Author: Emma Lewis

The syllabus for this past week focused on data, how it is archived, and how it can be sorted and shown. Visualizations- not necessarily management- can help users understand data better by making it essentially “digestible”. That is important to ensure an interpretation does not go over the heads of those who want to learn from it. Visuals can communicate more effectively than text in some cases.

I, however, am not using text or visuals- I am working with audio almost exclusively.  That does not mean I can’t use any visuals. The interpretation portion will rely on descriptions, but the website itself should utilize all available tools to make user experience easier. Maps, charts, tables, catalogues of sites- all can be used to create a site that is easily understood and still full of information.

At this point, I plan on using a map and charts to organize my information. Going forward, I now have a few more tools to investigate and explore to hopefully improve my user experience.

 

Emma Lewis

Reading “Reflections on a Movement” by Moya Bailey, Anne Cong-Huyen, Alexis Lothian, and Amanda Phillips brings different aspects of DH to light. DH as a field encompass much, but it cannot encompass everything, and less visible issues tend to be pushed to the side. To combat this, according to the authors, #transformDH was born. It was used to bring issues pushed aside into the light and critically look at how DH is being used. The article itself can explain all this better than I can summarize here, so I suggest you read it for yourself.

In guiding my own project, the quote that most stand out to me is as follows:

“We should shift the focus of digital humanities from technical processes to political ones, and always seek to understand the social, intellectual, economic, political, and personal impact of our digital practices as we develop them.”

I know that technology is a big feature of this fellowship. In creating any DH, it is digital literacy is a required skill. However, technology is not the only part of a digital project. This quote encompasses that idea for me. In doing DH, I want to create a project not to simply be online and “with the times”, but to reach people on their terms.

My project can be transformative by giving space for stories not otherwise heard. Gettysburg has a history beyond the Civil War, one that is told in places but overlooked in others.  I have focused my energy on interpretation to bring these histories to people while using digital platforms to do so effectively. To make my project more transformative, I can make a place in it for discussion and give ways to contact me if there are any more overlooked stories that need recognition. While my project is historical, it does not have to be backwards looking. The past can be used to shape the future.

This program is a perfect place to do so. The program is not one where authorities dictate why things like DH matter, but one where conversation and critical analysis are encouraged. When I look at digital tools and projects now, I am looking for ways they can be improved, what biases they show, and what impact they may have. That is the strength of this program. While DH can give spaces and voices to people otherwise silenced, the DSSF program allows the fellows to talk freely (and sometimes cynically) of the nature of DH itself. Since this the first program dedicated to DH I have participated in, I have nothing to compare it to. However, because of the perspective given by this program, I’m sure as I grow as a Digital Scholar I will be able to offer a more exhaustive analysis. All in all, the program has a great basis for transformative DH because it opens discussion and challenges of the norm.

As a bookend to this, I want to return to the idea of DH and what it means. What exactly are we transforming? As this program has gone on, I’ve come to the conclusion that DH cannot be defined by platforms or programs, only by projects. The content is what truly makes something DH. Narrowing the definition only serves to marginalize people in a field that prides itself on inclusivity. The definition does not have to be set in stone and exclusive, especially not when DH always has the potential to evolve.

I have spent the past week reading through files upon files for research. This can be tiring, but it would be even harder if not for the cataloging efforts of those who work at archives. Anything I find has already been documented and categorized by an archivist, which makes my job of reading and interpreting the material much easier. Since the collections have already been catalogued, I can find material through finding aids and the like, searching for words and ideas that pertain to my research. Thanks to the people at Special Collections, the Musselman Library, and Adams County Historical Society, my work is made possible. The trove of information open to me because of the work of others is invaluable. So, I will take a quick break from researching to say thank you all. Then I will go back to the finding aids to dig up more information so graciously catalogued for all to use.

Emma Lewis

In all digital work, user exerience must be kept in mind. If a DH project cannot be understood or navigated by a user, then the DH project has failed. A good way to understand this as a designer of a digital project is to look through other examples to see what others have done with their user experience. Through the DSSF17 website, other projects can be seen and analyzed to do exactly that. For this post, I examined  “What Jane Saw” from the University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts.

Created through the Department of English, the main researcher was Professor Janine Barchas. She is the only person to have been linked, although credit is given to others for coding and research, and the project itself is supported by the Liberal Arts Instructional Technology Services.

The main page is relatively simple in design, and from the language it appears to be for a more general audience than a closed off academic one. The main page is not cluttered or overwhelming, it invites people to come and investigate the site. The purpose of the site is to compare two art exhibitions that took place in the same space over the span of 17 years. It is framed through Jane Austen, who went to both exhibitions. Users are, in essence, seeing what Jane saw when the exhibition space was still standing. Jane is not called upon often. The about page for each exhibition devotes one section to Austen’s experience of the space, and  in the digital exhibition pages she all but disappears. However, the aim of the site is to show two different points in history, and at that it succeeds.

The site appears to be a custom build at first glance, which is confirmed when users go to the “About WJS” page. ( 1796 and 1813 each get their own page) While it makes sense to give each exhibition its own page, the fact that the information about the site construction and content can only be accessed through other pages is disorienting. That is one aspect of user experience which could be improved. The build of the site is not disclosed on any page. A few coders are given credit, but not much else is given as far as site information. The page source can be viewed, but that is not accessible to all users.

That said, the project itself is very interesting. I chose to analyze this due in part to its home page. The page is simple, not overloading new visitors with information. This urges users to look further, to click over an exhibition and discover what was there in 1796 or 1813. Once a user clicks on an exhibition, they are taken to a digital exhibition space.  Paintings can be clicked on to produce a clearer image and metadata. Different walls and rooms can be looked at by clicking to the left or right. A scan of the original catalogue can also be accessed to navigate the space. This, unlike a traditional research paper, puts users inside of this lost space and allows them to experience the exhibition. It is not exactly as Jane Austen would have seen it, but it is as close as we can get.

The site does a wonderful job of transporting users to this space. In this space, however, some things can be confusing. The catalogue is my biggest issue. Unlike the paintings, which keep users in the same digital space, the catalogue and each page it contains is put on a separate page on the site. In order to get back to the rooms for exhibition, users must either click back through the pages they just read or choose a link to a painting to be taken to it in the digital room. If the painting is in another room, users can get disoriented. There is a map of the floor plan to help in this case, but it is still a shock and undercuts the ease of use the site had.

Overall, this site works well to engage users in its material, even if there is a learning curve to using it.

Emma Lewis

SoundciteJS is a tool used to embed audio clips into a text. Powered by Knightlab, it runs similarly to the other JS sites. It is free, relatively easy to use, and open source. I have talked about this tool a few times before, but it deserves to be talked about again.

SoundciteJS is not an audio editing tool. It simply makes a clip that can play over text. The end result looks like this:

 

The audio file can be played if the play button in the highlighted text is pressed. Files can be made out of any mp3 or ogg file, can be made to be whatever length is required, and can be made to repeat.

To create a file, users need only to find an audio URL, load it to the site, and set the time codes for the clip. Now, shorter clips are better for this tool. It can be used to augment a piece of text, to create environment, to give auditory examples. Using it for pages upon pages of text as an actual audio file goes against what the tool was created for. It is not meant to edit audio, that must be done before the file even reaches the SoundciteJS page. A usable mp3 or ogg file must be available with a URL in order for the tool to work. If the file cannot load, the tool won’t work. SoundciteJS, like other JS sites, works better on some browsers than others. Firefox is recommended over ones like Chrome, as the tool will operate more smoothly.

The tool itself is not that hard to use. Knowledge of HTML is handy, but the site does a good job of explaining how to embed the generated code. The link van be made without in depth technical knowledge. However, if a user ever wants to save a file, they must make a SoundCloud account and register with that, or they risk the chance of losing their links. As far as privacy goes, they certainly exist. While users don’t have to register with an account, the openness of this tool and the other JS sites do have their privacy issues. As far as uses go, SoundciteJS  can create atmosphere in a piece of writing by stimulating more of the reader’s senses. It is not necessarily useful in answering research questions, but it was not necessarily designed to. The page for making a clip is simple and serves only one purpose- generate an embedable code to make pieces of text more interesting. There’s not much to it, but that makes it more user friendly.

I myself probably won’t use this tool. I had considered it to help create atmosphere in my audio tour, but the need for readers to click on the text to prompt the audio would distract from the narrative interpretation. I would be better off using an audio editor and incorporating what I would put in Soundcite into my larger audio file. All in all, this is a useful tool that can bring interest and life to digital projects- provided users know what they are doing.

In building my digital project, I have to put a lot of faith in the tools I use to get things done. The tools are definitely a benefit- they save me time in building something myself and look far more professional than anything that could be made from scratch in ten weeks. However, they are not without their challenges. Learning a tool takes time, but it is a necessary step to better understand what is being done. Some require more work or time, but users can learn how to implement them with the input. Problems arise when they fail to work. Maybe a tool is getting older, maybe something is running slow, maybe the browser is acting up- there are endless possibilities. I, unfortunately, cannot diagnose all these problems, and some causes are entirely out of my control. Still, these tools were made for a purpose, and they will do their best to fulfill it. I simply need to trust that they will work, bugs and all. No product is perfect, but that does not mean they aren’t worthwhile.

As with any technology, the internet has its downfalls. It is both good and bad. However, the accessibility and openness it creates, arguably its defining feature, can be used to do a lot of good. Through it, people can connect, collaborate, and create more readily than ever before. Entire communities live and grow online, made possible by the lack of geographic restrictions. For people in Digital Humanities, this is especially important. Through the use of social media platforms, Digital Humanists can connect, share ideas, and grow their community. By fully immersing itself in the digital, DH can reach and inspire more people than ever before.

Part of this fellowship requires the cohort to become part of the DH community. There is no one set platform for DH communication, and parts of this community can be found on social media sites and other platforms. The two we most invested out time in as a cohort for a lab were Slack and Twitter. The community of Digital Humanities was surprisingly welcoming. Considering the fact that becoming part of the Slack channel for DH required an invitation, the community was more open than expected. Once the cohort was logged on, we introduced ourselves in the general chat. Some others in the chat were responsive, replying to us right away. The limitation on joining the channel did not make its way into how we could use the channel. We could make subsets on the channel dedicated to other subjects within DH. We could directly communicate with people to learn more about this community. We found a community of people ready and willing to collaborate and share their knowledge. Twitter functioned much in the same way, although it was far more accessible and open to community input (good or bad) due to its more public nature. A simple search for common DH hashtags or advertised events can introduced anyone t the wide world of DH. Live tweeting can also bring people together in real time. I am not yet a pro at using either of these tools. By becoming more immersed in the community, I can discover more about this community of practice and the tools it uses.

To cultivate a community of practice and engage with DH in my own life, I will first need to become better versed in the methods of communication. I need to be open to talking to others, coming to them with my problems, and trusting that this community will help me. The community may be digital, but it is not impersonal. The people I have met so far have been enthusiastic and willing to discuss DH with me despite the fact that I am a novice in the field. That’s because they want to cultivate newcomers and teach all they can about DH. The community is open, and that defines it. In DH, the community of practice differentiates it from other fields of study. It is more open and accessible, something that DH should be proud of. The community is still changing and growing, but this is a positive. It has the opportunity to grow with its platforms, and look toward the future to build its community.

By Emma Lewis

Project Name: Title to be determined

Project Owner: Emma Lewis

Project Summary: My goal in this project is to create a choose-your-own adventure audio tour of the streets of Gettysburg. The tour will not follow one linear path, nor will it need to be listened to in order. The tour will be comprised of different aspects that users can navigate the streets by. The aspects will frame the history of Gettysburg in different ways in an attempt to connect personally to listeners. There will also be a Children’s section to frame history in a way that will engage children with the stories of Gettysburg. I want to make this accessible for all, from history buffs to passersby. In order to do this, each aspect will have a different level of information to accommodate different levels of background knowledge. My goal is to connect with listeners on their terms.  

For the summer, I will focus on a single street in Gettysburg. This will give me a more manageable goal to work towards in the time frame I have. I have chosen Baltimore Street as the first street I will work on. I have previous research on this street, and plan to use it to augment this tour. At the end of the summer, my goal is to build a website to house an interactive map to navigate this tour by. The map will be able to locate users’ positions if they want to and point them to interesting sites. I will embed audio files in this map to take the tour by. This is the plan, and I will investigate digital tools to figure out how I can make this a reality. 

Deliverables:

• Previous Research
• FYS Audio Tour Project
• Research- Special Collections, ACHS
• Digital Tools- Mapping, Audio embedding
• Audio equipment

Timeline: 

Week 1:

• Get Situated
• Start working with digital tools

Week 2:

• Investigate site formats
• Contact possible interviewees
• Research

Week 3:

• Research
• Possibility-schedule interviews

Week 4:

• Research
• Start mapping site

Week 5:

• Research

Week 6:

• Write up current research
• Done with interviews- if possible

Week 7:

• Research
• Workshop stories

Week 8:

• Work on site
• Done with writing
• Record Audio

Week 9:

• Revise Research
• Work on site

Week 10:

• Final Tweaking

Future Plans: I hope to continue to expand on this in the future. I do not want it to be a closed, private platform that only I have access to. Digital Humanities flourish on collaboration. I hope to take it as far as I can, researching and using public outreach to compile more stories.

 

Defining a nebulous term like “digital scholarship” or “digital humanities” is quite hard. Digital Scholarship comes in many shapes and forms, and people hold different personal definitions of the subject. In readings by Amanda Visconti, Lisa Spiro, and Paige Morgan, examples of digital humanities projects were given, and they all varied greatly. Digital scholarship or humanities have potential to be a continual group reading of James Joyce’s Ulysses, an archive of tweets about current social events for posterity, and many other things. Spiro’s in particular focused not on the format, but the content and values that went into creating a project, like collaboration and experimentation.  No two DH projects are alike, however, they all use similar key elements to guide their work.  The combination of these aspects creates DH, which I define as   

an endeavor that utilizes digital tools and platforms to enhance creations, are open to a larger community and perspectives, and are informed through risks and experimentation.

All this said, this definition does not encompass all of my thoughts on the subject or the many definitions that exist elsewhere. DH and DS are still being cemented as ideas, and it will change as time goes on. I do not expect this definition to remain as it is by the end of this fellowship. Like any good DH project, this definition has the ability to evolve and change as more knowledge and perspectives inform me throughout this experience.

Even with a definition, it is hard to really pin down exactly what DH is. Projects can have elements of DH in them, but that does not mean they are DH outright. We had a lengthy debate about whether the creation of metadata for digitized collections counts as Digital Scholarship. Certainly, elements are there, and it is explicitly digital. Those who worked in Special Collections, however, argued against its inclusion. They argued that what they did, what choices they made, were not explicitly DH, as they did not intend them to be.

That is most important- intent. As long as a project incorporates values and aspects of DS and DH with the intent to be so, it can be considered so. It is counter intuitive to debate the exact nature of digital scholarship and humanities. The field encompasses so much, and is still changing, still becoming. That is why it is hard to define. Over the summer, I will look to values of DH to guide my work. I will collaborate, experiment, and utilize the community built here. In the end, my project may not fit all definitions of DH, but that should not discredit it. The intent and values driving DH research are complex, individualized, and make it hard to define. They also make DH what it is, and I look forward to working with it. I will refine my definition, learn how to connect and communicate, and let the values drive me to do better work. DH is going to be great. 

 

By Emma Lewis