Brigid actually answered my question which was a reiteration of the question how do we get people to our site first instead of navigating through the index page… so I’ll skip that question.

I agree with Julianna that after the readings I am worrying about the “fun” level of my project.  Most of my documents are lengthy written works (a deposition/ 2 summaries from trials / typed letters and news clippings) I have a few photos that I’m still confirming copyright with and I have an oral history snippet, but especially after reading Nielsen et. al piece I’m reevaluating how to write about these documents so that visitors are able to “scan pages; [and] not read word-by-word.” What do people suggest, from their experience so far with their own projects, about how to balance explanation and documents? I’m finding that the 2 object pages with more text seems more comfortable to me as the author of the exhibits but worry that these pages are too “boring” for scanning visitors.

Finally, in response to Ashley’s questions,  could we talk about how we could start using our sites to “build communities” or at least foster opportunities for communities to form? (John mentioned he has figured out the 2.0 plugins that let visitors post our sites to Twitter/facebook… This reminded me of the interactivity in the Brooklyn Museum’s Graffitti exhibit reading. What community building opportunites could we create?

Some thoughts, rather than a tech question this week…

One of the things that struck me in this week’s readings was the notion of scanning versus full-text reading. Writing for the Web’s authors emphasized the tendency of computer users to scan webpages and Web-based writing rather than read the text in full. I agree that most of us likely scan a page before investing time reading it, but I am shocked to discover that only 16% of Web users read the entire text. Then again, I believe this number reflects a study done on only two websites, both affiliated with the Sun Science office which may not require a full-text read.

I agree with the authors’ suggestions on improved navigation and site search by including keywords, headers, lists, image captions, and embedded meta-tags. However, I fear that their emphasis on text reduction contradicts much of what Rosenzweig and Cohen write in Collecting History Online and may even prevent potential Web contributors from sharing their own stories digitally. A potential contributor to a website may be disillusioned by the notion of Web 2.0 if asked to limit their text because studies show that people generally read less online than in print. Such contributors may decide that to abridge their story loses its value and may opt not to contribute at all.

I argue that different types of sites attract audiences more willing to read word-for-word. I think it is important to keep the suggestions offered by Writing for the Web in mind, but not to lose sight of the mission of each individual website. Often that mission cannot be achieved without lengthy contributions from site visitors and serves little purpose if not read in full by its audience.

I have a question relating to an html/javascript document (with mouseover features) that works on another page on my website outside of Omeka (http://njmilano.com/pictures/chemist2.html) but won’t work when I plug the same code into the html box on a page in my Omeka exhibit.  It allowed me to include the link, but then the link on the page (http://njmilano.com/daguerreotypes/exhibits/show/exhibit/birth/making) doesn’t work  .  However, when I copy and paste that same link into another browser outside of Omeka, it works.  Do I need to upload this code to a Simple Page within my website, and then it will allow me to link to my image?  Is it not working on Omeka because it has javascript as well as html code?

I know that John was wondering about this as well, but is there any way to set up a “home page” for our domain name? For example, when I type in somonjeau.net, can I make it s my Omeka site begins there, rather than at somonjeau.net/project?

The readings this week made me a tad nervous about my own project, since nearly all of it would require the audience to read articles relating to the kosher meat riots. I’m trying my best to find supplemental photos to depict street life in the Lower East Side, but so far I’ve been unsuccessful. I think the fact that my project is so wordy is forcing me to find ways to make my website seem more “fun.” If I can get the Google map application to work, it might make my project more interactive.

If I add a document to my archive and do not make it viewable to the public, because I only want it viewable in an exhibit. I want to add the finding aid from the collection my scanned files are from, but I was thinking of making each page of the finding aid an item and create an exhibit for it but rename it to Finding Aid — instead of uploading a pdf and having a link.  But I probably just need to play around with this.

My question is similar to Ashley’s; I am curious about how small websites track and adapt for their users. I imagine most projects are larger than ours, but I imagine a small staff and budget could interfere with a group’s ability to update and refine a website. Are there any viable options for a small group or organization to do so?

I was also wondering if it would be useful for us to download the “Simple Contact Form” plug-in? It would at least provide a starting point for communication with our audience, especially if this is a project any of us plan on perusing further.

In their chapter on Building an Audience, Cohen & Rosenzweig present two principles to ensure that a digital history website is not only useful, but used.  They urge webmasters to:

a) think about creating a community, rather than just simple page hits, and

b) recognize the types of visitors you’re getting and adapt to their needs

I’m wondering what capacity we have to incorporate either of these two principles into our own sites.  What add-ons might Omeka offer that could help foster a community and track site visitors?

I notice that there are Social Bookmarking (http://omeka.org/add-ons/plugins/#socialbookmarking)  and Contributions (http://omeka.org/add-ons/plugins/#contribution) add-ons… would these be appropriate/useful to include on the sites for this class, or do you think they’d be better for a more substantial project?

In reading Cohen and Rosenzweig’s chapter on audience I have some questions about how we as graduate students can best peer-review each others work. The chapter discusses how the Journal of American History reviews websites, but I highly doubt they are going to review a grad student’s site…so I am wondering how we can do this. It would be good if we could set forth criteria of what is needed in the archive/exhibits that we are creating as well.

Also can we go over how to embed a google map and/or a youtube video? I have been trying and have had NO luck – is this something anybody else is doing?

Also also, since a lot of my documents are private on my archive, if anybody wants to see them let me know and I will give you “researcher” status which allows you access.

Also also also, I changed my url: http://www.nicolederise.com/tawanabrawleyarchive/

If you do not want to make you websites view by the public because of copyright could you use robots.txt?

Schreibman  makes a pretty interesting assertion when she states, “We will not be able in the future to rely on traditional assessments of value for determining what deserves preservation. In the digital realm, there will be no uniqueness, no scarcity, no category of “rare.”” I’m wondering what other people think about this statement.

Personally I keep thinking that this statement assumes that “everything” will make it onto a collective digital form; but as we have clearly seen this semester, what gets digitized, how it gets digitized, and where the digital formats are located once they do exist, are all obstacles to this utopian “non-scarcity through accessibility.” What do people make of this statement? In the future what will be “the unique” or the “rare object”?