Digital Humanities objective, is to foster and support creative, and diverse research projects.Software and coding can be used in a variety of ways to illustrate concepts and tell stories. The emphasis is not just on the content, but also on how to present it effectively to our viewing public and come up with more effective means of communicating these theories. 

The affordances of an open source mapping program mostly encircle the same idea of extra, more accessible information. While Google is great at showing what they think EVERYONE is interested in, an opensource map might be better for trying to find specific locations nearby (such as an auditorium in a school). Some drawbacks exist in the consistency and reliability of the map; with everyone having access to add to the map and no real verification, it leaves the map prone to misinformation, as well as clutter from too many locations being placed in one area.

I feel like spiral timelines would be quite difficult to read and rather hard to follow. The timelines that are linear and circular are much easier to understand and follow. All timeline designs, tasks  that depend on long-term memory performance are slower and less accurate, and I would think that since the spiral timeline is harder to read it would be harder to learn and memorize with spiral timelines.

A timeline is a demonstration of an event's chronologically along a drawn timeline that helps viewers rapidly comprehend temporal relationships. Timelines are very easy to read and quite simple. The prevalence of timelines, which is very high, is another factor contributing to the simplicity. Simple static visualisations are important in communication because almost everyone interacts with timelines on a daily basis. Whether it be a plan of your day, or learning about history.

I have never thought of having a circle or different form other than a line for a timeline. It intrigued me so I did some research to see if I could find any circle timelines that I would find interesting. Here are a few that I found interesting https://www.vectorstock.com/royalty-free-vector/full-year-circular-timeline-template-vector-25811470 https://slidemodel.com/templates/4-simple-circles-diagram-timeline-template/

I had not really given this much thought. I usually just listed events in a timeline in the order they occurred, but now I can see how much more significant timelines can be if they have a purpose. Tell a story of what happened rather than just listing facts.The fact that timelines provide context is one of the factors that makes them such an effective learning tool. They specifically provide students with a visual timeline of historical events. So adding images and other components may be crucial in the learning outcome.

Across these 25 years there are 1300 weeks. 9125 days. Approximately 219,125 minutes. We all know much history happened in this period of time, yet all that exists in this historical account is 60 words. Digital humanities has not only expanded our access to history, but also its scope, covering every small detail, compared to a paragraph's worth of words to describe a 25 year span. I really do appreciate the humourous contrast between year 710 and 712 however.

to be able to take this into VR would be a really cool experience, being able to walk around in a historical city and be completely immersed in it

I tried to look up the google fusion tables but I couldn't actually open it or get access to it. I kept ending up at 404 errors

I have liked this part of DH, making this website and using different tools is a like a little behind the scenes moment for scholars who use the same tools. You get to know what their limitations might have been using that application as well as what their process was like.

It's interesting to compare the authors take on online negativity and the perception of said negativity. Fully public forums (Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Facebook) are open to the public and can be the breeding grounds for some of the most intense negative feedback that humanity can conjure. Yet, here we have a semi closed off forum that still has that open negative criticism as a part of it. Even though the purpose of the forum here was for feedback, in which criticism is a major part of that, it seems that anything online that connects humans to DH or almost any subjective (and sometimes objective) piece can draw out more negativity than positivity. In the real world, it would seem that the reverse holds true. Maybe because we can't see the other person beyond the screen and that drives us to speak our inner most thoughts?

My prediction on this topic is that DH will slowly become more and more prevalent as the old version of humanities becomes a thing of the past. My reasoning behind this is that we as a species tend to ( for the vast majority ) use whatever technology is easiest and most efficient to use. Take for example the fact that we no longer record our thoughts, facts and feelings on stone tablets. We moved on from a more primitive technology onto something more modern (parchment, paper, ect.). That being said, we still do record certain pieces of information into stone to this day (Gravestones, markings, ect.), however, its use has drastically diminished since times past. Relating this back to our current climate, I foresee us always having a place for physical humanities, as we are physical beings, but that the need for such physical representations will diminish just as the need for stone tablets did so long ago.

I agree to the statement this sentence is trying to convey. Digital Humanities have shaken the academic life not only on such a large scale but also in such a short period of time. My parents never had the opportunities in the digital space that I do today, and, I would imagine that may yet be the same for my own children as compared to myself one day.

It's amazing to think about how the digital landscape has ballooned from something no one really used, to a massive part of nearly every humans daily life.

This is a comment on the whole concept really, but the best thing I ever did for myself in terms of gaining a better understanding of data and how to interpret it was to take a research and methods design class, and of course statistics as well. It helped me understand why researchers choose certain ways to represent data, and understand that to the untrained eye, data can be manipulated to seemingly prove almost any point. It is our responsibility to be clear and honest in our presentation of data. Kind of a "with great power comes great responsibility" moment. Because unfortunately, if you throw some statistics around people assume you must know what you are talking about, and often take it at face value without doing their own research, so it is incredibly easy to mislead and misinform the masses in this way.

I think this is super important to the understanding and analysis of data. Looking at a single group of information can skew your perspective on the scope of that data-sets impact. Being able to collect multiple sets of data and then use that information to essentially gather all new data is the heart of data analysis. To look at datasets in singular vacuums would depreciate the value of the data as a whole,

This is a very poetic way to look at data, I like how the writer points out that data not only tells a story, but that story/perspective can change based on who is analyzing the data. I think that sort of opens up data to a realm of understanding for the humanities, as data is often looked at as a specific set of information with a singular point to be made. This opens data to a realm of analysis that I feel is often overlooked

I find this is where a lot of the disconnect happens in the digital world. It is hard to think of the digital community as a part of 'reality'. But more and more it is becoming the case that the digital space is becoming more 'real' than the physical, as people get most of their interactions through a screen these days. for some reason though we spend our lives in a digital space we still find it hard to relate to digital information, like data.

This is so important, especially in this age of fake news and misinformation. It's easy to skew statistical messages such as if your data says 1 out of every 10 million people will die from a drug and then new data says it is now 2 people. This is not significant statistically speaking but if one says, over the last year deaths have doubled with this medication, that sounds very alarming; it really misconstrues the meaning of the data, thus being able to look at raw data is crucial.

I love the use of colour in graphics as it simplifies the information, allowing me to process it quickly and meaningfully.

It isn't just a matter of if the data is accurate because how you present the data can completely skew the message accuracy. For example if you change the range of interval numbers on a bar graph you can make the bars look very different from each other to just a little different. You haven't falsified the data and yet the message looks more or less extreme because of how you presented it.

I've never thought about it like this, but I like this idea. I have huge problems with sorting information without visual input, and honestly, my emotions are no different. Charts would be a fun way to explore feelings that might offer a better understanding of oneself. I wonder if someone could incorporate something like this into counselling practice.

Yes, context is huge when looking at statistics. Percentages and mean numbers can often be misleading. The other thing to keep in mind is that a statistically significant result only means that the group in question is different from the comparison group, not that it has a large effect on the said group. For example, say a group of researchers got a significant result when comparing anxiety rates between 2 groups, but the effect size was very small. This would mean that, yes, on average, one group is more anxious than the other, but it is just a slight increase in low-level stress. When reading the research papers, it's essential to understand how they measure the data they collected and look at the numbers and the researchers' interpretation of those numbers and why they think it is important.

What about the black strip on your driver's license, bank card, health care card? Isn't metadata embedded in these strips and what information is embedded? I asked my bank that question once and they said they had no idea. Who has access to this information and is anyone regulating what information can be encoded on these strips?

Until this week, I had no idea what metadata was. I have friend who is an expert in DAM, digital asset management and I had no idea what he did in his work. I like the simplicity of realizing that metadata is akin to the Dewey decimal system and the library borrowing cards that used to be found in books.

Okay this sort of metadata seems inherently useful to me in ways that other types don't. If someone who is trying to get into photography and is just learning or self taught could see the settings and cameras used to create images that they admire by other photographers it could give them a starting point to gaining a better understanding, if they don't just have that innate sense that some photographers seem to be gifted with.

Even though it is saying the same thing, this is way less daunting than opening some of the files for Dublin Core and trying to make sense of the tables and tables of info. Even though it is put as plainly as possible in most cases it still seemed like it could easily become overwhelming

This reminds me of the front and back of house concept. Where data makes up the front of house, and metadata the back. So depending on which end you work, dictates the data you see or work with first. for example say the data is a photo, a viewer would access the data first (most likely) and could then move towards metadata if they so chose. The photographer however would be most familiar with the files, editing, location etc, that is all related to the meta data first. This idea sort of helps me structure the two in my mind better. Maybe the idea might help a few others to wrap their brains around the idea of data/metadata

This actually shocked me a bit. When I think spread sheeets I think excel, and Excel has always been one of my biggest struggles with the Microsoft Office Suite programs. I sort of subconsciously assumed a program set up to organize and create raw data, would have a decent amount of meta data attached to it as well. That being the opposite of the truth makes me think I need to restructure my perspective on the relationship between data and meta data.

I feel like I always thought of this type of information listing as a standard practice to fill out a screen, I never really looked at information as basic as this as data. I think some of my classmates would agree as well, based on some of there previous annotations on this article. I think that highlights how closed minded peoples perspective of what qualifies as data, and what data can be, really is. Data can be super complex, but its nice to see it presented in a simple form like this, to sort of concretize what data and metadata really means without having to analyze code

This really shows how extensive metadata is. The top four items are something I use pretty regularly and was not aware was metadata until the week. In contrast, the bottom three on the list are more what I expected and leaves me feeling quite confused. I would love to one day not feel so freaked out by this type of metadata.

This kinda blew my mind a little bit. I never thought of a book as containing metadata. I think I had the perception that metadata was much more complex and foreign than it is. Finding out that I have been using metadata all this time was shocking and relieved my anxiety around learning this topic.

China has facial recognition everywhere and it is even designed to detect the faces of Uyghurs, which are a Muslim people currently being persecuted and tortured by the government. Facial recognition is being used more and more everywhere and it is scary to me. Also, few people think twice about having smart homes that do what you tell them to while recording everything you say and do! The consequences of our lack of foresight and interest in our rights and privacy could one day spell serious problems for us.... ask the Uyghurs.

I did a google search of words like "women should" or should not and found that google seems to have cleaned up their algorithm as it is far less derogatory. Interestingly, men should' had more female dominance associated with it. Also I did the same searches on duck duck go and found all of the discrimination and sexism that used to be on google. One link that came up consistently was for debate.org and have archived posts about women being slaves, beneath men etc. which was shocking and upsetting.

This would be ideal, and classes like this are a step in the right direction, as are the guest lectures often provided by university librarians in entry level courses. Sadly though it is simply not a realistic goal, at least not at present, with so many other hurdles to overcome. But, maybe something like the tutorials that new programs and apps take you through, there could be a sort of introduction to search engines whenever one is used/set up on a new device? Although if it is not in the company's best interest to have the public understand how they are being lead by the nose...it is not likely they will make that change.

Cue me going on a side search about how a decimal system we all probably grew up using could be a vehicle of racism and misrepresentation my little book-nerd mind is not ready

I found these results particularly interesting, as there is a scientific standard for beauty and recognizing beauty that can be seen across, race, gender, ethnicity, etc. ( you can find some articles related to that here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15085778/). Considering that you might think the algorithm or 'science' of the search engine would reflect that phenomenon.

This portion here reminds me of a show on Netflix , Coded Bias, where in one particular episode a black developer is working on creating a facial recognition A.I. and was struggling to make it work, until she realized the program could only accurately identify white faces, due to the database for facial recognition for most part uses mostly white faces. She discovered that wearing a white mask would make her program work, but it would not recognize her own face. This I think helps support the idea presented in this article that programs themselves can be made racist with racial bias, regardless of the users interacting and creating with them.

Black fetishization is often toted as black acceptance, and is a big part of what makes me fear this new wave of acceptance is temporary and conditional to a certain type of black. African Americans with the correct combination of 'blackisms' are genuinely trending across many internet platforms, and I would like to hope that its a doorway to true acceptance, but its still a controversial space to exsist in

This line particularly hit me, as a 'black girl' I have been googling this most of my life. At least anecdotally, I have seen a relative evolution of this search and have felt some of its impact. My family and I were often the only black people in the towns we grew up in, and I used the internet a lot to try and find out what people thought of me. I saw a lot of really negative opinions and did everything I could to reject the 'black stereotype' people always expected of me because I didn't want to be hated or thought of as 'that kind of black'. Now I know the internet, and google in particular, brings up a lot more positivity when it comes to black women, but it feels like whiplash. The kind of content that comes up, though more positive makes me fear the change is due to a marketing trend and not a true social change

I can't believe that people are still thinking this way. Suggestions such as women cannot drive or be trusted and they should stay at home and be put in their places are not ones that we should be hearing anymore. Men and women are supposed to be viewed as equal and it shocked me that these came up as autosuggestions on Google Search. That shows that there is still a ways to go to fully achieve gender equality.

This. It is important to recognize that most things in this world is made for cishet white men. For example, VR headsets have a tendency to make women nauseous because pupil distance on these headsets is set to that of the average man. Most personal protective equipment is designed with men in mind, and as such, women have higher rates of workplace injury or impeded workplace performance. Crash test dummies are made with men in mind, and as such, women are at higher risk of injury or death if in a car crash. People can say discrimination isn't a thing in 1st world countries anymore, but it is hard to deny inequality when you see these statistics. https://venturebeat.com/2020/07/05/a-survey-about-vr-sickness-and-gender/ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes

To me, these results are not shocking in any way. I used to work as a commercial transport mechanic, and derogatory things were said to me all the time. Something like: "you should be in the kitchen," "you should be having your husbands kids," "I'm going to put you in your place." While campaigns like this are good in that they address an issue, I find it slightly problematic. I am not alone in the discrimination I faced, women have been saying for decades, hey we aren't being treated right, but people still deny that inequality is a thing. I do not deny that it is good to address these issues, but the more significant underlying problem is that much of society does not view women as human and thus does not listen to them.

This is absolutely fascinating. Being able to use statistics to analyze the trajectory of one's life through topic modelling. Martha's workload and emotions graphically increase through the years and I can envision using this type of tool in my future work as a therapist in evaluating the client's progress or helping them to see their progress based on their change in language over time in their journals. It could also be used to alert of downward trends in one's mental health that might otherwise be subtle or even help a client to visually recognize their greatest challenges so they can use that info. to focus their therapy and assist with life choices.

This Gallery is fantastic! I love how it is organized by themes and interests and there is so much information within each level. I was in grade 12 when the Berlin Wall fell so I remember watching it on the news. At that time my knowledge of the event was the 5 minute news feed and all that stands out to me now is the image of all the young people cheering and celebrating. It's amazing how much more knowledge all of us can access now about important events. Unless a person has no computer/ internet access we have such rich opportunities to learn, as never before in history.

I would love to try and emulate something like this for my final project, but I don't know if it's a reasonable goal with the time constraints. Do you think pulling off something like this (smaller scale, but similar layout style) is possible in the time frame we have?

Something like this seems so ambitious, I am surprised it seems to use fairly minimal programming (maybe it's deceptively simple?). I find this layout of information so engaging, especially for a younger audience, I think it could be and probably is very successful.

This definitely applies to me. In working with omeka I felt I had to decide what I was going to do with my subdomain before I was able to create it, and without knowing what I was really going into, I felt I had to make decisions just to change them later, because I didn't know what I was working with yet.

This post is an incredible resource in and of itself for folks who are just taking their first cautious steps into creating DH projects. I have it bookmarked now and fully intend to spend a lot of time following all of these links, not to mention checking out the specific projects used as examples. It really does seem great for an accessible, easy "how to" and "what you need" type of thing. I think after reading this one myself and many of my classmates will feel as though a veil has been lifted in terms of understanding the goals of the course.

I got really excited about a project idea that ties in historical sites, people, and events with a mapping system and a time-lapse so that you could see how a given city/country etc changes through history but if 3D modelling is as painful as it sounds I am going to have to set my sites a heck of a lot lower, as there is no way I could learn enough to pull that all together in under 2 weeks. But maybe one day I will do it anyhow.

Not usually one for this type of visual web, but I love this one for how it can be used, in addition to simply being interesting to see. Could be a great way to discover confirmation bias at play, if for instance people with opposing views are never referenced together. It could also simply serve as a way to find "other authors you might like," who write on similar topics to those you already have a founded interest in.

These exhibits are just so fascinating! I love these kinds of projects and browse them whenever I get a chance. I find that studying history can sometimes be a little dry. However, these exhibits give you a more visual and interactive experience where I feel like I experience a lot more of what a person went through. When I put myself into the shoes of those we learn about in history (rather than just reading about them), I enjoy and absorb so much more information.

This website is what I kept picturing when I heard the words "digital humanities project". This is like most of the websites I have interacted with, with posts on the main page and categorized tabs at the top for anything else you are looking for. I think I could probably branch out and explore different ones now that I know the wide variety out there.

I think that this idea for a digital project is really interesting. I like that they have mapped it out and you can click on a point to filter by state or establishment type to zero in on what interests you. I never thought that a digital humanities project could look like this. I think it is really cool how different all of these projects are on this site, yet they all fall under the umbrella of digital humanities.

I am usually that person who likes to know what they're getting into before they start. I like to know what skills I need as well so I can see if I will be able to do it easily or if it will be more of a learning curve. I definitely did not know anything about digital humanities before I started this class, but I am learning with each exercise we do. I think a lot of people like to be confident in what they are doing so to have some idea of what they are going to do and what skills they need is reassuring.

It's nice to see an example of this through our other reading, to get an idea of exactly how a mapping tool can be implemented to further the study of humanities. I also think seeing the 'how-to' break down of this really opens up my understanding of this section by melding the concept and the application together, expanding my overall grasp of the topic.

I find this part interesting as annotating is often seen as an individual or personal practice, and opening the format up to a more communal perspective and allowing for others opinions to inform your own thoughts, really evolves the practice of annotating. This evolution could expose some interesting developments in our own reflective process. I know reading my fellow classmates annotations on these readings has definitely informed some of my opinions, as well as allowed me some insight into how my impressions of the article compare to my classmates.

I I have used programs like this while doing school online this past year. I had a teacher that only uploaded audio files for our class, and it was tough for me personally to take notes without visual cues. So my solution was to run it through a voice-to-text recognition program and then clean up the notes. It was by no means perfect, and I still put a lot of time into fixing the notes, but it worked way better for me than trying to take notes while listening to the audio.

I think that technology has developed to the point that it is both a tool and an environment. When I use it to write a paper, it is a tool, but it becomes an environment when using it to interact with my classmates. Things like search engines are more ambiguous. They are a tool in how they help me achieve the goal of finding what I am looking for, but they immerse me into the environment created by websites and documents. Things like google street view are, without a doubt, in my mind, a tool and environment. They both help me find the place I was looking for and immerse me into the environment and visually experience it.

I would argue that the computer itself is a tool rather than an environment, while the internet is the environment of the digital age. If I have a computer but no internet, sure I can type out my thoughts or read something I have downloaded, but I cannot contribute to or connect with community or peers. To my mind, an environment facilitates real-time exchange of ideas, while tools simply allow us to better access information and/or environments.

It makes sense that this is possible, but I had truly never considered it and I wish they said more about it. I am definitely going to do a deep-dive on this, as I find it intriguing. I am imagining whether it is note-matching only, or if these programs source instrumental sound bytes? Also, the fact that it doesn't just convert it for listening, but makes it editable too!

I had never really wondered about the origins of tags and hashtags, even though I knew they were a somewhat recent phenomenon in terms of use by the general population. But this made me wonder if it happened as a result of the already common practice of tagging in code, or if it developed on its own. Turns out, we owe it all to programmers and wildfires!

Blogging is a convenient way to get information out to an audience. Rather than letter-writing or phone, and then into email and chat rooms, blogging allows you to share information and knowledge by posting your thoughts. It can stay up for as long as you like, allowing a variety of people to view it. I think it is a way to share your ideas and get information out faster.

I do not think the term homo faber, or human as maker has become meaningless because of the digital world of the web and 3D printing. The digital is using that term in a different way. Yes, digital things are done online with the help of certain tools and software, but it is still the human behind the screen. It is the human as maker with the ideas and creativity for these new digital concepts and the ability and knowledge to develop them. People can use the digital to enhance their ideas.

I think it is true that for the most part the environments of the humanities have been things like the scholar's desk, lecture halls, campuses, and convention halls. In the last little bit there has been a shift from these environments in that the digital has now come in to play. I agree that the digital tools carry on the same functions as traditional humanities in comparable ways. We are still learning about the humanities by using a digital form, it is just a newer way of presenting them.

I hadn't known how Edward Snowden had obtained all of his information. This is a very compelling account of how DH is used to shape the world. In a remarkably Monday morning quarterback kind of a way, it seems crazy to me that nobody in the CIA thought that a version of Snapchat for sensitive documents was a bad idea. I have always been told that everything on the internet is permanent, so the fact that a place dealing with highly sensitive info could think that was a good idea is baffling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we should always be doing this. Every class I have taken at UNBC emphasizes that you should write all your papers as though the person reading them has no prior knowledge of the field, and your intro or abstract should have the hook and explain the importance of the research, no?

I feel like this is the ideal that we strive for when we talk about "engaging critically with the material." When you are actively contributing to the work that you are studying.

I would agree that this definition is much to narrow for digital humanities. This definition focuses too heavily on the method or the 'what' of DH as opposed to the engagement or the 'why' of DH. Humanities has never been solely about the creation of things, it has been about the interaction with the creation within the communities surrounding it, and how that develops new and interesting thoughts, ideas etc.

Is this a good way to look at our blogs that we are creating for this course?

I think that writing in a way that is accessible is very important and a large part of why we have so many science deniers in this day and age. We aren't writing in a way that less educated people can understand. However, I find the statement that blogging "means that you have to translate your work from academese to language that non-academics will understand" to be an oversimplification of a complex problem. Certainly, people should always try to do this. However, I can imagine a world where people wouldn't bother taking the time to do this or try but fail to do this because they have no concept of simple language. Because there is no authority telling people what they can do, I do not think that blogging would eliminate this problem.

I agree that it will change the way you write. Because you are using a blogging platform you already know someone is going to read it or at least that is the goal. One of the main things I have learned in digital humanities so far is that there are different ways to do things. Writing for a blog or website is one of those different ways. Because you can use hyperlinks, add audio, or add video you need to be very clear in what you want to say in case some readers don't click on these links. They are added tools you can use to enhance your writing that you would not be able to get with a written paper but you have to engage your reader enough to want to click on them.

I completely agree that technology has changed the way we read, write, and learn. You can do all three of those things using a computer nowadays. I am doing it right now to write this post. In any assignment I get in a class I immediately go to online articles for research or start typing up notes on my laptop. I was not always so dependent upon it, when I was younger we used books and notebooks. Kids today are growing up with it almost right away though. I think everything is going to continue to be done digitally because that seems to be where we are heading. Technology links the components of digital humanities together and in the article Brett Bobley describes it as a game changer. I think that it is as well because we are learning new things and are going to be able to use the humanities in different ways.

I love that this referenced digital humanities as a unicorn. Being a unicorn sometimes means that the thing, in this case digital humanities, is desired but difficult to obtain. I could see that being true because everyone uses a computer these days so more and more people are looking for someone who knows how to work one and what they can do with it. I don't think it is super difficult to obtain, more that not everyone really understands what digital humanities is. I had no idea what it was I signed up for the course because I wanted to learn more. I think that everyone can learn how to participate in digital humanities especially since it is becoming more and more prevalent.

This is extremely relatable even still, and one of the main things I think is cool about programs like hypothes.is. I know we have 2 English Profs auditing this class, but as much as I love literature, one of the main reasons I switched out of the English program was because I felt like unless I became an author of original content myself, I would just be wasting time re-hashing the same theories that hundreds of others have had before me about the same handful of classic works that everybody had studied and that I would thus never create or contribute anything to the world. This stuff seems like the path away from that inevitability.

I love seeing an old method, program, or way of doing things stand the test of time and remain unbeaten through years of innovation. It's just really cool to see something make such a lasting mark, as well as often seeing people decades or centuries later (though not in computer context) go back to traditional/basic methods because they just work better.

I mean I have always known that the authorship of many influential works, both fictional and otherwise are/were hotly contested, and that many took it upon themselves to discover once and for all the given authors identity, but I did not realize that even that far back, it was done so scientifically! With computers and statistical analysis, when I would have pictured the earliest debates on these topics to be mainly "who is most likely?" "who stands to gain/lose the most?" "who shares these opinions?"

Humanities ( the study, and the race) tendency to remain 'meta' and tear itself a part for study has always been on of my favorite aspects of the arts. I love how a tool with the intention of preserving and documenting the humanities has evolved into an area of study within the humanities, with both sides, the tool and the topic, continuing to develop around each other

The focus on a community sharing information going back to before the internet really shows how crucial community is to the humanities. Other studies can have an individual break through, where one person is for the most part responsible. But with Humanities, the discussion is so important to its development, that there can't really be progress without collaboration within the community.

I find it fascinating that so many new ideas within the humanities, seem to be directly connected to the church

This is so interesting. I believe that covid-19 has driven us even further towards using the internet for colaborative purposes. Everyone who possibly could work from home did. This meant that teams had to colaborate over the internet. Even in this course we are colaborating and sharing knowledge through the internet. As time progresses and restrictions lift it will be interesting to see how covid-19 has impacted our job structures and digital humanities as a whole.

I had not thought about how important the invention of personal computers was for innovation, but it makes sense. When you own a macheine instead of using an establishments, you would have less restrictions about how you could use it.

My mom and dad still have their old tapes but we never use them anymore. I also remember burning cd's but we never use them either. The phone has taken over and we just use aux or bluetooth to connect to speakers. I doubt I would ever use a CD again unless I find an old movie, but the computers barely even have a slot to load them anymore since people use netflix and other websites to watch shows and movies.

I did not think that computers were more expensive back then than they are now. If you look at iMac's and MacBook airs, they are well in the 2000 dollar range if you buy them brand new. Prices of phones, tablets and computers have gone up considerably so I wonder how much they were valued at in the 80s and 90s.

I like the part that says "if any single-word term can be used to describe this period, it would almost certainly be "consolidation"". Computers have not been around for very long but their technology very quickly started advancing. Everything was then consolidated into one place: the computer. It seems like in the 70's and 80's people began to realize what a computer could do for them. I think it is interesting that the "diffusion of knowledge" was not just done through computers, it was still being done at conferences as well. People were using a combination of computers, technology, and conferences to share their knowledge. I think that is a piece of what digital humanities is.

I did not know that humanities computing had a very distinct beginning. I do not know much about it yet, that is why I am in this class. But a lot of other disciplines have an undetermined beginning or at most some educated guesses so I think that this discipline having a well-known beginning is very interesting.

I did not know that the most influential investigation was carried in the 60s because I would have thought that it would be later on when technology was more prevalent. I just google searched the image of the old mechanical calculators and it is interesting to see how that big box became so advanced. Imagine carrying that to a math exam! The dials on it look confusing since you have to turn them. It is fascinating to see how much technology advances and how it becomes faster and faster.

If you are interested in tracking the origins of scientific concepts, and aren't completely sick of hearing about covid-19, I highly recommend giving this article a read, it details the origin of a major mistake that we based a LOT of the early covid-19 safety protocols off of!

This idea is really cool to me, both for the increased understanding it can offer us into battles of the past, as well as for the implications it could have on the future. This is not to say that I hope we utilize these programs to give ourselves the best advantage in war, because ideally, we shouldn't be in any. Moreso (and i imagine it is already in use) it can aid us with city planning, running algorithms and 'what-if' scenarios regarding natural disasters for instance, in order to better prepare before we begin a project. What comes to mind first is development of earthquake-resistant foundations for buildings. I think digital mapping allows us to make changes and walk through such physical scenarios with much greater ease than any previous method.

Much like tparmar's comment, some of the professors I have had were not very willing to use technology. This was either because they did not know how or just did not like to use it. I think with the way things are going people are going to have to start using technology or at least know how to use it in order to do some things. Especially with this last year when everything was online many had no choice. A lot of professors I had learned new things by doing class online and also used different apps and modes of communication. Maybe it was not that they were uninterested in the digital humanities, it was more that they were unfamiliar with it and now that everyone has learned some of the basics it could continue into in-person things. I know that I had no idea what digital humanities could do and now that we have started talking about it I am excited to learn more.

I like the way this was worded. I think that some people view digital media as an end and so there is not much you can do with it. What people are forgetting is that if digital media is a means, then that means there are so many things you could do with it and directions you could take. Digital media is the means to spark inspiration and generate new ideas on different subjects. It is also a different way to deliver things that could be more effective for some audiences.

I agree that the latest frontier is about method. Methods change all the time with new ideas and developments taking place in every field. I think it is important to keep up with the changes and stay relevant because if you refuse to adapt a little bit you could lose some of your audience. Since scholars are using digitized materials that previous humanities scholars did not have they can take things to the next level and keep learning. Their work can be shown off in new and exciting ways.

This here presents how DH can push discussion and really open up new realms of study. Before the use of DH we could only study the enlightenment through its representation and documentation through text and history. With the additional data provided, that contradicts the representation of the enlightenments beginnings, scholars could now look at the previous documentation and representation with a new lens, contemplating why the seeming discrepancy is there, was it intentional, and so on. As the article stated earlier, DH is "the means not the ends" and to get the most out of these new ideas and discoveries, collaboration between the two classes of humanities is really needed to embrace these new avenues to there full potential

I love how Digital humanities allows for a non-linear study of history. Traditionally, history is very much looked at in terms of narrative, timeline, sequential actions. This example of the works of Abraham Lincoln, shows how DH can fragment history in interesting ways to pull historical significance out of very small fragments, as opposed to analyzing the whole.

This perspective on the use of DH concerns me somewhat, as it suggests that the study of the tapestry can be done solely through the digitized version, with more success than an individual could get from studying the large tapestry in person. This idea represents a concern I am developing (while reading this article) of the combative relationship between traditional and digital humanities. Separating the two approaches to humanities into there own boxes to individually develop, could damage the study of humanities all together. I see extreme potential in DH, and obviously there must be something to it or we wouldn't be studying it academically. But the idea of jumping into one boat (DH) to leave behind the 'old way of thinking' could close off a lot of avenues of study and discovery, for the sake of being progressive.

I would argue that such research is still vital. Digital humanities, like much of academia, comes from a colonial base. Colonialism has enforced an idea of European superiority, and like all other academia coming from a colonial base, digital humanities has played a role in upholding these ideals (Risam, 2018). However, there is a move within digital humanities to decolonize the field (Risam, 2018). For example, the Mukurtu Content Management System has given Indigenous communities the power to ensure that proper cultural guidelines are followed when their cultural heritage is shared (Risam, 2018). I genuinely believe that these types of projects are one of the reasons digital humanity research is so important. I think that the unique ability that technology gives us to share information provides us with a chance to counteract the colonial ideal, increase cultural understanding, and tell histories less told.

Risam, R. (2018). Decolonizing the Digital Humanities in Theory and Practice. In J. Sayers (Eds.), The Routledge companion to media studies and digital humanities (pp. 78-86). Routledge.

I certainly think this is something that is forgotten about in the sciences. However, from my experiences, I have found that much of psychological research and biological research is about how a person interprets the results.

I certainly think this is something that is forgotten about in the sciences. However, from my experiences, I have found that much of psychological research and biological research is about how a person interprets the results.

I would argue that such research is still vital. Digital humanities, like much of academia, comes from a colonial base. Colonialism has enforced an idea of European superiority, and like all other academia coming from a colonial base, digital humanities has played a role in upholding these ideals (Risam, 2018). However, there is a move within digital humanities to decolonize the field (Risam, 2018). For example, the Mukurtu Content Management System has given Indigenous communities the power to ensure that proper cultural guidelines are followed when their cultural heritage is shared (Risam, 2018). I genuinely believe that these types of projects are one of the reasons digital humanity research is so important. I think that the unique ability that technology gives us to share information provides us with a chance to counteract the colonial ideal, increase cultural understanding, and tell histories less told.

Risam, R. (2018). Decolonizing the Digital Humanities in Theory and Practice. In J. Sayers (Eds.), The Routledge companion to media studies and digital humanities (pp. 78-86). Routledge.

Just in general, I didn't have a lot of annotations here because a lot of this is very simple, straightforward design advice. It is presented very well, in casual but informative language, but most of these ideas were not new to me as someone who's studied statistics and art.

Nice! I love the double-purpose of the legend. It's very clever and space-conscious.

Ironically, what is being praised here would have had me losing marks in my statistics class. I guess it really depends on the subject, as well as the difference in scale. Because while 1 to 100 is very doable here, if you have data that can range from 1 to 10,000.... things get harder. I do appreciate this though. It is easier to compare.

This marriage of data and art - and by extension, STEM fields and arts/humanities fields - is everything I want to see in academia. How much more engaging, and therefore effective, would academia be if people really presented their work? Would chemistry still put me to sleep? I don't think so.

I had NO IDEA this was a media of art that could be explored! I don't feel like I'm nearly creative enough to come up with an idea, but I would love to do a project like this in the future!

The best part of this graphic is the emphasis on men and women - someone untrained in statistics or graphs may have trouble seeing how "women live longer" because the lines do eventually merge - the emphasis shows where in the graph they should be looking to fully understand it.

This is so incredibly cool and is such a god study into the human experience of feeling like you're the only one experiencing something, while it is statistically likely that someone else is going through the exact same thing. Unrelated, the colours they chose are great too. Very 90s.

This ties in with last weeks annotations, where I talked about the inherent political nature of data/algorithms. This is the same idea, except I believe the author is going to put a more positive spin on things.

Figure 1-6 and 1-7 look very different, and it could be hard to see that they are documenting the same set of data. This manipulation of data and how it is viewd can be used for very specific intents. If I wanted a client to see that my business has a consistent viewer rate, I would show them them figure 1-7's monthly chart, because of how smooth it looks. To me at first glance, it seems much more "consistent" than figure 1-6, with all of its spikes.

This is also an important part of marketing. While there is a specific "thing" or "data" that is being produced, the facts are not necessarily all that you're looking for. You want to look at how this connects to the readers or buyers, what it makes them feel and think. Ultimately, the goal is to make these people buy into the thing/idea etc. being sold, .

I think the whole idea of visualizations and statistics is to create something relateable. Without providing context there would be no way for the general public to interact with the data without intense reading and critical analysis. And, let's be honest, who really wants to do that much thinking about every little thing? Creating visualizations help us all to understand complex ideas easier.

It also helps us to visualize these complex data sets to see patterns and themes that could have otherwise been overlooked. Not only do these visualizations help the general public to understand, it also helps professionals in their field analyze data within different contexts to see all of the potential.

Labelling axis works to contextualize the data being presented, but sometimes the axis is not clear. It makes it so difficult to read a graph when the axis is a long drawn out sentence or uses jargon to define. If it is made for the public to be reading it, it needs to be easily understandable. Just as the design needs clarity, so do the axis.

This seems like one of the most important parts of data analysis. If people can not understand the way you have presented your data then all your hard work is worthless. This seems to especially ring true when it comes to more complex graphics. Even if it is pretty if it can not be read than it is not helpful or functional.

Relationships in data also create a greater understanding of the data in general. By having the causation or the correlation element present with the rest of the data, it can help prove or explain why something has happened or what it effects. Without supporting data information, in some cases it can be very difficult to understand, Data sets with relationship provide a fuller understanding of the data being presented.

It is so easy to forget that data statistics are all rooted in real life events. Whether its due to the separation in time from the event to us or a difference in a people group, it is often so difficult to grasp how real these stats are. However, this data represents human lives and experiences. For some people, certain data stats can have great meaning due to the direct impact on their lives, or the lives of those they love.

I believe this is very important. I think a lot of people tend to forget who they are presenting to, and lots of the valuable information goes to waste. In m Health Care Systems class we were always presented with lots of statistical data but nothing was every explain nor was the source the data was collected from presented so it seemed very misleading. Lots of numbers were thrown around without a true explanation given. After reading through this article, it seems more information was needed for both the students and the professor to understand the information provided.

This reminds me of Organic Chemistry labs. When data points don't make sense, something must have gone wrong in the experiment. It was vital to ensure that the source was found to determine if it would effect the results or if the experiment needed to be redone.

I wonder why bubbles were used instead of a geographical map displaying the percent? I know it mentions how it puts people to sleep, but wouldn't this be more confusing?

This seems extremely difficult to follow. I'm wondering how people who are colour blind might interpret this chart due to the similar colours used to display the stats.

I didn't want to highlight this entire paragraph, but wow. This sort of academia is what I was hoping to find in Gender Studies at UNBC (which I attended 3-4 classes of before the Professor's internalized transphobia became a part of the curriculum and I dropped out, disappointed both in the course and the professor). I don't really have anything academic or at least intelligent to add here. I just love being able to see Black Feminist views represented in my own schooling. Diversity is so incredibly important.

This is not a term I have seen in my own activism but it's one I want to start using. Capitalism does function to increase profits by any means necessary - and the oppression of people of colour - and particularly Black Americans - is very profitable. First slavery, of course - but now the porn industry as mentioned in this chapter, among other things.

It's incredible to see determination and activism included in this chapter. Even just reading it makes me feel a little hopeless; like activists are always fighting uphill - or up a cliff. I'm glad the author is so determined. It brings me hope for future activism, both in academia and out.

And outside of technology! Feminism as a movement is notoriously white. We will always need Black women, and Hispanic women, and women of all races and/or ethnicities in feminism and academia as a whole. Feminism that excludes any woman is not feminism.

This is also why Amazon Alexa, Google Home, and other "smart homes" are absolutely terrifying. Technological dystopia hellscape! Technological dystopia hellscape!

I have been trying to avoid the word "money" in my annotations to avoid coming off as anti-capitalist as I really am, but yes: Corporations do not give a care about individuals or marginalized groups outside of how they can profit off of their oppression. Remember this June; this Pride Month; that any company selling you rainbow merchandise is not doing it out of legitimate care about LGBTQ+ rights but because it's profitable! Yes, even if they're giving 20% of proceeds to charity - where do you think the other 80% goes?

Hypothes.is doesn't like to let me annotate over page breaks, but this annotation is for the whole sentence.

This doesn't really surprise me, given the over-representation of Black Americans in prisons now (The Central Park 5 are just the tip of the iceberg of wrongfully convicted Black (and Hispanic) Americans, but they come to mind). Even an algorithm built on "apolitical" data would represent this racist trend.

This ties in really nicely and furthers my last annotation about newspapers: anything created by humans is likely political in some sense. The picture of apoliticalness (which is not a real word, but I can't find a better one) is perhaps a robot, but we have seen robots built to deter homeless people from setting up camp in certain areas, which is a very political move. It's important to be aware that behind anything - even the things you enjoy - is a person, and you may not even know their motivations for what they do.

They mentioned above that "Problematic representations and biases in classifications are not new," and I find that works well in tandem with this segment as well, because this quote also applies to the news. People see news and newspapers as apolitical; simply reporting events. Reporting is inherently political, and news stations and newspapers are endorsed or sponsored by politicians/political parties. They can still be credible sources, but I am always keenly aware of the type of language used in their articles.

After explaining the premise of this chapter, I read this line to my dad, saying I have experiences similar things (once again, with pornographic fandom content featuring children's cartoons or child characters), and he started talking about how "it depends on the search terms used." I'm a little shocked that he isn't bothered in the slightest that the search term "black girls" returns nothing but porn, but I guess that certainly tells you something about white men in our society.

That's a biiiiiig field of study. That's basically all of history; all of gender studies; all of queer studies.... etc etc. We should always be trying to further understand bigotry so that we can further combat it, but it feels like a never-ending task to me.

In the words of Heather Heyer: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." I find it hard to miss the sexism in our society, let alone others in the world. If all it takes is some search autofills to make you see that women's rights are still an issue, you weren't paying nearly enough attention already. I find it kind of sad that this project had such an easy time shocking people; and that it's such an easy project to do in the first place.

This is an interesting fact, usually when I think of visualization and data I go to the classic default charts and data. I'll have to keep this iin mind.

I really like this because I don't see it often and it actually does draw my eye to the data and capture my interest.

This reminds me of this Reddit page

The page takes pictures and texts from other Reddit pages and uses it to create computer generated posts and comments. It is interesting to see the intelligence and quality of understanding grow as it gathers more and more information.

If the majority rules search engine results, the majority could also rule over the content. if the majority of the online population are sexist, then the majority of the results when searching even a simple/general term such as "cars" could be more searched by men, but also have more content created by men, especially men who are "middle class" or higher who could afford to purchase a car and own a technology capable of using a search engine.

It makes me think... What searches would come from people who were struggling financially and did not usually have access to a computer? What would they search first? And how would that impact the popular searches and content?

The majority of Canada's populace are not low income, but what would happen to results in other countries (or even ours)where low income is the majority, and they were all given access to search technologies?

• I wanted to highlight the previous sentence as well, but for some reason it wouldn't let me*

I understand why the author is troubled by the campaign's opinion of "It's not the search engines fault". It makes it seem as if there was nothing that could be done to stop promoting those ideas, and that if something is popular it will just have to be the result at the top.

This can be problematic, as people who were not initially searching that specific phrase may click through to read racist, sexist, homophobic, or biased information (to just name a few) that perpetuates inaccuracies and negative stereotypes. It provides easier access into dangerous thinking built on the foundations of racism, sexism, etc.

If the algorithms are changed or monitored to remove those negative searches, the people exposed to those ideas would decrease, which could help tear down the extreme communities that can build up from them.

While I do understand this view, I also think that system can be helpful too. All the search engine does is reflect the most popular searches, and if negative ideals are what people are searching, then we can become aware and direct their paths to more educational and unbiased sources. It could be interesting to see what would happen if someone clicked on a link that said "Women belong in the kitchen", that led them to results that spoke about equality and feminism.

Not only are these representations nothing new to our society but they probably never will be old. Opinions and representation are not only situational, those with voices and power will use that to their advantage, whether or not it will land us with other algorithms and stereotypes.

It's a good thing google was exposed to the issues at hand and took action. As several other people have already mentioned in their annotations google has seen and responded to the racist algorithms and improved the search results drastically. This will teach youth much better examples of equality and power.

You can even see that the pictures for "beautiful men" were images of young, Caucasian males with chiseled, "imperfect" bodies. When did people decide that other cultures, shapes, and ethnicities weren't beautiful? It's a tragedy that we're recovering from globally and that will have tainted the visions of beauty for many people.

I think that this is incredibly important because while in the past years these campaigns and societal viewpoints have changed and come so far, for the better, there is still the ugly truth that there are and have been these algorithms and thoughts in the past that people were so unaware of. Many people, even people who may be very aware of what's happening in the world, need to be reminded and educated on these issues. Myself included, of course.

This can be seen by the ads used on different news forums or even on youtube. Sometimes the ads reflect what I have been searching up, but more often than not, I find them unrelated to anything I search. After searching some of the names from the ads, it is clear to see their affiliation with google as it is plastered on their websites homepage, including some information about their deal. With more catered ads, it might actually draw more people in and help both businesses..

This would definitely help with what is showing up on the first page of search results, but this should be a group effort. Fighting for different algorithms to be used or created to show less disturbing results will be extremely difficult if people don't work together. By working together with all types of people to create a less disturbing search engine might be the best way to ensure a safe result page.

This is so true. I never stopped to think about how reliable the first page of google really is. As Ktmorgan pointed out, whenever we have a question, we just google it. Whatever pops up first we take as a fact for the most part and continue on without stopping to examine if what we just read was fact, or if any bias might have been used in the placement of the search result and the answer that we found.

Even with Googles campaign to remove sexist search results, these are still being searched. Although, when things such as 'Women cannot drive' are searched the top results are focusing on current issues throughout the world and attempting to empower women while making global issues known. I think this is a great algorithm to be using.

Algorithms seem to be the newest version of racial profiling and judging a book based on its cover.

While it is important for minorities to speak up and show that these misrepresentations are not true, this sentence seems to be implying that it is only minorities that need to stand up and be critical of the results. While I am sure that this is not the intention of the author, all people should stand up for what is true, right, and just, not just the minorities that are directly affected. Standing up and being critical of things that are not right should be done by all in the interest of mutual respect among human beings.

Whenever we have a question, we just google it. However the issue is that sometimes we read facts, sometimes we do not. At this point, it is so embedded in our culture to trust what we read on the internet. More and more Google is treated as a completely reliable source when it should still be questioned for its truth and reliability.

When you put these phrases into google in 2019, you now do not get any google search suggestions. This is also the case when you type in the same phrases (i.e. should, should not) in association with men, nationalities and religions. Google has removed the racist, sexist ideas that were occurring by with these search suggestions. With this campaign occurring 5-10 years ago, I wonder if this campaign had an impact on googles decision to remove the search suggestions on these types of phrases?

Is this implying that people do see progress in labs? Or that somehow labs are in a way accessible for people to come in and view academic research in progress? If that's a thing that happens, I'd love to check in on the labs of more advanced students, but I have a strong feeling that simply asking to be in a lab and watch people work will be met with quite a bit of resistance.

In my microbiology lab in the January semester I realized for the first time exactly how much work goes into a paper. It gave me a healthy respect for published academics, as well as made me realize, immediately, I do not want to stay in academia my whole life. Some people are incredible with the amount of effort they put into their research.

Do you ever wish you read the whole article before annotating because you read one paragraph down and find out the article says the exact thing you said in your annotation? Yeah. Well, at least I feel validated in my constant search for accessible academic content.

Oh, what a coincidence that our major project in this class is to maintain a blog about our findings! Joking aside, I wish articles came with a link to a blog about the research involved in them. No matter how many times I read and re-read the methods section I never can seem to fully understand what the researchers were doing, because I'm an undergraduate just scratching the surface of topics. A blog would have more casual details and wouldn't assume the audience knows a lot already and would allow me to learn without having to delve for 80 hours down a rabbit hole about a specific enzyme in one microbe to figure out why it was even mentioned. Or maybe I'm just not a natural born student!

I keep coming back to history in my annotations, and honestly the article could work as a reading in a history class too. This kind of collection of data; of sources for the future could do wonders for future historians. Digital records, especially those online, don't burn or get water damaged or get eaten by moths. I think it's very important that we consider our digital footprints in a historical sense, from our own personal data (which I can see functioning much the same way as diaries do for historians now) to larger projects such as the tapestry mentioned above.

As he should; he's correct. Technological advances come from "playing with technological toys" all the time, it's no stretch of the imagination to assume academic advances would as well. Of course people are always resistant to change; it's in our nature, but using the tools at our disposal to improve our work is a part of academia.

While I am not surprised that the extent of England's greatness was greatly exaggerated (given our colonial, euro, and white -centric views of history) it's very important to have the data and evidence to back it up.

We explored the expansion of digital records briefly in HIST211 in the January semester. One of the issues with history is having very few (if any) primary sources, but a bigger issue is that they often contradict each other. Digital databanks and scans of old documents and even sites like ancestry.ca have broadened sources available to historians but they also cause more contradictions to be found, making the reconstruction of any historical event/period potentially more difficult.

Honestly the category of digital humanities seems like it could do with being split into two (or several) smaller fields of study. I'm sure it already is, the same way ecology and ornithology are both biology, but at least with biology it can be summarized as "the study of life" - with digital humanities I still struggle to come up with something like that - "the study of anything that could possibly be explored further/easier with anything similar to a computer?"

Not to argue with the New York Times and a Princeton Historian, but are the digital humanities really limited to quantification? I think that's perhaps a bit of a narrow minded opinion, or that I'm misinterpreting. For example, digital art or the study of digital artwork could be considered digital humanities, and I don't think that digital art has anything to do with quantification.

I do understand the idea that quantification and data can't "deal with elusive questions of aesthetics, existence and meaning, the words that bring tears or the melody that raises goose bumps" (frankly an awful sentence, but that's besides the point) without human interpretation. I've seen some truly horrifying or very encouraging statistics before that can evoke these responses like a piece of literature, but the statistics alone do not embody those reactions.

I believe that the collaboration between subjects is necessary to understand ideas and theories in a more holistic way. To successfully write a scientific journal on a new medical accomplishment one must understand how to use language, grammar, and vocabulary. To paint a world renowned artwork masterpiece, one must understand the mathematics of symmetry, spacing, and measurements. It seems only natural to me that the humanities partner with all disciplines to convey its topics and research, and computer science is one such discipline that makes the humanities more applicable and accessible by researchers and public alike.

This has recovered so many almost unrecognizable images from the past it's amazing. All these old, damaged documents that have been digitally revitalized is so wonderful, considering all the information we have obtained from said articles and photos.

and presented in an organized manner so we can actually follow it!

I like how this method is relatable because the analysis is what we've been familiar with through high school and university. For example in Literary Studies we learnt how to dissect poetry and pieces of literature. With the text analysis we can use the tactics we're already familiar with.

Does it count as an annotation if I just think something is REALLY COOL? No, probably not, but WOW.

Presumably you don't need this website to make a gallery of primary sources? I could make a page with images, links/citation information, and the summaries of the sources with any website and basic html. I assume this specific gallery is made using omeka?

Applies to myself as well. I still feel that I don't have a grasp on what "digital humanities" are, even after week one. "Humanities" is such a broad scope of subjects - are digital humanities primarily about text analysis, data collection, software/programming, languages, human communication, or something else? Knowing what sort of skills are involved in the field could help me understand better.

This is definitely me. I had no idea what to expect from digital humanities and still don't. I'm enjoying learning as we go and these articles definitely help.

I really enjoy this layout for a project because not only is it easy to understand and navigate but it incorporates all of this generation's favourite medias; photo, video, sound, and text.