It seems that Nielsen assumes people should want to interact on the web. I wonder why people don’t start with the opposite assumption, and ask why people should want to interact on the web.
For digital humanities to be sustainable, I think my question makes much more sense. Digital historians have to figure out whether people will come to their site, what they need to do to make it meaningful and engaging, and how to get it funded. I don’t see this as very different from publishing a book, except that time on the web goes much faster.
Whether people interact on the site is not necessarily that important. Using the site is.
Of the 2 historical sites we had this week, I would guess that the Historic Tale Construction has many one-time visitors, whereas The Lost Museum has a smaller number of visitors, but ones who return repeatedly. The Historic Tale is fun and engaging, but once you’ve created drawings, I doubt you’ll want to return. It doesn’t provide enough content to get you to return. It allows for participation, but that is not how it should be measured.
On the other hand, The Lost Museum feels really hokey and antiquated with its virtual view, but if you get to the content, there is a lot of it, and it’s good. Well-designed search features which allow you to select media, time frame, keywords and more, would make me come back if I needed to find something. But if you really intend to do research, The Lost Museum might disappoint, since there is no controlled vocabiulary. This means that if you do separate searches for ”black” and “African American” under images, for example, you’ll get completely different results. There is no interaction at this site, in terms of contributing, but it may well engage a non-participatory audience.
What is my point? You have to know your audience to design sustainable digital projects. Whether your audience wants an interactive website is part of the equation. What will suffice for one group, will not for another. Particpation is part of that equation, not the other way around.
Designing a meaningful, engaging site with good content should be our first priority. Functions that add value are wonderful, if budgets allow for that.
April 13, 2010 at 3:33 am |
I completely agree with you, Rachel. Perhaps it was because I was raised on books and don’t need to be constantly visually stimulated. With the new web-savvy and technology-laden generations, it seems like everyone needs something to be constantly moving, flashing, or making noise. The whole point for me of reading a book is that it is relaxing and SOLITARY. Why can’t I just go to a website, take what I can from it, and move on? Who cares if we’re all lurkers, aside from the advertisers who would prefer to know who we are so they can exploit us? On that same note, with my visits to blogs and comment sites (aside from our class and several history ones), my question remains – why should I care what you, random web user, think? Sure, I need to know the audience for my website. But I could do without the crazies.
April 13, 2010 at 3:47 am |
[...] I know… Posted by lprice3 under Comments Leave a Comment This week I commented on Rachel’s blog and Tracy’s blog. [...]
April 13, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
Hi Rachel,
Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment for me last week! I have been wondering about the suffragette movement tie-in as well. I haven’t come across any tight connections yet, but I still have a little more research to do.
I agree with what you had to say on The Lost Museum site. I found it a little “hokey” in some ways myself – but the site does feature a lot of useful and interesting content. I actually blogged about the site this week. Had you heard of PT Barnum’s museum before this? This was an introduction for me.
Also like what you had to say about the importance of knowing the audience. And yes – functions that add value are worthwhile. Speaking of that – sometimes I wonder about the value of flash-oriented features. 90% of the time, I find myself skipping the bells and whistles to get to the content.
Anyway, I enjoyed reading your post!
Toni
April 13, 2010 at 5:12 pm |
I see what you mean about designing interactivity for an audience. I imagine building the right kind of game will attract attention from kids, if that’s what you want. Then again, if you’re talking about serious researchers, I’m thinking a game isn’t so appropriate. Still, there are elements in games that I’m sure are worth bringing to serious, academic design.
April 13, 2010 at 5:14 pm |
[...] April 13, 2010 by tonibowman This week I blogged about The Lost Museum site. Also left comments for Dan and Rachel. [...]