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!
Collaboration will certainly be key to creating functional and appealing websites. The historian need not be an artist or a web designer to create a good website - there is no shame in hiring a professional!
ReplyDeleteWhile Collaboration is important I believe it is still important for historians to understand what they want out of a digital history website and what they do not. Simply because a web designer likes a layout doesn't mean its good for your project, careful when you're outsourcing.
ReplyDeleteOne of the prime concerns here is indeed the challenge of well read research meeting with aesthetics with out sacrificing the integrity of the research.
ReplyDeleteIn general, don't we just all agree that practice makes perfect? We can read into what makes a successful site successful, but really, until we do it ourselves and see the results (e.g. visitors (not "hits" of course, and feedback), we are really just learning to mold our new skill set. And guess what, once we get a hang of things, technology is all going to be different. So I am in agreement with Robert, collaboration! But actual collaboration, and not just letting a programmer run wild with your research quality and his desire to be expressive.
ReplyDelete