After reading Cohen and Rosenzweig this week, I am left with some questions and some concerns. The "Preserving Digital History" chapter left me wondering about the life of digital documentation and whether we can count on these documents being around in a hundred or more years. I know that the readings this week discussed much more than just the question of permenance of digital history and focused alot on how to gather information and documentation for a website, but the delicacy of digital documenting is what really stuck with me.
I really had not considered just how fragile the digital world can be until I read these chapters. It was always in my mind that digital history is far superior in the sense of lasting longer than paper documents and that because of this,digital history would be far superior a method of documenting history. I can now say that I seriously have doubts as to the reliability of digital history in comparison to paper history. Cohen and Rosenzweig gave some very good examples of why and how the preserving of digital history is actually quite fragile. Electronic media may seem invincible to us because we utilize it so much and on a daily basis and many of us, if not all of us,cannot imagine any possible scenario where we are denied our electronic access. A great example they give is with the death of an administrator in Norway who was the only one who knew the password to the database of documents at a literary museum, the Ivar Aasen Center of Language and Culture. Upon this man's death,the center was left without any way in which to access the system's catalog. The center then had to offer a prize to any hacker who could help them get into the system to change the password. I know this is an extreme example,but nonetheless,it shows just how delicate and fragile digital history could be.
Cohen and Rosenzweig also mention the problem of data corruption and how the slightest damage of certain forms of data storage can destroy very large amounts of information that may be lost forever. In order to ensure the preservation of their data storage,the New York Times,in 1999,for thier millenium project had to contract the Los Alamos Laboratory in order to make a strorage disk which would be able to withstand,not just the wear and tear of times and use,but would be able to withstand a nuclear war. As Cohen and Rosenzweig explain, "The disk...was created by using an ion beam to carve letters and figures into a highly pure form of nickel. Etched nickel is unlikely to deteriorate for thousands,or even hundreds of thousands of years..." If someone needs to have a nickel disk made at Los Alamos in order to ensure its survivability,then what are the chances of the average forms of data storage,which everybody uses,being able to last? Not to good I would think.
Another interesting example they talk about is found in formats. Formatting changes frequently and what we consider formats which may remain unchanged for a long time,we soon find that format being outdated and replaced with yet another. Who knows what we will be using as data storage in twenty years,let alone more than one hundred years. It would be quite arrogant of us to assume that what we know and trust today in regards to formatting will be used by our great grandchildren. Even if it may seem that we can always find ways to access today's formats tomorrow, does not necessarily mean that that will be the case. What if there is some catatsophic event and a solar flare wipes out huge swaths of digital data? There is always that possibility.
I am not saying that digital history should not be utilized, but what I am saying is that we should be more than aware of the shortcomings of digitization and to remain ever vigilant in safeguarding what we research. I would think that backing up research,with not just electronic backup,but by having paper backups would not be such a bad idea. Paper may deteriorate with time,but look at the Domesday Book,which has lasted over nine hundred years. Basically what I am proposing is that we should consider having physical (paper) copies as well as having backed-up our digital research,just in case.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Designing History on the Web: Aestheticism v. Information
I am noticing a pattern with Cohen and Rosenzweig's writings in Digital History. This pattern is found in the topic of design/programming and that of allocation of historical research/information. It would seem obvious, for me anyway, that when it comes to digital history, it would be prudent to place good historical research, first and foremost, above artistic integrity. After reading Cohen and Rosenzweig, as well as browsing through dozens of different historical sites, I am starting to see the importance of how effective and necessary well-placed visual graphics and designs are in this regard. With this being said, I do not think that either/or has to be sacrificed. I am also starting to notice just how important collaboration is when desiging history for the web.
Until the day comes when the internet is so much a part of our lives that web design is taught to grade school children, we as historians and researchers have some delicate matters to attend to. This concern I speak of is found in the debate of historians v. aesthetes. I find it amusing that there are so many hard-nosed and stale historians out there that believe that historical sites with excellent graphic design presentation are somehow predisposing themselves to a loss of integrity insofar as their research is concerned. This begs a very important question to those of us wishing to leave behind our preconcieved notions about history on the web and our want to delve into digital history a bit more: Why is it that design and pure research can't meet somewhere in the middle and in a manner which neither artistic deisgn nor historical research need sacrifice integrity? I know this seems like an odd question, but, after browsing certain sites and reading Cohen and Rosenzweig, I am getting the succinct feeling that this is actually an issue for many digital historians. As Cohen and Rosenzweig exclaim, "Surely historians cannot blindly follow a design regime that relegates thinking to a secondary status; neither should we obscure historical materials and our ideas about the past in deference to pure artistic license." For me, the answer for any historian wishing to transfer his/her knowledge to the web, but do not feel that they have the design or programming skills to make something visually or intrinsically interesting, is...collaboration, collaboration, collaboration.
There are so many web designers nowadays and so few (relatively speaking) historians (especially of the digital ilk) that any historian who says they cannot find a reasonably priced web designer to help them with a digital history project of any size, is either a liar or crazy. I know that until I develop the skills necessary to effectively design an aesthetically pleasing, yet well-researched historical site, I would now not think twice about procuring the services of a hungry and talented young (or old) web designer to help me create a visually pleasing piece of digital history. Even if I had the programming skills I need to create a site, I still would rather go with a professional simply for the fact that designing a a site is, in a sense, an art form. Just like Young-Hae Chang describes, "The web: The greatest chance to say something or to make something...dumb, or better yet, boring. Breathtakingly boring, deathly boring." In other words, for digital historians, one could have the most wonderfully researched and welll-though out bit of history, maybe even the best one has ever known, but when placed upon a platform of a visually digital nightmare, than that research may very well go unread. Even when appealing to other historians and not the general public, such eyesores can become unfathomably boring and unnoticable. There is a big difference between a book of history and a website of history. Books do not have to be aesthetically pleasing, but for most people, historians included, a website is another story altogether.
Collaboration is also an excellent way for us program illiterate historians to learn that aspect of digital history. I know that I have a better time with hands-on learning as opposed to reading programming guides which often feel like they are written in another language. Even if it is just a one time thing, I firmly believe that collaboration between historians and web designers would be they most logical method of learning and/or experimenting with digital history. I will say it again...collaboration!
Until the day comes when the internet is so much a part of our lives that web design is taught to grade school children, we as historians and researchers have some delicate matters to attend to. This concern I speak of is found in the debate of historians v. aesthetes. I find it amusing that there are so many hard-nosed and stale historians out there that believe that historical sites with excellent graphic design presentation are somehow predisposing themselves to a loss of integrity insofar as their research is concerned. This begs a very important question to those of us wishing to leave behind our preconcieved notions about history on the web and our want to delve into digital history a bit more: Why is it that design and pure research can't meet somewhere in the middle and in a manner which neither artistic deisgn nor historical research need sacrifice integrity? I know this seems like an odd question, but, after browsing certain sites and reading Cohen and Rosenzweig, I am getting the succinct feeling that this is actually an issue for many digital historians. As Cohen and Rosenzweig exclaim, "Surely historians cannot blindly follow a design regime that relegates thinking to a secondary status; neither should we obscure historical materials and our ideas about the past in deference to pure artistic license." For me, the answer for any historian wishing to transfer his/her knowledge to the web, but do not feel that they have the design or programming skills to make something visually or intrinsically interesting, is...collaboration, collaboration, collaboration.
There are so many web designers nowadays and so few (relatively speaking) historians (especially of the digital ilk) that any historian who says they cannot find a reasonably priced web designer to help them with a digital history project of any size, is either a liar or crazy. I know that until I develop the skills necessary to effectively design an aesthetically pleasing, yet well-researched historical site, I would now not think twice about procuring the services of a hungry and talented young (or old) web designer to help me create a visually pleasing piece of digital history. Even if I had the programming skills I need to create a site, I still would rather go with a professional simply for the fact that designing a a site is, in a sense, an art form. Just like Young-Hae Chang describes, "The web: The greatest chance to say something or to make something...dumb, or better yet, boring. Breathtakingly boring, deathly boring." In other words, for digital historians, one could have the most wonderfully researched and welll-though out bit of history, maybe even the best one has ever known, but when placed upon a platform of a visually digital nightmare, than that research may very well go unread. Even when appealing to other historians and not the general public, such eyesores can become unfathomably boring and unnoticable. There is a big difference between a book of history and a website of history. Books do not have to be aesthetically pleasing, but for most people, historians included, a website is another story altogether.
Collaboration is also an excellent way for us program illiterate historians to learn that aspect of digital history. I know that I have a better time with hands-on learning as opposed to reading programming guides which often feel like they are written in another language. Even if it is just a one time thing, I firmly believe that collaboration between historians and web designers would be they most logical method of learning and/or experimenting with digital history. I will say it again...collaboration!
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Daunting World of Digital Historianism
For someone who has little experience with digital history, the Cohen and Rosenzweig readings were quite intimidating. I am sure that it is far more of a simple process than what is read in "Getting Started" and "Becoming Digital", but it still left this reader wondering if this would be something I would be willing and able to pursue. Although I would love to become a part of the world of digital history, I do not know if learning all of the mentioned programming, which is semingly essential to digital history, is something I have the motivation to enjoy. With that being said, a more important question is begged: Is the future of historical research not digital history? I believe that it most certainly is and that students of history who are reluctant to get involved with, not just researching digital history, but actually contributing and being a part of it, should probably get to the back of the line. Or at least rethink their (our) position.
My programming experience is, at best, none. All the technical jargon and knowhow involved with programming and site development seems somewhat difficult. This especially when someone is, more than likely, spending hours upon hours of research on whatever it is they wish to maybe add to the electronic record of digital history.
This process seems even more complicated in reference to preserving digital materials. Like Cohen and Rosenzweig state, "If only digital preservation were as easy as changing the qualityof the paper we print on...". If one is researching and/or digitizing fairly recent history, then this might not be much of an issue. On the other hand, if one is preserving very old materials, then this can, as Cohen and Rosenzweig suggest, become a very difficult, tedious and time consuming process.
Growing up in an analog world makes it a little more difficult to learn the specifics of history in a digital world (for those of us who have yet failed to grasp the expediency of the still evolving and forever changing forms of digital media). These two chapters of Digital History have definetly given me a better understanding of not just the complexities that may be involved with becoming a digital historian, but it also makes me realize the importance of learning the finer points of digital history in the realm of, at least, knowing programming language. Well...Its a good thing I am in this class.
My programming experience is, at best, none. All the technical jargon and knowhow involved with programming and site development seems somewhat difficult. This especially when someone is, more than likely, spending hours upon hours of research on whatever it is they wish to maybe add to the electronic record of digital history.
This process seems even more complicated in reference to preserving digital materials. Like Cohen and Rosenzweig state, "If only digital preservation were as easy as changing the qualityof the paper we print on...". If one is researching and/or digitizing fairly recent history, then this might not be much of an issue. On the other hand, if one is preserving very old materials, then this can, as Cohen and Rosenzweig suggest, become a very difficult, tedious and time consuming process.
Growing up in an analog world makes it a little more difficult to learn the specifics of history in a digital world (for those of us who have yet failed to grasp the expediency of the still evolving and forever changing forms of digital media). These two chapters of Digital History have definetly given me a better understanding of not just the complexities that may be involved with becoming a digital historian, but it also makes me realize the importance of learning the finer points of digital history in the realm of, at least, knowing programming language. Well...Its a good thing I am in this class.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
What is digital history and what does it do all day?, or, The pitfalls and progressions of digitized resourcing in the world of historical research.
Historians have always been somewhat limited in their ability to procure certain resources for their work and these limits will almost always present themselves within the context of reseach papers, essays, etc. Historical research is never completely objective, but the more limited a student of history finds him or herself in regards to source compiling, then the more limited he or she is in being to confidently and aptly describe any given historical event.
The emergence of the technological revolution as an almost given constant for most historians and is now a vivid way in which to bypass the traditional dead-ends many students of history have run into while researching any subject. However, this new (yes, I said new. I know thats a shock to many of you traditional-aged students, but I grew up in a world of Commodore 64s and Apple II C+ and that was cutting edge stuff) method of data collection is still in it's toddling phase (I believe) and that there are far too many problems with how the internet is used as a learning tool. I very much liked Cohen and Rosenzweig's numerous examples of how the commercialism of the internet (especially with outlets such as the History Channel) is preventing historians from locking down exactly what it is that they are looking for source-wise.
On the other hand, digital history has helped unimaginably in the realm of pure data compilation. This has helped to put such unbelievable amounts of sourcing on the web and in such little space, that one is hard pressed to not be able to find something about just about everything one can research. In essence, this can cut the resourcing time down exponentially for researchers. This includes travel time and the costs associated with said travel.
Unfotunately, there are so many variables with internet researching. The biggest problems are: 1) An inability to accurately target your desired objective effectively due to search engines that put numerous commercial sites before serious intellectual committments,or simply fail to compile results in a meaningful and expediant manner. 2) Incorrect, or just plain frivilous material one is directed to when researching online.
Even though the internet is an immesurably effective tool for locating and utilizing sources, it can also be an unknowledgable historian's worst enemy if they do not know how to properly navigate through the bloated commercialism of the world wide web. Regardless of how each individual researcher feels about working (or not working) with the increasing digitization of our literary and infinetly electronic world of research, I think everyone needs to respect it. Historians nowadays have a responsibility to making the world of digital sourcing and research one of a more accessible and navigable nature. If we are going to continue down this path of digital research, than we have an historical duty to make it more conducive to the pursuit of knowledge than towards the pursuit of commercial and economic gain. It is obvious to me that digital history is an ever-evolving process, but also is a process that finds itself in an ever-present struggle to rise above its digital counterparts as it strives to become an even more integral part of hisorical research.
The emergence of the technological revolution as an almost given constant for most historians and is now a vivid way in which to bypass the traditional dead-ends many students of history have run into while researching any subject. However, this new (yes, I said new. I know thats a shock to many of you traditional-aged students, but I grew up in a world of Commodore 64s and Apple II C+ and that was cutting edge stuff) method of data collection is still in it's toddling phase (I believe) and that there are far too many problems with how the internet is used as a learning tool. I very much liked Cohen and Rosenzweig's numerous examples of how the commercialism of the internet (especially with outlets such as the History Channel) is preventing historians from locking down exactly what it is that they are looking for source-wise.
On the other hand, digital history has helped unimaginably in the realm of pure data compilation. This has helped to put such unbelievable amounts of sourcing on the web and in such little space, that one is hard pressed to not be able to find something about just about everything one can research. In essence, this can cut the resourcing time down exponentially for researchers. This includes travel time and the costs associated with said travel.
Unfotunately, there are so many variables with internet researching. The biggest problems are: 1) An inability to accurately target your desired objective effectively due to search engines that put numerous commercial sites before serious intellectual committments,or simply fail to compile results in a meaningful and expediant manner. 2) Incorrect, or just plain frivilous material one is directed to when researching online.
Even though the internet is an immesurably effective tool for locating and utilizing sources, it can also be an unknowledgable historian's worst enemy if they do not know how to properly navigate through the bloated commercialism of the world wide web. Regardless of how each individual researcher feels about working (or not working) with the increasing digitization of our literary and infinetly electronic world of research, I think everyone needs to respect it. Historians nowadays have a responsibility to making the world of digital sourcing and research one of a more accessible and navigable nature. If we are going to continue down this path of digital research, than we have an historical duty to make it more conducive to the pursuit of knowledge than towards the pursuit of commercial and economic gain. It is obvious to me that digital history is an ever-evolving process, but also is a process that finds itself in an ever-present struggle to rise above its digital counterparts as it strives to become an even more integral part of hisorical research.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)