Universal Design, or how to make a digital project accesible for all

This past week, we read two articles—one by Williams the other by Edwards—that discuss the importance of Universal Design, or how to provide for both individuals with and without disabilities, digitally and non-digitally literate in DH.  Instead of discussing too much about the article, this blog post is dedicated to the examination of Universal Design in regards to the digital project entitled The Yellow Nineties Online.  It is a fairly simple site to navigate, and easy to understand. In terms of visual appeal I like that the background is darker with the yellow accents. From a visual rhetorical standpoint it really seems to fit what they were discussing in that first paragraph: that the yellow shined out from the bookstore window into the streets, breaking through the darkness of Industrial/Victorian England.

I think this plays into the articles, as well, in terms of accessibility stated, the same anxieties are shared by both the established DH scholars and the future of DH. It also helps that this project is so new. It's almost like a stepping stone between the "professionals" and the "n00bs". The project reveals that there are still ways for up-and-comers to enter the field and even encourages them to do so by submitting to the website. The Yellow Nineties Online is an important tool for those entering the seemingly "unfriendly" world of DH by providing a way for future scholars to enter into the world and have the chance to be published.

One thing that also stood out to me in terms of accessibility is that the page is edited as opposed to administered or composed by Denisoff and Kooistra. It even says so blatantly on the header. This says to me that, much like our Matt Gold book, this is a collaborative project, and therefore accessible to a wider audience by asking for contributions. As we have discussed, all digital projects are collaborative; what I mean is that it's collaborative even in the sense of composition and content.

Because it is such an inclusive website and encourages submissions, it appears that perhaps individuals can submit suggestions for how to make it more universal.  Earlier in the week I tweeted to them: "@Y90sOnline Re: accessibility: consider making the background less busy for the hearing impaired. It's a bit distracting visually."  Those with hearing disabilities rely on their sight as their main source of information gathering.  With a distracting background, which appears in the periphery of the viewer, those with hearing impairments may have a difficult time concentrating on the content of the website.  I felt comfortable sending them this contribution since they are open to connecting with those who visit the page and have already taken steps towards "universal design"; why not make recommendations to a newer project? Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds as a newbie in DH but it appears that the ethos of the project encourages recommendations and is attempting to be as inclusive as possible, both to users and contributors.

This project fascinates me as it does more than just the database function. It's more like an online journal -- as seen with the editors and requests for contributions -- but with database functions. I like how the site reaches out and requests interaction with the viewer - it makes DH more accessible and less scary, for some reason.

 

Open Access, or the availability of websites and to whom they are open.

This week had me contemplating the idea of open access and what it means to the digital humanities, in relation to both canonicity and digital projects. 

Matthew Wilkens had a clever project which had him approaching the humanities and literature from a qualitative as opposed to quantitative.  Wilkens collected data from the “corpus of thirty-seven American literary texts published in 1851” (Gold 252).  What he found was, despite the prominent popular discussions of the New England Romanticism, there are a slew of places mentioned from around the world but most prominently a cluster in the American South.  This data opposes the traditional American literary canon.  Thus, the canon has been opened for other literary texts to enter and provide a different outlook on the literature of the early 1850s.

The project opened up more than just the canon, however.  It also explored the importance of quantitative research in the field of Digital Humanities.  In class, AJ voiced his concern that this research does not help contribute an understanding to the literary work itself.  However, Steve explained that we are looking at this project through only one lens.  By examining the project as useful to the humanities and not just the field of English, the results found by Wilkens open up to a broader possibility of research options.  Perhaps this idea is not that new to the Digital Humanities, but as an outsider and beginner to the field this approach seems open and accessible in general to a wider audience within the discipline. 

The concept of open access in Digital Humanities is most often applied to websites and a matter that I realized was much more complicated than initially thought.  When Ali sent out discussion topics for this week, his first question had me rethinking my understanding of open access.  He asked us to explore restricted, limited, and unlimited access to website content and how we would define an open-access website.

Prior to class this week, my understanding of open access came from whether or not an individual could explore a website without having to log on or pay to have access to log on.  However, as Brandon and Julia explained in class, one of the websites examined for class was open access to everyone in the United Kingdom but the information was only available to those in the States who have the ability to access certain journals.  This limits the accessibility and the definition of open access.  The definition can also be explored in terms of how accessible a digital project is to various people.  For instance, The DickensJournals Online allows individuals and scholars to sign up for free – which opens access to anyone who stumbles across the site – but also provides tools and resources for those who are visually impaired.  They have a text-to-speech tool which opens access to a diverse public. 

This week’s readings really had me contemplating what open access means and how the grant proposal I write should really explore and define how open I wish my proposed digital project to be.  From what was revealed this week, I need to explore the accessibility of my project as more than just whether one can log on and have free reign; I must also ponder to whom the project will be open.

NINES, or how a site can find and create scholarship

This week, my colleagues and I were tasked to explore Nineteenth-century Scholarship Online, or NINES as it is more commonly called.  Upon first glance, the organization’s page seemed a bit dull, to be quite frank.  Visually, there was not much appealing and, if one were to scroll downwards, it appears to refer visitors away from the main page and instead to federated websites of specific authors.  In short, my first impression was less than favourable.

But then I began exploring.  The centre part of the page features an area entitled Recent News, where within are Images of the Week.  I selected the Ad for Panorama of Pilgrim’s Progress, submitted by one Dana Wheeles.  While intriguing in its advertisement of the Library of Congress’s American Time Capsule Collection which “invites visitors to see a panoramic exhibition of the famous religious narrative, and promises it will be ‘instructive and entertaining to a high degree,’” my eye was directed to the following text: “Browse this saved search in NINES to learn more about the reception of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress in the nineteenth century.”

When I clicked upon the link, I found myself at a results page for Pilgrim’s Progress and related materials.  Adjacent to each result were buttons labeled “collect” and “discuss”.  Intrigued, I selected “collect”.  Immediately it was requested I log in to perform such an action.  I obliged, scribing my name and password.  Upon doing so, the log in screen vanished, leaving me back at the results page.  What occurred?  What did collect do?

I spotted a tab in the upper left hand screen labeled “My9s”.  Clicking it, I found my answer.  When one performs a search on NINES and then selects “collect” they are able to save their search results for use at a later time and date.  This struck me as brilliant.  Often times, searches performed on library websites leave the user having to record their results in some fashion (at least, that is the experience of this researcher.  Perhaps I am missing a simple step . . .).  “My9s”, however, also allows users to create exhibits, which allows scholars to display their search results—as well as personal scholarship—to other users.  Discussions, it appears, can also spring from these exhibits. 

The ability to perform such a task is something new and innovative I have yet to encounter elsewhere.  Being able to share one’s cumulative results, demonstrating to other users of this site how the research is all interconnected creates, dare I say, a community of scholarship and of scholars.  Other NINES users are able to explore how others are utilizing the site and begin to think of research in a different manner. 

It reminds me of the discussion we had several weeks ago during one of our sessions – what can these sites do aside from just provide scholarship and digitized manuscripts in a database format?  NINES answers this call by allowing individuals to search their database, save and accumulate their results, and then synthesize the items into something that is able to be shared with other scholars.  Not only is it providing scholarship it is creating it as well.  Brilliant.

Notes on a post

To my loyal readers,

In the last post, the phrase "a degree" was hyperlinked to an outside link.  It came up mysteriously and I do not know how to fix this quandary.  Please disregard the link, as it leads to a strange, animated collegiate site.  It does not seem to have a virus; rather it is just an annoyance. 

Also, if it helps with the tone of this blog, read it with a British accent.  I write it with such and it seems to make it believable, at least in my mind.

Yours respectfully,
M.O.

GALE and Google, or how research has changed in recent times

I read something this week that caused me great distress and malaise: the GALE project, sponsored by several libraries, is in the process of digitizing many of the periodicals and newspapers from the 19^th century.  And to believe this was all!  There is also an 18^th century collection and it seems intention to expand the digitized library.

My distress does not stem from the actual act of digitizing.  Rather, it is a selfish purpose.  GALE provided a short performance about their project, explaining their mission as providing those from afar with quick access to a wide array of documents.  They have manuscripts, pamphlets, diaries, books, maps, photographs…such a selection!  With such accessibility, what need is there to travel?  What purpose is there to go to London, to the British Library, to catch a glimpse of these tangible treasures? 

I must confess some excitement from this, however.  For it provides another manner in which individuals can access these materials.  Although it costs £369 per 6 months, there is still an ethical aspect at work, much like a physical library: one does not have to pay for travel and lodging to pour and study over these precious documents, only one at a time.  One can access multiple documents in a day, increasing the amount of research that can be done in a day.  However, because of the price to access it—and that not all can access it—there is still work that must be done, ethically.

Another issue that arises from digitization of these materials is how it changes research.  The scholar Dr. James Mussell discusses the “Googlization” of digitized materials; how research is transformed into key search terms, which makes it faster and easier but also more limited.  Mussell explains that Google “is based on ranking results so that the most relevant tops a list so numerous that it cannot be checked in its entirety. The user's satisfaction does not rest on knowing that they have the best result (they have no way of iudging this), merely that it is adequate for their needs…Patrick Leary has argued, he or she must possess a degree of historical knowledge in order to identify suitable search terms” (60).  Instead of locating sources that would be best for their research, scholars are limited to the results which turn up, tailored to what appears to fit their needs.  Research becomes faster but it attempts to read the reader, excluding items because they seemingly do not fit the researchers need based on their keyword search terms.  How simplified things become, and yet how limiting!

I still prefer the physical source.  I dream of using original documents in my research, to see manuscripts and scour through sources.  However, the work of GALE is an impressive chapter in the advancement of research.  Although it must still improve upon its ethical approach (£738 per year!  Such a cost!), it still provides the ability to access multiple documents in a faster manner.  One must weigh their research needs and desires and tailor it to their needs, it seems.  And to be sure to explore farther than what a “Googlized” search might return!

 

Preface, or the posting for this week and an explanation of future serials

I’m going to go ahead and assume that you’re thinking this Preface is a bit much, especially for a blog.  Perhaps it is.  But allow me to explain...

This blog has been created as a requirement for my ENGL 985: Digitizing the Victorians course.  The course is designed to have us examine Victorian Literature that has been digitized, as well as to familiarize my classmates and myself with the Digital Humanities.  Each week we are to reflect on our readings, websites we visited, and/or information we’ve found on listservs we signed up for.  Each of these concentrates on DH, Digitized Victorians, or the bare bones of digitized media. 

For instance, this past week we read articles from the Blackwell Companion to Digital Literary Studies which discussed the history of Digital Libraries, what they do, how they work, and the components of how to assemble one.  We read about the differences between a virtual and physical library; virtual libraries can be more accessible and also preserve texts that are out of print, create new ways to read texts, and provide more ways to research topics and find books.  These come out of tools that were originally provided by physical libraries but were expanded upon.  In class we discussed, though, how virtual libraries still need to improve upon their ethical conditions.  Physical libraries were provide a public service to communities by making books more readily available, aiding with literacy, and preserving privacy to those who check out books from their establishments.  Because some databases and virtual libraries cost money to access, there is a lacking of the ethics that physical libraries provide.  However, is beginning to be combatted with virtual libraries such as Internet Archive and Open Library.  These two virtual libraries provide readers with scanned copies of books and texts—provided they are out of copyright—free of charge (or, at least for the cost of having internet each month).  Instead of having to buy a text or borrow from the library with the risk of having late fees, readers can access books from these virtual libraries and read them as they would a tangible one.  This contributes to the ethical aspect of virtual libraries; by providing an alternative to physical books, access to literacy can be opened up even further.

Now, what does any of this have to do with a “Preface”?  Why not just turn this into a regular post, then, and be done with it?  Thanks to my undergraduate degree in creative writing I had an idea about how to shake things up for my blog: write the posts in a Victorian tone.  While I will be commenting upon the readings and websites gone over that week, my intention is to do this through the voice of Victorian.  This may seem odd; after all, there were no computers during the Victorian age.  There was, however, a surge in technological advances.  One of our readings from this past week (which greatly aided in my argument formation) explains “[i]n the nineteenth century it is possible to find many examples of what might today be termed multimedia, a reintegration of creative activities and a recognition that the individual artist might excel in various modes and formats, such as poetry (text), painting (image), science, and technology” (Walsh).  Walsh also explains,

Both the industrial and digital revolutions are attended by technologically enhanced and augmented modes of communication. Thus, artists, critics, scholars, and others from both periods are faced with transformative social change that necessitates reflection and commentary as they are simultaneously provided with conditions and tools (cheaper printing, growing literacy, word processors, the internet) that facilitate the communication of their ideas.

Because of the surges in technology, authors from both the nineteenth century and today have had to alter how their art is received.  Books in the nineteenth century could be serialized and mass produced, providing not only profit but the ability for authors to reach out to a wider literate audience.  Technology today has allowed authors the ability to use literal moveable type through the advent of laptops.  Digital media has also provided another outlet for literature to explore.  These technological advances have allowed authors to try new things for the sake of art.

            Although this blog is not so much “art” as it is a requirement for my course, I would like to honour the similarities between these two literary time periods by having my blog explore how a Victorian would react to the digital literary advances of today.  I think it will work out if I write in the tone of a Victorian were that style popular today; that is, a Victorian isn’t going to be flashed into the future and thrown into the hodge-podge of today’s technological society.  Imagine steam-punk, if you will, but with more computers.  Because of my own inadequacies with computers and technology, I feel that by writing through the tone of a Victorian—one who is likely learning how to deal with the boom of technology despite possible digital illiteracies—I will be able to place both my modern and Victorian self within the technological context of both then and today.

            So without further ado, I present to you all A Digitized Victorian.