Journal
Entry #4: Popular and Public History Online
The
two readings by Steve Dietz (http://www.archimuse.com/mw99/papers/dietz/dietz.html)
and John Vergo (http://www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/vergo/vergo.html)
for this week’s theme, “Popular and Public History Online,”
posit very different views about the nature of the Web experience. Vergo
and his colleagues at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center conclude from
an extensive usability study that “viewers” of a multi-institutional
web site for art and culture want to be just that, “viewers,”
not “actors.” They want some participation but not immersion;
they want an authoritative voice (by the experts) but not a voice for
themselves; they want storytelling, not conversation; they want to take
a tour, not direct one; they want to be entertained rather than be interactive;
they want “less clicking, more watching.” They are on the
verge of being couch potatoes.
The Vergo research
team appeared genuinely surprised by the “strong interest in streaming
multimedia, TV-like experiences where users watched experts and artists
talk about art and culture.” Steve Dietz’s article, “Telling
Stories,” is conceptually opposed. Dietz has not conducted a usability
study as Vergo has, but instead has provided us with his definition of
what the digital experience could be instead of what it tends to be now.
Dietz is interested in finding information and telling stories that will
create a “compelling, interactive experience” rather than
being only entertaining. He wants to harness the vast data gathered by
museums in their collection management databases and make it accessible
to the public. Dietz has progressed beyond the now traditional view of
interactivity defined as navigating through webs of non-linear hypertext
to a definition that embraces responsiveness as the key feature in an
interactive work. For Simon Biggs, a work is interactive only if it includes
“some form of responsiveness to the reader, where that responsiveness
causes the content of the work to be altered.” (http://www.archimuse.com/mw99/papers/dietz/dietz.html)
I decided to answer question no. 3 (Which of these sites has a design
and interface that most effectively communicates its message and serves
its audience?) because I thought I could use the Dietz and Vergo readings
to weave a picture of what web viewers want versus what web site designers
think web viewers want.
The National Portrait Gallery’s site, George Washington: A National
Treasure, http://georgewashington.si.edu/portrait/index.html,
has the limited goal of using the medium of a Gilbert Stuart portrait
of Washington to portray our first president as a national treasure. This
site is elegantly understated to reflect its subject. The viewer can choose
the trajectory of the narrative by clicking on any of twelve places on
the portrait to read descriptive essays through three filters--symbolic,
biographic, or artistic. This is a self-guided tour that Vergo might find
has much too much clicking (although nothing compared to the History Overwired
site) and instead could benefit from an expert-led video presentation.
Dietz would find it too static and unresponsive to the viewer’s
needs. He might point to the very limited number of postings reacting
to the site, but though few in number, the respondents did express their
great esteem and reverence for Washington. The site succeeded in portraying
a respectful tone. Anyone opening this site knew from the title “national
treasure” that they would not be seeing Washington with his warts--slaveowner
and aristocrat. This site serves well the undiscerning audience. The design
and interface of the site was detailed enough to provide multiple levels
of information (images, short chronologies, longer essays) to suit differing
age groups and educational backgrounds.
This site reinforces filiopietistic images of Washington and does not
challenge the traditional interpretation of our first president. Without
doing a usability study it would be difficult to ascertainif people would
rather tour on their own by clicking or follow a computer-generated tour.
I tend to think they expect interaction on the Web and watch videos more
on their couch. Public sites are designed to provide an authoritative
voice and many people who visit them may want “less clicking.”
The type of site that Dietz is espousing, one with “multi-vocality”
and “responsive interactivity,” is probably too postmodern
for most public sites now.
Christine
Hughes
|