facilitate online collaboration; yes it will support experimentation; yes it creates an easily accessible virtual library. But it still scares the crap out of people, and it is easy to see why.
For one, many people, including many scholars, think that in order for them to successfully use the web as a means of conducting research or putting together projects, they have to have an array of advanced technical skills. And with terms such as wiki and web 2.0 becoming more and more common, it is easy to see why scholars are hesitant. But as Amy Taylor, associate professor at the State University of New York, points out in Interchange: the Promise of Digital History, people do not need to acquire a broad range of advanced technical skills in order to use the web for digital scholarship purposes. In fact, the beauty of digital scholarship and cyberinfrastrucutre is that it encourages online collaboration, hence making it easier to communicate with other scholars or individuals who may possess different and equally valuable technical skills.
I think the biggest challenge facing digital scholarship is that it can be difficult and cumbersome to explain. I read Daniel Cohen’s article, From Babel to Knowledge: Data Mining Large Digital Collections, about how he used basic application programming interfaces (APIs) to create a Syllabus Finder search engine for students and professors, and I have to admit, I had to read it like three times. The article was so technical and required so much extra research on my part to figure out what the hell he was talking about, that I eventually got annoyed and moved on to the next thing that I was reading. And I think this is what is so intimidating. Scholars and ordinary people like myself take the time to read these informational articles so that we can have a better idea of how digital scholarship is changing, and it is so difficult to comprehend what is going on that we get frustrated. And I like to think I have a pretty good grasp of digital technology. So for someone who has little to no technical background to sit down and read an article like Cohen’s…it is no wonder they are intimidated!
The whole concept of digital scholarship began to make sense again after reading Lisa Spiro’s article, Doing Digital Scholarship: Presentation at Digital Humanities 2008. Finally, a woman who gets it and knows how to present it so people like me can understand. (Not that Cohen does not get it. He is a renowned expert on digital scholarship.) She posed the questions that many people and many scholars are asking: what is digital scholarship? What kind of tools are available to support it? To what extent do these resources and tools enable us to do research more productively and creatively? That is what people want to know! If they are going to buy into the concept of digital scholarship, they have to understand what the benefits are. Sure, a number of scholarly articles point out how the web allows us to access an infinite numbers and easily communicate with people who have similar interests. But a number of the articles and reports that exist are geared towards people who already have a good understanding of the web. What about the people who have limited knowledge? How do we get them invested? We get them invested by making the concept of digital scholarship easier to understand, and that is what Spiro does.
Digital scholarship…cyberinfrastructure….data mining…it sounds exciting. And yes, still a little scary.
One Million Strong And Counting: The Wikipedia Revolution
I have to admit, I am a huge fan of Wikipedia. If I am reading a book or an assignment and I come across a familiar name that I just cannot remember…I go to Wikipedia. When I am watching the Presidential debates and I cannot remember the specifics of NAFTA…I go to Wikipedia. If I had to guess, I would say I probably use Wikipedia at least three or four times a week. It is free, accessible, easy to read, and pretty cut and dry. But I also keep in mind that Wikipedia is nothing more than an encyclopedia. It should provide factual data, and nothing else. As Roy Rosenzweig points out in, Can History Be An Open Source? Wikipedia And the Future Of the Past, Wikipedia does not break new ground. It does not include personal essays, critical reviews, or propaganda. So if Wikipedia is meant to be nothing more than a free, online encyclopedia that attempts to gather all of the world’s knowledge into a single place, why do so many scholars and academics, “fear the Wiki?”
Well, historians do not consider Wikipedia an accurate historical reference because Wikipedia is an open source. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can log onto Wikipedia and edit the content. Historians ague that much of the information that is on Wikipedia is riddled with mistakes, and in many cases, completely biased and totally inaccurate. While there are certainly people that monitor the content on Wikipedia, with over one million articles and growing, it would be impossible to catch every mistake. Even with the assistance of proofreaders and content editors, the best professionally trained historians make mistakes. Professionals are not perfect, and it would be naïve to think otherwise. But historians argue that Wikipedia is subject to extreme vandalism because it is an open source. As Stacy Schiff notes in, Know It All, Wikipedia vandals have added derogatory and misleading information on many Wikipedia articles. Elected officials have been known to log on and edit their voting record. In fact, the “George Bush” entry was vandalized so frequently, sometimes more than twice a minute, that edits were no longer allowed to the entry. Any while I cannot blame these vandals (trust me, I feel your pain), their opinions on whether or not George Bush is really the most moronic president in the history of the United States are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a place to rant and rave; it is not a place to introduce new ideas (although I think we can all agree that George Bush being classified as a moron is not a new idea); it is a place for cut and dry factual information. And this scares historians. And for good reason. How accurate is Wikipedia? Can Wikipedia really serve a higher purpose?
As I mentioned before, I love Wikipedia. There is information on Wikipedia on the most obscure of topics. But I would never dream to cite Wikipedia as a source when doing original research. The historians are right. It cannot be wholly trusted. But the concept behind Wikipedia is not wholly bad either. In fact, it is kind of genius. As Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, points out in his article, Who Says We Know-On the New Politics of Knowledge, Wikipedia creates a community where everyone can connect and anyone can contribute. History no longer has to be in the hands of the professional elite, but can be something that is enjoyed by everyone. And the beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that it can be updated instantaneously. Russia began bombing George last month….details were on Wikipedia within hours. Hurricane Ike ravaged Galveston last week…yeah, Wikipedia has details on that that too. But Sanger does note that the content on Wikipedia is not always great. The sentences are choppy, the structure is bad, and the grammar can be atrocious. Wikipedia can benefit from professionals. And that is what professionals need to realize. If people are going to use Wikipedia as a resource, why not make it the best that it can be? Together, “Wikipedians” and professionals alike could make Wikipedia a truly remarkable resource.
Scavaging My Way Through the Net
I love scavenger hunts, so I thought this would be fun and pretty easy. Boy, was I wrong!
1. I was at work on my lunch break when I was doing this, so I could not turn the sound on my computer.
2. 1915 suffrage poem with the line: When all the women wanted it
I went to Google and typed in quotations, “when all the women wanted it.” The first site that came up was Fullbooks, which contained the poem, Are Women People, by Alice Duer Miller.
http://www.fullbooks.com/Are-Women-People-.html
3. A Letter from George Washington:
I went to Google and typed in, George Washington Letters, and the first website that came up was the George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress. Under search, I typed in “certain forged letters” and the letter to Timothy Pickering was the first result to come up.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mgw:1:./temp/~ammem_DfGS::
4. I went back to Google and typed in, Willie Lynch speech. The first result was a speech by Willie Lynch entitled, Willie Lynch The Making of A Slave.
http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/wil.html
5. Still looking for this one.
6. I typed in “annual review of information technology developments for economic and social historians, 1993” into google, and the first hit was a link to the article through jstor. I went to the ccsu library page and went to the jstor homepage. I went to the jstor article locator, typed in the name of the article, and got the link to the article.
7. I again went to Google and typed in, Janet Met on the Holodeck, syllabi, and a number of results came up. The first four syllabi I found were for:
Syllabus – History of Computer Game Design
Janet Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck. MIT Press, 1997. [Available in Bookstore.]– 97-153, 185-213, 273-84. SECTION: Please try to complete as much of …
www.stanford.edu/class/sts145/html/Syllabus2003.htm – 29k – Cached – Similar pages
Interpretation Theory syllabus
Janet Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck, pp. 97-213 Raph Koster, Essays (read at least “A Story About a Tree”, “Video Games and Online Worlds As Art”, …
www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/interpret.html – 19k – Cached – Similar pages
English 495, Syllabus, Fall 2002
Janet Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck(HH), pp. 1-12, 65-96; Begin reading Mary Shelley, Frankenstein; Begin reading, Shelley Jackson, Patchwork Girl …
www.units.muohio.edu/englishtech/ENG49502/ENG495syll02.htm – 20k – Cached – Similar pages
Syllabus: ISIS 092 FCS.01 – How They Got Game (HTGG) : Teaching …
Janet Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck, pp. 65-94. Torben Grodal, Stories for the Eye, Ear, and Muscles: Video Games, Media, and Embodied Experiences, …
www.jhfc.duke.edu/jenkins/courses/isis092/syllabus.htm – 42k – Cached – Similar pages
8. I skipped this one because I was running out of time.
9. Ok, I was able to find images of Janet Murray on Google Images as well as the Sims, a simulated computer game, but not together.
Unfortunately, that was all I was able to find in 30 minutes. And I thought this was going to be easy! I am going to keep looking for #5!!
Who Needs Books When We Have Google, “The Library That Holds All Things?”
I recently presented a paper on the Hartford Circus Fire at the Association for the Study of Connecticut History spring conference, and I was pleasantly surprised when a current classmate recognized my name from the conference and congratulated me for presenting an “engaging and well-researched paper.” While I was certainly enamored that my “engaging” argument did not bore the audience to death, I was particularly thrilled that my paper was thought to be “very well researched.” When I think about the hours upon hours I spent pouring over incomplete police files, hand-written notes and poorly organized articles and case studies, I cannot even fathom how I was able to compile so much intriguing information in such a short amount of time. After reading Kevin Kelly’s article, “Scan This Book,” I cannot help to think how much easier my research would have been if a universal library existed that would contain “in one place all knowledge, past and present.” Finding primary source materials would be a piece of cake; purchasing pricey books would be unnecessary; and hey, who needs a scanner when you can download images right off the web? In Kelly’s perfect world, we could access “the entire works of human kind, from the beginning of recorded history, in all languages, available to all people, all the time,” without even having to get off of the couch.
Although this dream is not quite yet a reality, search engines like Google and Yahoo are revolutionizing the way people think about books and other printed materials. The staff at Google scans and digitizes thousands of books a day and puts them up on the web for all to enjoy, historical societies are digitizing their collections of manuscripts and journals, and the Library of Congress’s American Memory Collection contains thousands upon thousands of digitized records pertaining to anything from the women’s suffrage movement to folk culture and environment in West Virginia. Through digitization, books and manuscripts can be cross-referenced, indexed, cited, etc, for easier searchability. Research becomes less time time-consuming and more efficient…if I am majoring in Ancient Chinese Medicine, I cannot be hopping a plane to China every time I need to consult the best primary source materials. Anything and everything we could ever want to know would be at our very fingertips. Our history, our culture, our thoughts and ideas would all be accessible by typing a few words into a search engine.
I am all for easier research. I cannot fathom the amount of hours and gas I have wasted driving all over creation looking for a certain book or doing an interview for a project, let alone the countless long nights at the 24 hour Kinko’s scanning photos for a power point presentation. If Kelly’s dream to create a universal library that contains everything known to human kind can truly become a reality, than I pray his dream comes true before I have to write my next paper. But as wonderful as it would be to access every manuscript and book ever written, I have to admit, I do have my qualms. As Dan Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig point out in, Digital History: A Guide to Garnering, Preserving and Presenting the Past on the Web, we cannot take everything that is on the web as gospel. There is a lot of crap out there, and we need to be somewhat precautious when doing research on the web. Forgery on the web is not all that difficult, and programs like photoshop have allowed even the most primitive web users to alter photographs. I am sure we have all seen dozens of photos over the last few weeks of naked women with Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s head superimposed on the bodies. And if those photos really are of Sarah Palin….I’m still not going to vote for you, but let me just say, “you look fantastic.” It is easy to weed through a lot of the junk on the web, but there is certainly a lot of information our there that appears to be authentic and correct, but in actuality, is not. Robert Townsend also notes in, “Google Books: What’s Not To Like”, that because companies like Google are scanning more than 3,000 books a day, the quality is sometime less than stellar. Book descriptions are poor and inaccurate, and many texts are riddled with mistakes. Townsend argues that if we truly want to create a universal library, lets at least make sure it is correct. And I have to say, I agree. While I would love to just go online, do a search, and have an abundance of resources available to me, I want to be confident that the sources I am referring to are accurate. So this got me thinking again about my Circus Fire Paper again….do we really need Google when we have boxes of handwritten scaps of paper?? Kevin Kelly, I hope your dream comes true soon, but Im still not giving up my books.
Should Academics Blog?
According to Dan Cohen in, Professors, Start Your Blogs, many people, most notably academics, are still leary of “the blog.” Bloggers have gotten the reputation of being narcissistic, extreme, over-the-top young adults who spend countless hours using the Internet as an avenue to rant and rave about everything from Barack Obama’s energy policy to Britney Spears most recent hookup. Yet, many bloggers have gained quite a following. Some even have created careers out of blogging (aka Perez Hilton). But not are bloggers are what Cohen says critics refer to as “oversexed teens and twentysomethings.” Cohen argues that blogging has evolved considerably since the concept of blogging became a phenomenon, and there are a wide range of blog styles on the net, from historians providing insight on current scholarship, to entire academic department blogs. Cohen notes that blogs are a “perfect outlet for obsession,” and allow people from all of the world to come together and share their thoughts and ideas on a particular topic without having to move from their computer desk.
I have to agree with Cohen in that blogs are a perfect way to connect with people who have similar interests. Or, to connect with people who may think your thoughts and ideas are utterly ridiculous. We live in a society where our technological gadgets are outdated the moment we purchase them, our cell phones have email and video capabilities, and our cars give us turn by turn directions… For academics to frown upon the concept of blogs is utterly ridiculous. Sure, there is a lot of crap on the web. I really don’t care to know how to make origami birds out of toilet paper. But for every garbage blog, there is an insightful, educational and stimulating blog that is connecting people from all across the globe. We can learn about new theories, new discoveries, or even just chit chat almost instantaneously. Academics, or anyone for that matter, should be ashamed to look down upon that.
First Digital History Class
I do!
Trial
Hi everyone! I am just trying to see if I can get this to work! Sorry I missed the first class, but I am excited to see everyone on Wednesday!
