Here is our slideshow for the Minecraft Simulation of the Battle of Flers Courcelette.
- Matt W., Matt M., , Kathryn and Brieanna
Here is a look at the beginning of Group A’s paradata powerpoint. It is our look at the Roman exit from Germania.
This Twine is decidedly not Gothic in the least.
My aim for this Twine was to represent the material and thesis of the course in a different way, one that would be spoooooooookyyyyyyyy. I’m sorry for that. Anyway, if you can get past the seemingly nonsensical stuff that happens, it sort of makes sense… Or does it? Is it a safe passage through HIST3812? Or will it lead to your (rather strange and ambiguous) end..!?!?111?!?!!!1/?/1
Here’s the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1f016iuq1ljpkan/Digital%20History%20Students…%20Beware.html?dl=0
I hope y’all have fun!
For Challenge 9, I uploaded my midterm piece to itch.io. I’m very excited to see if I get any feedback on it!
Here is our pecha kucha! Enjoy!
When people responded to Dr. Graham’s tweet asking for their favourite digital history projects, many were submitting what appeared to be their own work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this – when one of the major players in a field asks for contributions, it is somewhat expected that people would want that player to see their work. However, it does mean that many of these may or may not be that… accurate. Which I suppose is why we are being posed this question.
The Virtual Paul’s Cross Project (VPCP hereon out) caused quite a ruckus in our discussion for a variety of reasons. The first being that it’s similar to the Voices [?] project Dr. Graham has shown in class before, which had quite a negative effect on some members of the class due to the cacophony of noise it produces. So some members of the group had that bias.
On a positive note, VPCP does not attempt to assume many things, and when it does, it makes it clear. For example, one can choose between a variety of options in terms of how many people are in the square, as the team creating the installation were unable to find conclusive information as to how many people were in the square.
The issue our group debated was whether the project itself, ie. the audio, was truly accurate. The project seeks to recreate the experience of being in the square on that day, and we had much debate over whether the levels of the ambient noise, in particular, were true to life. Several of us argued that it was quite possibly that it is just incredibly difficult to digitally recreate a truly accurate human experience in that regard, as people in such situations will generally be able to tune the background noise out and focus on the sermon. This experience was not reflected very well in the project, as for the most part, one can barely her the sermon.
Having researched a bit more into the project, I still slightly agree that it is probably near impossible to truly recreate such complex human reactions. However, I now know that the difficulty hearing the sermon actually IS accurate. Beyond the main page, there are vast troves of information, explaining why certain choices were made in the project, such as the ambient noise in the background. It was much cited that unless one was standing directly in front of the puplit, it became incredibly difficult to hear what was being said. So our complaints that we could not hear are actually part of the experience.
Overall, I find VPCP to be good history. It presents a seemingly small concept, but in reality, creating it was a massive undertaking. Every single choice they made in regards to the project is backed up by various primary and secondary sources, and I feel comfortable in saying that they likely created a very accurate and immersive representation of what it would have been like to be in the square.
When looking at the things tweeted at professor Graham’s twitter, many tweeted their favourite ongoing digital history projects. Many tweeted links to projects to put history online and record it like the World War One New Zealanders project or the Building Inspector. Whatever these projects are doing, what makes them good digital history?
Looking at the Building Inspector, the New York Public Library allows others to look at old maps of the streets of New York and fill in the addresses of the section of the buildings on the maps. The whole point is to produce a comprehensive directory of old New York using computers and people to harvest the vast amounts of data from these maps. This is to make it easier to search for these places and ask new questions about these places that make be forgotten and changes in urban planning. Simply put, using the public in order to organize the materials of history to be online is very much good digital history. Analyzing thousands of these documents are very difficult so employing basically faceless volunteers, the New York Public Library have used the public to create digital history.
These documents may not be seen for years and with numerous people looking over the documents in order to make sure all of the information is correct is a very different and unique way to create good digital history.