digital public history – Online Portfolio

Final Reflection

Building a prototype for Koreatowns in North Texas has been a challenging experience. This course has helped me to take a step back from the initial stages of my project and reconsider my audience. While learning about user-centered approaches to designing a digital project site, I encountered other challenges that I did not consider in the beginning. By studying the physical and digital spaces of a history museum, I was able to see things clearer. Also, studying various digital public history sites was very insightful. Learning about the different digital interfaces and digital tools, reading various scholarship on the digital public history, and testing digital public history sites have helped me to build a prototype.

I selected Omeka for the prototype because it was user-friendly and easy to navigate. It also allowed me to design my project site with creative freedom. The storyboarding technique, mentioned in Shawn Medero’s article “Paper Prototyping,” helped me to visualize the interface for Koreatowns in North Texas. In addition to storyboarding, I learned about the importance of testing and evaluating the prototype. I asked several people to visit Koreatowns in North Texas and provide feedback. Their comments helped me to see things that would be helpful for the audience when navigating the site. The comments from Dr. Leon were also helpful. My classmate’s review/feedback was helpful, but I think having more than one classmate to review the site would have been more helpful to gain more than one perspective.

Overall, I learned that building a prototype for a digital public history site is very challenging; yet the process is a great learning experience. This course has allowed to me explore things that I would not have done on my own such as building a prototype, accessing course materials, and learning different techniques to engage the audience. Since there is little information available online about the history and culture of Koreatowns and Korean Americans in North Texas, I was excited to build a prototype for the information to be available to the public. Finding time to take the images was a little bit challenging because I had to find the time to visit the places during the week and before sundown. After taking the images, I carefully selected the images that would be the best fit for the prototype. Before I learned to incorporate oral history into the prototype, I learned how to interview wonderful people who have close connections to the Korean American communities in North Texas. Another challenge that I encountered was the visual display of my images and text. I learned to experiment with different layouts of the images in Omeka. Writing short descriptions and narratives paved the way for me to understand my audience better. I had to consider the language usage and colloquialism, so I would not lose my audience to an abyss of words. Despite the challenges, I received so much support from the Korean American community. Finding the right people to interview was easy, but finding the time to interview them in person was a good challenge. Also, Dr. Sharon Leon has provided supportive and constructive feedback to lead me in the direction of learning something new in order to see the benefits down the road when I further develop my prototype.

Before the end of this semester, I revisited Michael Frisch’s article. In “From A Shared Authority to the Digital Kitchen and Back,” Michael Frisch explains the purpose of exploring: “Exploring, I think, is more interesting than searching, and it suggests a non-linear spatial imagination rather than a linear, tunneled one: one inhabits a space that is being explored rather than simply forging a narrowing path through it” (133). For my prototype, I came to a realization that I want the audience to explore instead of just search for information and images on the site. I want them to come away with some ideas or information that make them think about the reasons why Korean American history is rarely available online. Also, I hope their explorations and curiosities can help me to continue building the prototype. Ultimately, I want Koreatowns in North Texas to be our digital public history project by inviting people from different backgrounds and experiences to share in the building of the site as a community. The key to making the prototype available to the public would be an engaging collaboration with the audience. Echoing Corbett and Miller, “Honest sharing, a willingness to surrender some intellectual control, is the hardest part of public history practice because it is the aspect most alien to academic temperament and training” (36), I am steadily learning to take less control of my project and reconsider my audience. The question of “How do I engage my audience?” changed to “What are some changes that can be made to the prototype for audience engagement while connecting them to the purpose of preserving the history and culture of Koreatowns in North Texas and the Korean American experience?”

A Reflection on the Complexities of Creating Public History for a Specific Place

Working on digital public history that is tied to a specific place has its advantages and disadvantages. The complexities include various parts of history that are to be covered about a specific place. Digital technologies have allowed the implementation of mobile devices such as the smartphone to view public history from different locations and spaces. For The Philly.org project, “Mobile augmented reality applications serve as a method for engaging with smartphone users as they conduct their daily tasks, rather than requiring them to visit a physical building or invest time in a laptop or desktop computer” (Boyer and Marcus). The audience is given access to the public history site from different locations and time in a digital space. To overcome the complexities of designing a digital public history for a specific place/location, project designers should consider the three responsive approaches: how they want it, when they want it, and what they want (Baer, Fry, and Davis). By studying these responsive approaches, project designers are able to use certain digital technologies to enable the viewing of public history from different perspectives.

Also, the implementation of digital technologies has created new ways of delivering oral history to the public. In reference to the Cleveland Historical project, Mark Tebeau explains, “Ironically, digital tools have presented us with new dilemmas precisely by presenting new possibilities, such as allowing us to more easily edit oral histories. As a result, we are brought closer to the human voice than ever before, no longer experiencing oral history as mediated by the transcript or interpretation”(33). With advanced technology, oral histories are transcribed, recorded, and presented in various ways to capture a wide audience. Paraphrasing Wineburg,“With this in mind, the Center for Public History + Digital Humanities has moved toward an activist model of curation in which team members develop interpretive stories that introduce historical and cultural contexts that challenge audiences to understand history in a new fashion—a practice in line with the process of historical research and thinking” (Tebeau 32). Instead of just listening to oral history online, the audience is allowed to think about history in a different way and derive ideas or questions that invite new approaches to the historical content.

Digital technologies have reinforced the concept of collaboration. Tebeau argues,“inspired by the promise of social history and the radical ways that oral history can restructure power relations, we moved toward curating the city in collaboration with the community, rather than curating it for the city’s many constituencies” (30). Digital technologies have enabled the concept of collaboration within the project community and with the community. “Of particular note, this collaborative oral history project pro vides a transformative way of understanding “place” and of moving beyond an emphasis on visual interpretive practice, in order to provide a deeper way of building interpretive stories for public humanities exhibitions on mobile computing devices” (Tebeau 25). Digital technologies have challenged the concept of traditional collaboration vs. non-traditional collaboration. By taking on a humanistic approach, project designers implement digital technologies to allow a wide audience to take part in contributing to the place specific, public history site.

Furthermore, digital technologies can be used to include a different type of communication and engagement with an audience in digital space. Presenting place specific, public history in a physical space versus a digital space can be challenging; however, digital technologies are being used in different ways to provide the audience with a similar experience as if they were touring the exhibit in person or sometimes presenting more ways of audience engagement. The location-based projects are user centered. The Murder on Beacon Hill project engages the audience to peer into what had happened in the past by providing an interesting narrative that speaks to the audience and takes them on a journey in digital space. The maps, images of the place in past and present, and the architecture invite an engaging communication between the site and the audience. The narrative is presented in segments to allow the audience to search different points of the digital history of Beacon Hill. Digital technologies have enabled the public history site to engage the audience audience by inviting them to explore a mysterious past and to question what had happened during that time and location.

However, there are some challenges when implementing digital technologies for a public history project. Digital technologies might inhibit the seamless transition from physical space to digital space. Some of the contents that are presented in the museum may not be available in digital space due to various issues. According to Hart and Brownbill, “The amount of content available on the app when out of the museum or exhibition is an issue for some, striking a balance between the in-museum and out of museum experience is challenging…A major challenge was to present all these types of content in a meaningful way.” Also, certain objects that can be viewed in a physical space might not be the same when viewed in digital space. For example, “Due to rapid technological changes, specifically in the technology used in mobile augmented reality or in placing objects in 3D space as in the case of PhillyHistory.org, implementing an augmented reality project requires an advanced level of technical knowledge” (Boyer and Marcus). Viewing objects in a physical space allows the visitor to have a 3D image of them. However, digital technologies need to be carefully selected to create the same effect as if the object was viewed in person in a digital space.

Another challenge is the access to mobile devices. For example, not everyone has access to smartphones. “Although the smartphone market is growing rapidly, many individuals do not own a device that would enable them to access an augmented reality application.” (Boyer and Marcus). By focusing more on mobile devices, the site begins to ignore the disenfranchised/marginalized audience.

The materials and exploration sites for Module 8 have allowed to me consider how location-based techniques can be implemented into my project. The mobile format for my project will require some modifications and additional digital tools. Creating a seamless transition from the website to mobile app will be challenging; however, it will be an exciting challenge because it will adapt to the changing ways of viewing things on a smartphone and engaging my audience. At the same time, I am wondering if Iess is more when implementing digital technologies to capture a wide audience for my project.

A Reflection on Oral History in DPH Projects

Digital technologies have provided different ways of including and delivering oral history in a digital space. There are systems or software programs that are available to help project designers to include oral history in a digital space. For example, “The Oral History Metadata Synchronizer (OHMS), a web-based system, provides users with word-level search capability and a time- correlated transcript or index, connecting the textual search term to the corresponding moment in the recorded interview online” (Boyd 95). On the other hand, there are some challenges that complicate the practice of oral history. According to Boyd, “… it still remains underutilized because oral history can be a cumbersome resource to use, even in an online environment” (95). Initially, OHMS was developed for transcribed oral history; and it became a challenge in the digital space. Also, “Software designed to offer access to archived materials is not sensitive to specific challenges posed by oral histories” (Boyd 96).

The American Folklife Center uses Oracle APEX for their platform. Groce and Lyons “expect the online platform developed for the Occupational Folklore Project to result in cost-efficient protocols for the acquisition of oral history materials from partners in geographically dispersed locations…to minimize the work of translating and mediating data that accompanies these acquisitions” (65). It allows the user to include content with less complications.

Another challenge is the cost of transcribing and auditing oral history. “The digital index has the advantage of being a true timecode; however, very few digital archival systems have been developed to automate the linking of the timecode representing the segment created to the corresponding moment in the interview” (Boyd 101). As a result, “Indexing in OHMS allows us to create a workflow that puts these interviews online much more quickly and efficiently at a very low cost” (Boyd 103). It is not cheap. So, OHMS developed a better option. Currently, OHMS is free. Also, OHMS is compatible with certain programs. For example, “As part of this initiative, OHMS is being developed as a plug-in, working seamlessly with other content management systems, including Omeka, Kora, CONTENTdm, and Drupal” (Boyd 96). There are helpful video tutorials (and transcripts) on how to use OHMS for annotating oral history.

Furthermore, there is a challenge of having too many topics. The Occupational Folkore Project, designed by the American Folklife Center, came up with a great solution. “To address this challenge, we again worked with our archiving and cataloging colleagues to develop a controlled vocabulary, a list of preselected words and terms designed to limit ambiguity and aid the search and retrieval of information” (Groce and Lyons 62). This solution created an efficient way to catalog the topics prior to the oral history interviews.

To ensure that the project site maintains its user centered focus, testing the site at various times is very helpful. Including oral history in a digital space presents another complication that can be good for the project designers. American Folklife Center uses Beta-testing, which they rely on volunteers from libraries, schools, organizers, etc. This allows the AFC to “use testers’ feedback to refine our [their] procedures and improve our protocols” (Groce and Lyons 65). Referring to Angela Colter’s “Testing Content,” “Whatever your budget, timeline, and access to users, there’s a method to test whether your content is appropriate for the people reading it.” Therefore, testing the site is a win-win situation for both the project designers and users.

The articles and project sites for Oral History (Module 7) have strongly influenced my proposed decision to add an oral history component to my project. Here is the link for my OHMS annotation assignment: https://ohms.uky.edu/preview/?id=35461. I plan to add interviews to complement the Exhibit items in Omeka. Also, the oral history component would be a great add-on for including and engaging the audience. I might consider adding an option for the audience to add their oral history of Koreatowns in North Texas by selecting one of the two options: text or recording (voice/video). They can upload a document or type their history in the space provided (with word limit), or they can upload a short video. The transcription of the oral history will be beneficial for me and the audience. I like the idea of the segmented transcription of oral history in OHMS. If either text or video includes Korean language, I will have to find a way to translate it in either format. Adding the oral history, in the form of text, voice, or video recording, reflects a humanistic approach to my digital public history project. The audience will be introduced to real people and their stories in order to make human connections in a digital space. The connections result in engaging and interesting communication that will help me improve my project.

An Update on the Progress of “Koreatowns in North Texas”

The challenges that I am currently facing with my digital public history project are gathering more information about both Koreatowns, finding a plugin to add Korean language, and searching for before and after images of both Koreatowns. In order to overcome the challenges, there are a few steps or goals that need to be followed. First, I will reach out to two or three, first-generation Korean Americans who are knowledgeable about one or both Koreatowns. I would like to find out more information about the zoning of Koreatown Dallas and how it has changed over the three decades. Also, I would like to learn more about the historical information about the different plazas in Koreatown Dallas. As for Koreatown Carrollton, I want to know more about the group who advocated for the historical marker to be placed in Koreatown Carrollton. It also brings up the concern that a historical marker is not placed in Koreatown Dallas, and if there is one, I would like to know why it is not visible like the one in Koreatown Carrollton. The other step is to acquire images of Koreatown Dallas from the 1980s and 1990s. I would like to have access to the before and after maps and/or designs of Koreatowns Dallas and Carrollton. For the second goal, I will search for a plugin that displays both Korean and English languages for item description and other information. For the last goal, I plan to add more description and historical information for the items that are currently on my project site; and I plan to add more images for the Koreatown Carrollton Exhibit.

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.

Project Proposal for “Koreatowns in North Texas”

“Koreatowns in North Texas”

The proposed “Koreatowns in North Texas” project will convey the importance of preserving an unrecognized part of American history. Currently, there is no website that allows the audience to access information about the history of Asian Americans in Texas. Multiple Asian American communities in Texas continue to prosper, and they contribute to the socio-economic development of the surrounding communities. Unfortunately, the history of the Asian American communities goes on undocumented by the Dallas County and the Dallas Historical Society. The proposed project will help inform people about an important part of the Dallas cultural and socio-economic history in order to bring awareness to a diverse community. It will emphasize the significance of immigration and the sustainability of urban and suburban development in diverse communities. The project will begin with the Korean American communities of Dallas County. There are two Koreatowns in North Texas: Koreatown Dallas and Koreatown Carrrollton. Each Koreatown is different, but both of them play a significant role in their community.

The proposed “Koreatowns in North Texas” project will ask the audience history questions pertaining to what they know about the history of Korean American communities and their connection to the two Koreatowns in North Texas. Here is a sample of the following history questions: What do you know about Korean American history in North Texas? What historical information about Koreatown Dallas or Koreatown Carrollton would you like to learn? How often do you visit Koreatown Dallas and/or Koreatown Carrollton? Describe your personal connection to one or both of the Koreatowns. What do you think makes Koreatown Dallas and/or Koreatown Carrollton interesting? Describe your earliest memory of Koreatown Dallas and/or Koreatown Carrollton. Describe your fondest memory of Koreatown Dallas and/or Koreatown Carrollton. What do you think stands out the most in Koreatown Dallas and/or Koreatown Carrollton? (e.g. the architecture, the cafes, the building signs, etc.). Some of the statements were revised from questions to non-questions to encourage the audience to provide more information.

Also, the project’s website will include a collection of digital images, short descriptions/narratives to connect with the audience, and information about important people who have contributed to the sustainability and development of the communities. Another component will be added for audience participation; they will be able to add their images and narratives that are related to the development of the Korean American communities. Their contributions will help build a historical collection online. Also, it will include digital maps to show the locations and spatial components in order to depict community integration and neighborhood gentrification.

In order to inform, persuade, and engage the audience, the website will implement digital tools. Omeka, an open source web publishing platform, will be used to feature the images as items. After the metadata is added for each item, the items will be organized into Collections or Exhibits. A Geolocation plugin will be added for mapping the locations of the items. Another plugin, Juxtapose will be used to show a side-by-side map comparison of both Koreatowns. Also, it will be used to show a map comparison of Koreatown Dallas in 1980s or 1990s versus now. An additional plugin, Commenting, will be added for the audience to add their comments. A Zoom It plugin will be added to allow the audience to zoom into the image and view it from different angles. Eventually, a social media plugin will be added.

For the target audiences, there are four different personas. Persona 1 includes the 1.5 and 2^nd generation Korean Americans. They visit the Koreatowns with family and friends. Some of them have contributed to the building or development of Koreatown Dallas or Koreatown Carrollton. Persona 2 includes an audience who is non-Korean American but is familiar with Korean culture and history from different levels, and they visit the Koreatowns. Persona 3 will be the audience who does not know anything about Korean culture and history, and they do not know that Koreatowns exists in North Texas. Persona 4 is the audience that is comprised of first generation Korean Americans who moved to North Texas during the late 1970s to 1990s and they have contributed directly to the development of Koreatown Dallas, or they have very strong personal connections to it.

A Response for the Comparative Review of the Digital Public History Projects

With advancing technology and globalization, digital public history projects have progressed over time. A comparative review of the digital public history projects in three different phases reveals noticeable changes from the projects that began as content focused to projects that are content and audience focused. At the same time, the creators of the projects had to consider the digital space. For example, the digital public history work during phase 1 is more content driven. The technology might be outdated, but the historical content plays an important role in all three projects in this phase. In the first example, “Blackout History Project,” some of the hyperlinks were no longer working. Also, phase 1 includes minimal audience engagement; however, there is more audience engagement in the last two projects of this phase. The images, videos, and audio recordings provide different ways of viewing the historical content; and they allow the audience to think about history differently. “Blackout History Project” and “The Progress of a People” seem to centralize the historical content as if it was presented in an academic manner (e.g. lecture); however, I can see that all three projects were reflecting a shift or change in making public history available to a broader audience. A basic mapping tool appears in the third project: “The Great Chicago Fire and the Web of Memory.” The digital tools used in phase 1 projects convey the importance of beginning to engage the audience with the historical content through a digital space for the contextualizing strategy, which Sam Wineburg defines it as situating “the document and its events in time and place” in order to be “Thinking Like a Historian.”

For phase 2, the digital public history projects include more digital tools, audience engagement, and recognition of collaboration. In addition to educational resources, a project’s site presents other ways of engaging with a general audience. Phase 2 includes less hyperlinks and more embedded links and images that can be clicked on for more information. Also, phase 2 includes more galleries or exhibits for the scanned images of documents and other artifacts. Phase 2 projects invite the audience to think like a historian in the intermediate stages of contextualizing, close reading, and reading silence. “Jasenovac: Holocaust Era in Croatia” introduces the audience to public history that might have been hidden or rarely exposed. “A More Perfect Union: Japanese Americans and the U.S…” is another project that presents historical content that most U.S. history books only provide a snippet of information. “Raid on Deerfield” introduces the audience to view the history of English settlers and their conflict with the French and native allies. The phase 2 projects represent social injustice in different countries, and they convey the importance of global perspectives in order to share public history in a digital space.

In phase 3, the digital public history projects include updated digital tools, collaboration, and more audience engagement. The projects that collaborate with a museum and local historical society or library are “Lincoln at 200” and “Bracero History Archive.” Some of the project sites such as “Bracero History Archive” and “Operation War Diary” encourage the audience to contribute to the project. Also, some of the projects use social media to collaborate with the audience and spread the word about the project. There is also a search option in two of the projects. The digital tools in phase 3 are more advanced in presenting the historical content and engaging the audience. Some of the projects have both audio recordings with transcriptions for ADA compliance. The “Manifold Greatness…” is a great example. Some of digital public history projects have resources for further reading and for classroom purposes. By including more collaboration, audience engagement, and advanced digital tools in a digital space, phase 3 projects introduce the audience to the strategies of contextualizing, close reading, using background knowledge, reading the silences, and corroborating.

Furthermore, good digital public history work should continue adapting to the changing and advancing technology, updating websites, presenting historical content that challenges the audience to “think like a historian,” adding more scholarship, finding ways to engage the audience to understand the value of researching public history, and acknowledging a diverse audience. With all of these things in mind, it is also best to continue updating the guidelines for reviewing digital public history work.

In the field of digital public history, there are several promising new directions. It will create more grants and fellowships for scholars to think like a historian and bring awareness of missing or rarely known part of public history to a wide audience. Also, this field will steer in the direction of global digital public history projects that will reach out to an even wider audience for cultural and historical understanding. Soon, almost every major institution or organization will begin to hire public historians. This field is unique in the sense that it brings academic and non-academic passions together for a greater purpose. The humanistic approach to digital public history comes into fruition when it becomes an inclusive rather than exclusive way of audience engagement and participation along with collaboration from academic and non-academic institutions or organizations.