It’s about time I got into the swing of blogging.
*Some comments on the the web site home pages, I chose the History Channel and The History Place.
http://www.history.com/ and http://www.historyplace.com/
History Channel: not too cluttered, has as much to do with media as history (obviously), dramatic in content and use of color – lots of red and black.
Commercial – the ads are almost as big as the features.
First images that pop up are construction guys, a T-rex and ice trucks – general interest but also a skew to men as audience.
This history site to me says “somewhat informative and very entertaining”
The History Place: toned down a notch from the History Channel, using red and blue font for a patriotic flare. Layout not as nice, but more actual history and less design. A cleaner layout would do more justice for the content. It doesn’t say “click” me, I’m fascinating.” It says “this is the history lesson you must learn so click like you should.”
This site had ads more prominent than the historical content.
Some points from the reading: Roy Rosensweig is sorely missed.
The essence of scholarly history has not changed. Research must be done, words written and published. The biggest difference is scope and access. The web would appear limitless as a tool to fascilitate the historian’s scholarship. Scope is complicating in as much as there’s no end or check to the amount of information, well founded or not, that anyone can get hold of. Access as in publishing and the process by which the historian makes his/her work available is only limited to that person’s ability to use the web publishing software.
Now for last class blog links:
http://usreligion.blogspot.com/
