Virtual Angkor: This site SHOCKED ME with how well and creatively it was designed. The idea of making a historical era or region and turning it into a place that people can explore and learn about has to be one of the goals of the original digital historians. The colors and text of the site were easy to read. It was easy to understand the goals and objectives of the site. They clearly state how someone can use their site and how it can be an educational tool. Each tab at the top of the site is broken down so that someone can learn more about the site. I think what I would like to include in my group’s project is how they synthesize the information while still providing enough. Something I did notice that I would like to avoid is how at the bottom or anywhere on the website (unless I missed it), there is no place to contact the team with questions or comments. From what I read, it seems like the site was created about 10 years ago (so around 2016), and I do not think it shows any signs of serious aging in the digital context. They used many sources and have an entire section dedicated to those sources. They provided the citation so that someone could find it on their own. All of the sources looked academic and related to the project so that someone can do further reading.
Gilded Age Murder: This site has a ton of information; someone could spend a good chunk of their day just reading through it. This creates a comprehensive site, but it can also be overwhelming for viewers and turn them away. Again, the amount and way in which content is presented is something that I want my team to be conscious of. I also think the color choices are interesting, making for a unique site, but one that might also be hard to read. I think the color palette needs to be very carefully thought through for our project. The site was created in 2007-2008, and it shows. It is one of those designs that screams 2000s, but I can just tell the website was created before minimalism was a trend. There are sources listed at the bottom of each page so that someone could go and find information related to one page rather than having to sift through an entire bibliography to find the content they want.
Emile Davis Diaries: This site is very simplistic in its design and content base, but very unique and important. It has the transcriptions of a diary, which can be a very useful tool to those who cannot read cursive or need to use text-to-speech. The colors and layout of the site are easy to follow and are pleasing to look at. The transcription and the way it was set up is something I want my team to look at as we plan on using material that may require transcription that a computer may not be able to understand. The public is allowed to comment on these sites and the transcriptions, which may lead to a new interpretation of a diary entry or a connection to the story that it is trying to tell. The site looks like it was created around 2013/2014, but there is no specific date on the site. The sources that the site uses are the diaries of Emile Davis and have them pictured, but not linked, leading me to believe they cannot be accessed other than through this site.
Jane Addams Papers Project: This project best reflects a library or database, which has been my favorite design so far. The about page allows visitors to have a better understanding of what they are looking at and gives visitors the opportunity to donate to the project, which I have not seen before. The colors involved flow well together, and the text is easy to read compared to the background. The sources are organized so that people can access them, but if you do not know what keywords to type, it can be hard to navigate. This site reiterates how it is free and public, which is what I admire so much about digital history: it is opening the doors to people of the public or outside of academia. I cannot find how old the project is on the site, but it does not look outdated.
