Better Late Than Never…I Hope.

After reading the Holistic and Analytical rubrics from the “Assessing User Experience” article I began to have conflicting views as to what I would want for an online exhibit. On one hand I love going to museums and seeing the tangible objects in front of me. Being inches away from the Hope Diamond is super cool! On the other hand the amount of people that are around the Hope Diamond at any given time is super annoying therefore reading about it or seeing it online allows me to have a one on one moment with the object as well as giving me time to read about it without having to throat punch people in a museum in order to be able to grasp all of the interpretative panels. hopehipe


It’s understandable that some people probably do not look at online pages or sites as a scholarly source. With news pages like The Onion posting articles right next to pages like The Times, it makes sense that some readers do not trust what they see on the internet. But after reading the articles for this weeks class I now see that there are ways to review online sources in somewhat the same way as we do with books. I don’t know that I realized that before hand.

Also looking at the practicums one can see the difference a few years can make. The pages seemed to keep up with the times and posted information that was more relevant or that would appeal to the public’s interest at the time that it was posted. It was interesting to look through them and apply the reviews from the articles.

Published by


I am a graduate student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette studying Public History.

6 thoughts on “Better Late Than Never…I Hope.”

  1. I loved your reasoning for being able to view objects like the hope diamond from the convenience of your own home. Do you think that certain crowds of people (lets say people not trained in historical backgrounds) would gravitate toward seeing the objects in person and listening to tour guides interpretations?


    1. That’s a really good question, and one that I have two conflicting answers for. On the one hand I could see where someone without a historical background would rather go to the museum because they are seen as the beacon of knowledge for the topic or objects that they are using. Having someone go to the museum allows the visitor to see the object (how big is it, does it really shine, imagine themselves wearing it when it comes the the hope diamond). So I could answer that people rather in person exhibits for these reasons. On the other hand I could see where someone who thought of history as a hobby but not a profession might like the additional information that an online exhibit could give. There is less pressure to read quickly from behind your computer screen instead of in a museum setting with hundreds if not thousands of other people surrounding you. That could be overwhelming to some. I don’t know if that answer makes sense or not though. lol


  2. You made the comment that you did not realize that online sources could be evaluated in much the same way as a book. I had this same kind of aha moment if you will. I had never really thought of picking through an online work and looking at it that way. The way I always thought of evaluating online sources were just simply if it was on a credible site. There were a few digital sources that I knew were scholarly sources. Obviously if it was a .edu or .gov it can be viewed as good quality content, but I couldn’t ever really look at a regular site or an online exhibit or something and pull it apart and evaluate it. It was just something that had never occurred to me which is odd seeing as how I am in a digital public history course that I knew going in was going to teach us how to have a good, academic minded online presence. The articles this week were very helpful in showing me that online work can be something I can use later in life when trying to land a job because they can be as credible as anything else if done properly.


    1. I definitely agree. Most people learn in undergrad about .edu or .gov and not to use any wiki pages but not many seem to teach this technique which can also be applied to .edu or .gov pages as well. Thank you for your comment.


  3. It is nice to view an object without without having to make your way through a crowd of people. I think that online exhibits though, should provide an experience that is unique from what is presented at the actual museum and offer a different perspective on it. Digital history seems to be a field that is especially adept for innovation and creativity. In my opinion online exhibits should take advantage of the freedom being granted to them by digital technology that they may not have as much of in a physical setting. I really don’t spend much time viewing museum collections online, but it seems like some museums simply post the object on their website along with brief description without adding much to it. The public may be drawn to these digital displays more if they were provided with a greater opportunity for audience interaction. The criteria presented in some of the articles of how to evaluate digital history was useful because I also never really thought about what standards to use in reviewing digital history. It seems to me, like there’s more to take into consideration when evaluating digital history compared to what might be considered more traditional history such as books or journal articles because the information itself is not just a factor, but also the way that it is delivered to the viewer visually. So, basically I think this also means it can provide a more engaging experience for those who do not possess an inherent interest in history and as a result reach a more far-ranging audience that includes individuals who might not ever pick up a history book.


  4. Hey Abbie! Your comment on the Hope Diamond sparked some thought for me. Many times, you hear about the diamond or see a picture of it and it has this mythos of how fabulous it is behind it; but when I actually saw the hope diamond, for me, it did not live up to the hype. I wonder if digital tools can be misleading in this way. I also think the setting and experience that is provided at museums can affect how you view an object, and the crowds at the Smithsonians on a daily basis does not create the most ideal experience for viewing such a rare object.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s