audience – Online Portfolio

May 15, 2018 (Final Self-Reflection)

The best way to learn more about Digital Humanities is working with people who have the knowledge and expertise in the field. After learning from the best professors selected by the GMU program, I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Pamela (Pam) Henson, Historian for Smithsonian Institution Archives, and her research assistant, Lisa. During my internship with the Smithsonian for two semesters, I have gained new skills to help me complete my digital public humanities site and to teach my undergraduate students about digital humanities as an introductory course. For this Spring semester, I used what I have learned in my graduate courses as well as from my own teaching experience to design an oral history collection. Pam selected Lucile Quarry Mann to be the first from the many collections (150 and counting) for my internship project.

Before I worked with Pam, I had minimal knowledge about oral history. After reading and researching more about oral history, I realized how it is a crucial component of digital humanities and the preservation of living history. Listening to the recorded interviews, which were originally recorded with tape recorders in the 1970s, has helped me to appreciate the unique discourse of oral history interviews between an interviewer and interviewee. The concept of digitizing audio recordings of interviews is fascinating because it allows the current audience to have access to living history in different formats. I also learned the importance of keeping track of everything such as documenting each interview with detailed information by viewing the transcripts and notes that were documented by Pam.

Designing a digital platform for an oral history collection comes with several challenges. One of the challenges was to present the material in a way that would engage a broad audience. In the designing stages of the digital platform, I used the skills that I have learned from the DH courses and my teaching experience. I have been teaching online since 2007, and one of my courses introduces students to think and analyze visual content from a rhetorical perspective for a writing course. Another challenge was selecting a segment of a full interview to introduce to the audience. The interview segment had to be short (5 minutes or less). There were a couple of interesting segments that lasted 10 minutes, but they were too long. The next challenge was to select images from the archives to correspond with the interview. In addition to posting images and text with the interview segment (e.g. image carousel), I came up with an idea of creating videos that combined the audio recording of the selected interview segment with images. I enjoyed the creative process of making a video because I was able to improve my video making skills while incorporating some of the techniques and skills that I have learned from my DH courses. The other challenge was making sure that there was enough memory or space for posting images and videos on the selected web page. These challenges provided a pathway for designing a digital platform for an oral history collection.

Working with Pam and Lisa has helped me to re-envision my design for Lucile Q. Mann’s oral history collection. From our weekly teleconferences and feedbacks, we collaborated to make the oral history and video history collections website possible for future launching. The progress is steady. Their helpful feedbacks were encouraging. I also provided feedback for the introductory pages of the oral history and video history collections website. Pam created a template that was modeled after my web page designs for Lucile Q. Mann’s oral history collection for future interns who will be working to put together oral history collections for the Smithsonian Institution. I am very excited that my work helped with designing the template for future oral history collections. I am very proud to be part of their project. I enjoyed working with a supportive and intelligent group, and I look forward to viewing the oral history collection on the Smithsonian Institution website when it is completed.

This semester’s internship has given me a new perspective on how oral history plays a significant role as a component of Digital Humanities. Presenting information from the past to an audience of the present and future is less challenging when certain digital tools, theories, and skills are used. How do we keep the changing audience interested in the people of the past? What digital tools are useful for creating and designing a new digital platform to present the past? How do we try to preserve the past without losing sight of our focus? Even though the past will remain constant in a form of a recorded interview in the case of Lucile Quarry Mann’s oral history collection, it is up to the digital humanities scholar/specialist to work with others to keep it visible and interesting in the present and for the future. It is also up to a collaborative group of people with various skill sets to help preserve the past and curate it as part of living history. Therefore, I plan to continue networking with people to encourage collaboration for my own digital public humanities project on Korean American history and culture while working on honing my oral history interviewing skills for future interviews.

April 13, 2018

Since my March post, I have been working on designing and creating an oral history page for Lucile Quarry Mann. After listening to more than 30 hours of audio recorded interviews and reviewing the transcripts, I selected at least 4 interesting segments from the interviews as featured items. I enjoyed the selection process because I became more familiar with Lucile Mann’s life. Her life with Dr. William Mann was exciting and adventurous. Also, I enjoyed listening to Pam Henson’s interviewing techniques because they will help me to develop a better understanding of oral history and approaching it from a different perspective. Pam’s discourse with Lucile Mann revealed exciting stories about the couple and how they contributed to the Smithsonian history and culture.

The process of linking the images to the selected interview segments was very challenging. First, I had to research the Smithsonian Archives for images to match the interview segments. Second, I had to splice the exact point an interview segment begins and ends. Third, I had difficulty narrowing down my selections. I tried my best to stay within the 5 minutes or less for the interview selections. Fourth, I was unable to find specific images for one of the interview segments that I thought would be a great featured item to entice the audience to listen to the full interviews. Even though the interviews were audio recordings, I was determined to make a video that synchronizes the audio recording segment with the images that were from the Mann family collections (e.g. photo albums, field books, and journals). During this process, I constantly thought about my audience. I created and designed for two different personas who would be most interested in listening to the oral history interviews, especially Lucy Mann’s interviews. Here is a link to the video in YouTube: https://youtu.be/lhpLiLftZpc

In one of our weekly meetings, I informed Pam and Lisa that I was unable to find most of the images for one of the segmented interviews. Pam sent excellent files for me to search for more images. These files allowed me to explore another segment that might be interesting to the audience. Pam designed the Oral History Intro Page. Lisa designed the Oral Histories summaries page. I designed Lucile Quarry Mann’s page for the Oral History Collection. However, when we had our meeting, we provided feedback for each other’s design because it was a collaborative effort. I designed Lucile Mann’s page in a landscape layout, so that it would closely resemble an actual web page. I tried to stay within the current guidelines of the Smithsonian’s Natural History website. I used my skills from my GMU course in designing a digital platform for a public humanities and history website. For L. Mann’s page, I tried to keep it less crowded and spaced out with a main image of Lucile Mann, a short bio section, an image carousel, segment clips with transcript, and a video that combines the audio recording of interview with images in synchronization. I had to post it in YouTube because the video was too large to send via email. I also added closed caption and transcript. I included a link to access the full interviews with a short description to tap into the curiosity of the audience to find out more about Lucy’s adventurous life. For the description, I kept the language simple and engaging. I learned this technique in my GMU coursework in Digital Humanities. Also, I added a Finding Aid link and links for additional resources that reference Lucile Q. Mann within the Smithsonian Archives and website.

My project was challenging, but I enjoyed it. It made me think about ways to redesign my own public humanities website. It also encouraged me to work with people from different professions and listen to good feedback. Collaboration, Communication, and Creativity are key elements in presenting a living history on a digital platform. This project has given me a chance to work on honing my video making and audio synchronization skills. Therefore, I look forward to seeing the finished product.

December 2017

From November through December 12th, I worked on project summaries for the Smithsonian Transcription Center. My mentor, Ricc Ferranter, introduced me to Trello (web-based project management board) and walked me through the process of drafting and launching project summaries for crowdsourcing. Each slideshow required research, and I enjoyed researching various topics. The more I read each one, the more I wanted to know about certain things. The biggest challenge was trying to select one of the items in the documents that will capture the audience and lead them to transcribe them. There was so much interesting information that the selection process was challenging and fun. The Smithsonian Transcription Center relies on crowdsourcing for their transcriptions, so my goal was to draft short and engaging summaries with a good hook. In addition to writing summaries, I researched information about the selected topic and selected online sources that will provide additional information about it.

Crowdsourcing is challenging, but it has its benefits. By drafting and revising the project summaries, I learned to tweak my words to capture a broad audience. Keeping the summaries short (3-4 sentences) was a great challenge. To make the summaries a little more interesting, Ricc suggested that I add web links for specific information; so the transcribers can have access to additional information via the web. Working with Ricc was awesome. He provided helpful feedback for each of my summaries. Ricc taught me to see things from a different perspective.

Working as a virtual intern is an amazing experience. Ricc and I communicated on a weekly basis by phone, email, and Trello. He was very patient and informative. He provided useful and informative feedback. Using Trello helped me to organize my assignments and to communicate any changes or updates with my Smithsonian mentor. Working on a digital platform was convenient for both of us. Also, waiting to see how the transcribing process from the digital volunteers was coming along was exciting. Ricc would provide an update, and I would take a peek at the transcriptions.

For my internship, I used some of the skills I learned about crowdsourcing from my GMU Digital Public Humanities coursework. I had to constantly think about my audience, which meant shortening my sentences and being selective with my words to engage the audience. I recalled the persona exercise I had to do for one of my courses, and I put that into practice when drafting the summaries. Researching and adding the links to the summaries reinforced the concept of what is appropriate for a broad audience. Also, I had to think about copyright issues and be selective with web content when linking the websites to the project summaries. By using what I have learned from my coursework, I was able to draft project summaries for a broad audience.

My internship work with Ricc and the Smithsonian Transcription Center connected me to a digital world of communication. Even though I did not know the digital transcribers, I had a virtual connection with them by writing the project summaries. After my project summaries were launched on the STC website, I was able to see how the audience responded to each one of them. The virtual communication between different audiences to meet a certain goal via the web is truly amazing. The concept of digital humanities is reflected in this internship project. History comes alive when digital volunteers partake in the crowdsourcing efforts with Smithsonian Transcription Center.

What I enjoyed most about the internship is being introduced to different historical documents for review and research. Also, I enjoyed communicating with Ricc about my process and what things I need to revise/edit. Ricc is a very supportive mentor. I admire Ricc’s work and dedication. He does his best to keep the digital volunteers interested in the transcribing. I also had a chance to see how the public responds to my project summaries. My internship assignment with the Smithsonian Transcription Center opened my mind to thinking about my audience throughout the entire process, and it helped me to understand and appreciate crowdsourcing. Therefore, I have gained a new perspective on how digital humanities keeps history alive through digital communications.

Response to “National Parks and New Audiences”

Coslett and Chalana incorporate interesting ideas that reflect ways of teaching historical thinking to the general public. After providing a historical background of two historic sites: WM-NHS and SJI-NHP, they point out the elements that best represents them. At the same, they also point out the elements for improvement in order to increase their presence for more visitations and reaching out to a broader audience. They express the need for uncovering the complexities of history by arguing that the NPS should continue to be progressive with improving their parks because “the agency recognizes the need to expand its interpretive approaches to incorporate different cultural groups” (104) and “without straying too far from the founding mandates” (103). For WM-NHS and SJI-NHP, the authors argue that the physical and online presence need to be improved in order to uncover some parts of history that need to be acknowledged while adhering to the mandates. Besides the permanent exhibit (physical site) that is divided into sections that present information about the Whitmans and Cayuse, some of the language and outdoor signage need improvement at WM-NHS. For SJI-NHP, Coslett and Chalana advise themes beyond the “Pig War” that should be explored and continue to be uncovered such as the Native people and women’s experience. They also mentioned that both parks used film to engage the audience. Even though Coslett and Chalana point out the steady progress of the parks, they argue that the parks “fall short of directly engaging the park’s more complex and controversial human histories, particularly with regard to the perennially marginalized contributions and experiences of Native peoples” (122). Their argument echoes what most of our readings in this course have mentioned. Uncovering the complexities of history is an ongoing process that includes changes in language, historical studies, humanities, technology, and people. Asking questions about sources is unavoidable even in physical spaces such as the historic sites. Being skeptical about the presented information invites the questions from the audience in order to face the challenges that sometimes changes need to be made in order to uncover the complexities of history.

Fortunately, NPS has begun to make such improvements in the 21^st century by collaborating with people with different experience such as working the design students for “Parks for People.” Another way NPS engaged with the public was “Find Your Park” that uses social media platforms such as Twitter and Instagram to bring attention the parks and reach out to a diverse audience. Coslett and Chalana refer to “dark parks” that make visitors think and learn about unpleasant things about the past such as internment camp sites, isolated leprosy community, etc. “These NPS units offer contemplative places for consideration of the less savory aspects of our nation’s struggles with violence and oppression,” and “parks like these may inspire tolerance by revealing and exploring prejudice while contributing to important communal healing processes” (124-125). The uncovering or discovery of complexities of history is part of that learning and healing process.

I would advise the NPS to continue reaching out to a diverse audience for collaborative opportunities. They might meet some innovative individuals who will bring fresh perspectives to the current historic site. Also, I would advise the NPS to work with more individuals from diverse backgrounds to help improve their online presence. I checked out the webpages for WH-NHS and SJI-NHP, and I noticed some elements that could help improve their online presence and traffic. For the WH-NHS, the images in the Photo Gallery section need metadata. Also, it would be nice to zoom in and out of each image. The Education page needs great improvement. I think if the right digital tools and more teaching resources were implemented, then it would be a great way for teachers to refer to this page. Possible voice recordings of some of the transcriptions would be nice for visitors who are visually impaired. SJI-NHP needs some updates on their web page. The last update was in March 2015. The history and culture page displays images with the text. I can actually click on the image to viewer a larger image. The Education page also falls short; it desperately needs more information to engage the teachers to view this page with their students. The Photo Gallery is a little confusing because the photos are all on one page of an exhibit and not separated. The visitor is not allowed to zoom in and out of the image. Also, I would advise taking more pictures of the physical site and post them online. Unfortunately, I did not see any questions to help the audience to think about the historical evidence and uncover the complexities online. Posting 1 or 2 questions to capture to the audience’s attention would help them to begin thinking historically about the historical evidence. The maps seem out of date or need improvements to engage the audience. An interactive map might would be useful to connect the items from the other sections of the digital site. Maybe in the future, NPS might consider adding 1 or 2 languages to increase international audience. After viewing these two sites online, my final advice would be for the NPS to reach out to individuals who are interested in improving the online presence for certain parks. Both the physical and digital spaces are significant to uncovering historical complexities, so NPS might consider working with GMU students who are in the Digital Humanities Graduate Certificate Program to help them improve their digital space and presence.

Third Piece of the Puzzle

The audience for my final project would be college students who are enrolled in Asian American Literature. Most of my students are Texas residents, and they rarely have exposure to Asian American literature at a two-year college; and a few universities offer the course. I chose them as my audience because they are assigned to read John Okada’s No-No Boy, 1 of 5 novels for the course. To help them learn about the treatment of many Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, I would like to create a lesson for the 2 or 2.5 weeks they spend with the novel and historical evidence. In the past, when my students were assigned to read Okada’s novel and research history during that time period, they were shocked to find out such information was withheld from them until college. Some students explained to me that most history classes in middle and high schools spend little or no time on the topic of the treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Some were shocked to find out that families were forced to leave their houses and businesses, not knowing that they will be able to return to them. To add to their shock or discomfort, they didn’t understand how the U.S. government forced able bodied Japanese American men to separate from their families even after they were removed from their homes and serve in the war. But, the part that they couldn’t understand are the loyalty questions because it was confusing and contradicting, and the questions divided Japanese American families, friends, and communities. Due to this part of discomfort and contradiction, I wanted to include a lesson to help my students grapple with the historical evidence and how literature helps them see something that is still hidden or partially hidden in American history.

By incorporating a lesson that helps students examine and analyze historical evidence in connection to the novel, I am also learning to teach digital history with digital resources. The 21^st century student is usually inundated with media and advancing technology, while some students are disenfranchised. Despite the differences, most educators take the leap forward and try to their best to provide a learning environment that adapts to the advancing technology and access to various media. In order to proceed, educators are constantly learning new methods and techniques to engage their students. The 21^st century student faces different challenges than the past students, but it’s up to educators to foster a learning environment (e.g. face-to-face, online, or hybrid) that helps the student to think historically and critically in a world of endless information that can be accessed with a few key strokes or just speaking into a mobile device and asking Siri.

Exploring Mobile History Site: The Sixth Floor Museum

For the “Exploring Mobile Public History” activity, I explored the The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza on my smartphone. The information and images presented on the website were viewable on the smartphone. The only drawbacks for viewing the site on the phone are the enlarged images and extended timeline information with images. On the phone, it is difficult to have a wide view of the images and timeline that are displayed across the screen on a computer or laptop. On the other hand, viewing the digital public history on the smartphone had some advantages. Based on the place-based or location-based techniques, the mobile site adhered to all three of the responsive approaches: how they want it, when they want it, and what they want. For visitors who are curious or unable to visit the museum in person, viewing the public history is accessible via the website. But, it is even more accessible for people who want to view it from their smartphones. The disadvantage will be for people who do not have cell phones or mobile devices. Also, if there is no WiFi, then there is no access. I was able to view the museum site on my phone while I was in an area that did not have desktop computers or laptops. Also, I was able to view the site while I was having lunch. As long as I had access to WiFi, I was able to view the site on my phone. By having access to the site via smartphone, laptop, or desktop, reflects that the site can be viewed with WiFi in different locations. Also, I could view the site when I wanted it. Instead of worrying about the Museum’s hours of operation, I could view the site whenever I wanted.

As for what I wanted, I was able to select different sections to view collections, timelines, shared memories, videos, and transcripts. Instead of reading about the history of the museum, I can jump to the next section and read about the assassination. I can also select Collections or The Legacy. If visitors at the museum do not have mobile devices or smartphones, the museum provides electronic devices for a voice driven tour. However, the mobile version does not provide a voice driven tour for visitors who want to use their own devices. The timeline presented in the “The Assassination” section closely resembles what is at the physical museum, so visitors get a similar experience. The images on the timeline are not viewable alongside the text when a specific part of the timeline is selected for closer viewing. The oral history in “The Collections Section” includes more transcripts than video recordings. The video recordings are linked to their YouTube Channel, and they are easily viewable on the smartphone. The audience engagement with the site is layered with different things. The Legacy section includes previously shared memories of the event, and there is a “Share Your Memories” tab to invite the audience to provide their stories during that time period or what they know about it.

The theory of history that The Sixth Floor Museum is putting forward is living history. Instead of teaching about the past in a single space, it engages the audience to trace the events leading up to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in a digital space. Also, The Sixth Floor Museum invites the audience to question what had happened and how the assassination of JFK is still thought provoking after so many years. The audience can envision the past while connecting with the present surroundings. For example, the site shows the physical spaces related to the tragic event from past and present. The audience can view the location of the assassination and where the sniper was positioned at the time. The site links to an Earthcam that allows the audience to view the Dealey Plaza from the sixth floor of the museum. The live camera shows cars, people, roads, buildings and other structures in today’s time. Placing the audience in the location of where the sniper was positioned during the assassination perfectly connects both digital and physical spaces together. Whether it is in physical or digital space, the The Sixth Floor Museum site engages the audience to think about history as living history.

A Reflection on Doing Local History or Affinity-Group Community History Mediated by Digital Technology

Working on local history or an affinity-group community history mediated by digital technology invites various challenges. One challenge involves communication via the digital space. Selecting the right interface to present the public history contents requires carefully paying attention to the audience, design, and content management. Another challenge is creating ways to engage a broad audience. The digital public history site needs to be displayed in different ways to capture the audience’s attention in order to engage them. According to Gutterman, “Digital history scholars have emphasized the need for interactivity, but most digital history Web sites fail to attain this goal” (“Outhistory.org” 102). So, various digital tools or plug-ins have to be tested in order to find the right ones for engaging a broad audience. The third challenge would be designing the project’s site with various digital tools to create and share historical knowledge with a broad audience. For example, Outhistory.org invites the audience to “Create Content” and to share their stories “Tell Us Your Story.” They allow the audience to take part in building the digital public history site. Whether the audience is a scholar or someone from the general public, the digital technology must be accessible and user-friendly. The last challenge is to constantly keep the communication open for collaboration of new and shared ideas to maintain the digital public history site.

After carefully reading the articles and viewing the project sites of local history or affinity-group community history, I have noticed several things that I need to consider with developing my project. I am in the process of looking at another plugin to add to my project site. The plugin would be for a timeline. Another thing I would like to consider is reorganizing the featured sections. I may order the sections differently. Also, I would eventually need to test the site with actual users, people who represent my proposed audience/persona. Testing the site will help me see the flaws and gain knowledge about my real audience. To broaden my audience and to encourage more people to contribute to building the Koreatowns in North Texas project, I would like to add a Korean language feature; so I can include both English and Korean. Also, I have learned that I need to collaborate with more people who have knowledge about the Koreatowns and Korean American history in North Texas. The collaboration will help me with designing a bigger picture for my project. Therefore, while I am selecting the digital tools and designing the interface, I have to keep in mind the audience and the communities throughout the development of the project.

A Reflection on how Modules 4 & 5 have shaped the thinking process for designing “Koreatowns in North Texas”

Designing my project took some time, patience, and creativity. Modules 4 and 5 prepared me for a different outlook on designing my project and overcoming some minor challenges along the way. By exploring the suggested project sites in Module 4, I was able to understand how each project tries to engage the audience in different ways. Reading the articles that explain the process of designing the project was very helpful. The information on metadata was also helpful. In “Why Collecting History Online is Web 1.5,” authors Sheila A. Brennan and T. Mills Kelly convey the importance of metadata: “Without a metadata schema, however, your project is doomed to a lack of interoperability with other collecting projects that potentially threaten its longevity.” Adding metadata and adhering to the Dublin Core provided the additional practice I needed for describing my items.

Learning to add items to a collection in Omeka provided an insight into viewing it from the outside. I had to keep the audience or personas in mind when I was making the digital collection. I had to carefully select items that might trigger the interest of my audience. Also, I had to think about the interface for my project. I selected Omeka instead of WordPress because it was best suited for my project. From the article, “Generous Interfaces for Digital Cultural Collections,” “Generous interfaces provide rich, navigable representations of large digital collections; they invite exploration and support browsing, using overviews to establish context and maintain orientation while revealing detail at multiple scales. Generous interfaces use multiple, fragmentary representations to reveal the complexity and diversity of cultural collections, and to privilege the process of interpretation.” With Omeka, I can add layers of information that allow the audience to select their digital experience. Instead of a linear navigation, Omeka features sections that the audience can select in different order.

The storyboarding activity in Module 5 provided an insightful look into my project site. At first, I had the images categorized into 2 collections and 1 exhibit. While storyboarding, I realized I needed to go back to two personas because it was becoming too much. Also, I switched from 2 Collections and 1 Exhibit to 3 Exhibits. I redesigned my storyboard images while I considered two personas: primary and secondary. By constantly thinking about how the user might navigate the site, I was able to see what changes I needed to make to make it more user friendly and engaging. According to Shawn Medero, “Paper prototyping can also help improve the final product: the prototyping stage is the right time to catch design flaws and change directions, and the flexibility and disposability of paper encourages experimentation and speedy iteration” (“Paper Prototyping”). By drawing each screen, I came to the conclusion that I needed a section that allowed the audience to take part in this project. So, I added two additional sections: Cultural Events and Remembering Koreatown. Similar to the Hurricane Digital Memory Book, Baltimore Uprising, and A More Perfect Union, I added sections that valued the audience’s experience and contributions in order to build the project to its full potential. I also came to the conclusion that I would like to add another language, Korean, to my site after viewing Gulag: Many Days, Many Lives. Including another language in one or more sections of the site will add another level of audience engagement. Overall, the storyboarding activity provided an opportunity to reassess the narrative that I want to present in each exhibit as well as engaging the audience to share their narrative interpretation.

As always, content is very important. In Erin Kissane’s article, “A Checklist for Content Work,” she argues that “good content is user-centered.” While working on the infrastructure of my Digital Public History project site, I had reconsider the content. I had to think about the goals that I want my users to accomplish when they visit the site. This part is a work in progress because “content must adopt the cognitive frameworks of the user” (Kissane). I need to work on the diction and tone to capture my audience’s attention.

Modules 4 and 5 have shaped my thinking process for designing my project site. At times, I had to stop myself from doing too much and just think about it. When I was gathering my sources, I had to reconsider my personas. I realized that I had to scale down my personas from 4 to 2. Also, I had to think about the items and how they were going to be displayed. I had to revise the metadata and descriptions. This part is still a work in progress. In agreement with Suzanne Fischer, I had to “seek patterns” and take the time to think about my project because “synthesis is a creative skill that public historians can learn and teach” (“Developing your Synthetic Powers”). By looking for patterns in my project, I was able to pinpoint certain things that I had to scale back on since less is more.
I didn’t want to overwhelm my audience and lose their attention. I had to take a humanistic approach with technology. Therefore, maintaining a clear communication with the audience via the interface is very important when designing a Digital Public History project.

A Reading Response and Reflection

For my project, I plan to use my Omeka items to engage my audience in different ways. One of the activities will include tagging. I did not tag the items because I want to see the how the audience varies in their opinions about each item. Will it be objective or subjective? So far, I have developed three personas for my project; and I would like to see how each of them tags the Omeka items. The first persona is someone is familiar with Koreatown. He or she may have grew up visiting Koreatown with family and/or friends. Also, in the first persona, this person could have contributed to the development of Koreatown. The second persona is someone who has an interest in Korean culture and/or history, and he or she likes to visit Koreatown. The third persona is someone who is not familiar with Koreatown. He or she probably does not think it exists in Texas.

Similar to the Hurricane Digital Memory Book and Baltimore Uprising projects, I plan to include a section that will ask the audience to add their memories of the Koreatowns and the events. For each item, I would like to include a plug-in that allows the audience to add a comment. Also, there will be a mapping tool that allows the audience to input their location in comparison to the locations of both Koreatowns in North Texas. Another activity will include a redesign or remapping of both Koreatowns. How will it fit into your neighborhood? Or, I can ask the audience to engage in building a Koreatown near their neighborhood. Furthermore, Koreatowns Dallas and Carrollton hold festivals pertaining to Korean culture and history, so I would like to include a section that allows the audience to upload their pics and add comments to build a story based on their personal experience during one of the past festivals. This activity will be build a community of festival goers or lovers to communicate with each other.

A Summative Blog on Audience, Engagement, and Co-Creation

Conducting research for building a prototype for a digital public history project comes with some interesting challenges. One of the challenges that I have encountered is creating a set of questions to find out more about my audience. During the early planning stage, I thought I had great ideas for whom the project will target. After interviewing my users, I realized I needed to revisit my set of interview questions. My questions were almost linear, and I needed to take less control and let the audience tell me what they are looking for. One of the audiences that I did not consider at the initial planning of my project is the audience who does not have any knowledge of both Koreatowns and Korean American history and culture in North Texas. If I could find a way to engage this type of audience, then I will have a better understanding of my audience.

According to Shlomo Goltz, “personas are one of the most effective ways to empathize with and analyze users.” Learning about personas and creating two personas for my project has helped to step back and see my project from another angle. Then, I began to understand my audience. I am currently in the process of creating a third persona to acknowledge another group of audience. Another challenge I have encountered is the technology aspect. I made the assumption that if my audience uses technology, then it will be less difficult to engage them. However, I needed to pay closer attention to different patterns of data and the data that was missing. Both users access social media, but the type and time spent for each one differs depending on what they need and want from each one. The users not only want to search for information, but they also want to learn and to be acknowledged. I plan to study more social media platforms in order to understand how each one serves a purpose for different audiences. This will help me to learn which ones serve a greater purpose in engaging the audience with the project, and it will help me to select the appropriate digital tools to engage my audience.

Furthermore, engagement becomes a key factor for keeping the audience interested, informed, and valued. They want to be part of the project in some way. Just like visiting and engaging in the physical spaces, the audience wants that similar experience in a digital space; and they want to leave a physical and digital space knowing that they have learned and/or contributed in some way. The shared inquiry between the audience and the project creators create an interesting dynamic. By inviting the audience to become part of the project, the level of engagement goes from minimal to valuable. Also, carefully researching the audience and the different types of engagement adds a humanistic approach to the project. I plan to integrate activities that both the audience and I can co-create or build the project together. In the meantime, I will continue to research the end goals of different users. Overall, the user research has helped me to view audience from a different perspective and how they play a significant role in the designing and planning of our digital public history project.