Taking the Role of “Hater” from Sandy
I think I’ve looked at and read all of the information on “The Differences Slavery Made.” There was an alarming number of things to click on, so I may have missed something. This resource brought to my mind many of the issues we discussed last week. Namely, the problem of abundance and the importance of human interpretation.
The overwhelming amount of information available on this site is a perfect example of the problem of abundance. There is simply TOO MUCH information. It may have something to do with me being kind of a dummy when it comes to Civil War history. (shameful since I live in Winchester, but my knowledge doesn’t extend beyond “frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”) That being said, it also may be the digital format that has caused me trouble. It seems to me that they are trying to prove that slavery wasn’t a major contributing factor to secession; but I thought everyone already knew that.The allure of so many links is very tempting, and incredibly distracting. I don’t get it, but, I do see that the authors are using GIS technology to make whatever point it is they’re trying to make.
This Geographic Information Systems technology appears to be another form of digitization. I like that GIS can combine a number of primary sources (maps) together to create one comprehensive electronic source. But, like we discussed last week, this wouldn’t be possible without humans making decisions about what maps to include. Not to mention the importance of Jed Hotchkiss’ maps. I helped install an exhibition of Jed’s maps at a museum a year or so ago and they are incredible. It would have been nice to see the original maps on the website. Perhaps they are there, I just didn’t click on the link.
As an “applied experiment in digital scholarship,” I don’t know what to think about Ayers an Thomas’ work. They’ve used some interesting technology to make what I think is a not-so-original point. But, perhaps it’s about showing that this conclusion could have been reached in a more efficient way, had the digital resources been available sooner.
Do you think it would have still been too much information if the reader had been provided a better map? Laura and Erin talked about whether or not it was ok that the reader just clicked through all the information on their own. And, I would add to that question is it okay to just click around if there is an explicit argument to be had?
I think the clicking was a big problem…dare I say that a more book-like format would have been better?
Totally agree. The clicking was a huge problem and there is that downside to abundance. That makes this site extremely overwhelming. However, I think it depends on the intended audience. I think that Thomas and Ayers created this site as a companion to their research, so that other scholars and grad students can check their work and perhaps build off of it. If that is the case, the abundance might serve as an asset for a user.
With that said, the layout is terrible. As mentioned above, why not use a more easy-to-navigate book-like format? Especially if it is really just a article, it seems like the delivery of the product went awry. Although, they do provide PDF printouts of their data; however, it is kind of hard to find.
I agree that if you examined every bit of information Thomas and Ayers provided the article would seem overwhelming, but as I mentioned in my comment to Heather, I am not certain that was Thomas and Ayers intent. The information was present because it was integral to their research, but I explored the data I wanted to examine more closely. Initially, I just clicked around the site, but eventually I found a sort of rhythm in reading the article and clicking the links.
I like that you said the ” importance of human interpretation.” I like to think that is the key to everything. So, would it be fair to say that no matter where the information is coming from it is always up to human interpretation?”
Also, I agree with Geri about the Thomas and Ayers website. The information is there as is the research and is I explored it closely again, I think it makes sense. Just my thought.
While there was a massive amount of information presented, I think that most of it serves as a useful backdrop to the authors’ points; the reader can examine the information, but it isn’t required to understand their message. I found it far easier to read their report and then look up notes of particular interest to myself; I don’t like getting bogged down by citation overload.