Fellow Clio Travelers: If you’ve been looking at the Type assignment and wondering about a few requirements unfamiliar to many of us, here’s a rundown of those likely to be the most unfamiliar:

Pull quote: A section of copy taken out of an article, enlarged or set in a different type, and inserted back into the article. An example is depicted in Wikipedia. Rules of thumb for pull quotes are available in a helpful article “Pull Quotes” found at fonts.com

Rule: A solid line used to separate editorial matter. Consider using a fancy line, possibly a “border font”

Leading (pronounced led’ing): The space between lines of text. “Non type-aware” individuals like myself always rely on auto-leading which assigns a certain percentage to the space between lines. An article on leading at fonts.com warns (my emphasis):

“While auto leading can speed the setting of body text, it’s not useful for setting display type. Display type in larger sizes needs a lot less leading than text (see illustrations). This is especially true with all-cap settings that have no descenders to fill in the space between the lines. For display type, auto leading settings will generally be way off the mark. Use your eye, not your software, to make larger type settings visually appropriate.”

Good luck on the type assignments, see you on Tuesday.

Bill

Jenny, Tad, Laura, and John commented on Historians as Translators this week. I posted a comment on Laura’s blog, but decided to copy it into my own posting.  

The historian has to be an interpreter. Historians create a narrative about the past to be understood in the present. Language, ideas, and methodology all perform subtle interpretation. Think of histories from a hundred years ago, they are anachronistic when compared to recent histories on the same topic. No matter how objective we are, we are translating the past as we create a fresh narrative.

Comment posted at Laura’s Three Cheers for Digital History

 Other comments this week:

Comment on Ken’s “I’d love to take a public beating.”

Comment on Walaa’s “Footnotes”

Comment on Lee Ann’s “Who do polyglot historians talk to?”

Ahmed’s Polyglot Manifesto is a powerful and convincing argument for the translation of history (the past) into the (digital) future. He raises some of the most important questions of our day facing the humanities.

As one of the new-media Young Turks, Ahmed’s manifesto calls into question the form and purpose of history. History needs to be translated into new (digital) forms for the purpose of connecting with the rest of the world or be “annihilated.”

Ahmed’s assault on form takes on the traditional scholarly monograph in order to make serious history available to the connected world. Connections then should breed collaboration and advancement of the field.

This, however, calls into question the very purpose of history. If history is to be written for everyman in the connected world, then get on with it! Get going! Don’t look back, but good luck paying the rent.

If history is to be written for the profession, publication of serious digital history faces an insurmountable barrier. Shifting from the monograph to the web will transfer political power from the profession’s gatekeepers to everyman.

This transfer of power will take a generation and it will only happen if two conditions are met: first, enough Young Turks have to gain tenure by first satisfying the old guard under existing conventions. Second, they will have to remain true to their beliefs and ultimately give up their power when they gain it. This is a tall task considering human nature.

The sad dilemma is that this potential diffusion of the profession’s power through mass digitization is going to annihilate the practice due to action, not the lack of it. This annihilation will take place because the mass democratization of history will ultimately lower the barriers, but also ultimately the professional standards and practices.

A couple of days banging on the screw got my CSS project onto the other guy’s territory, but the clock ran out just outside field goal range. I had a header image working fine on my harddrive, but it didn’t go when I ftp’ed it. Same for an imbedded picture. I’m hoping for illumination during the last hour of class tomorrow (i.e. an overtime period?)

p-hammer.jpg

Feb 3,4,5 tool of choice for turning CSS screws.

If you need a sense of superiority, please enjoy my efforts at CSS project and Portfolio

Sorry about the mixed metaphors, it’s getting late!

Bill

Erin Kissane’s Typography Matters was a revelation. I had been blaming myself for poor attention span when trying to read online content (see my previous post from Clio 1), but the readings this week and last week’s seminar discussion let me off the hook! I’m now convinced that writing online content has to be different.

The habits we’ve fallen into like scanning, spidering, and the temptations of quick and interesting detours through our browser put a tough mandate on the online authors back: “structure thy writing for quick sampling lest you quickly lose the reader’s interest.”

The contrasts between Kissane’s “Typography Matters” and Himmelfarb’s “Where Have all the Footnotes Gone?” were striking. Kissane was optimized for the web, had a maximum of two sentences per text block, and less than a dozen words per line. It was easy to hang with her.

Himmelfarb’s article suffered greatly in the print to web transfer: The 30+ word long lines were a slog, and the white-black contrast was harsh. The only redeeming aspect of the presentation was the fat vertical slider indicating I wouldn’t have to hang on very long.

The difference reveals a daunting task for new-media historians: translate dense monologues to something that stands a chance of being read!

Fellow Clio Bloggers,

It wasn’t until late last semester that I saw how much junk formatting was being thrown into my blog posts when I cut and pasted Word.doc text. Lately I’ve been copying my test into wordpad to ”launder” out the formatting, but I then have to replace a bunch of questionmarks for quotation marks, etc. If I’m not thrilled about just typing straight into my blog, is there an easier way??

 Bill  

 Solution (many thanks to Tad!): check out the word document cleaner at:  http://textism.com/wordcleaner/index.html
It scrubs the code out, but keeps the good stuff. The free version is limited to 20kb per document.   

Luke Wroblewski’s online chapter “Who Are You” makes a great case on the importance of form online. On the positive side, he makes convincing points on color, type, and visual elements. Unfortunately, the wide-format side-by-side pages in his .pdf chapter prove his points in an extremely irritating manner.

The .pdf is an image of the chapter in his book Site-seeing: A Visual Approach to Web Usability, but deserves to be translated into a web page for online viewing (the book is about web usability–right?) Wroblewski’s points are made by the irritating requirement to slide left and right to read each page, or to reduce them so the page is fully visible but the type is tiny and hard to read.

By the end of the chapter, I agreed that layout, color, type, and images are important, and I wished for better! As for as personality, hmmm, what does it say if the author is preaching about web usability but doesn’t make his sample product web-friendly?

This is a Historical Podcast to describe Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. The First part should be played on Seninary Ridge, near the Virginia or North Carolina Monuments.

The Second part should be played as the listener walks the 1 mike path from Semninary Ridge to Cemetary Ridge, from the Virginia Monument to “the Angle” 

http://www.oncombat.org/Clio%20Wired/gettysburg1.mp3

http://www.oncombat.org/Clio%20Wired/gettysburg2.mp3

For a map, please refer to the West Point Atlas of American Wars at:

http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/american%20civil%20war/acw%20pages/acw37.html

I hope you make the trip: Enjoy!

A very promising approach to my digital archive would be the use of a database to store primary sources and metadata from the contributors. The advantages of a database over a wiki are promising: the database would be structured, allow sorting, and with work–allow exporting to mashups. The use of  chronological and geographical mashups would enable integration of all the materials on a map and timeline. These resources would make browsing more effective and intuitive vs a “hunt and peck” approach to searching the database.

Here are the Desired Data Fields:

  • Date of Mission

  • Type aircraft

  • Position in formation (lead/wingman/solo)

  • Other aircraft in the mission

  • Unit (squadron/Wing)

  • Location of action (geo-tag)

  • Takeoff base/landing base

  • Mission type

  • Narrative/description of the mission

  • Resources: cockpit video/audio/photos/map

I built a database with most of these fields in lazybase to learn how the database might work. I input a few missions I flew in Desert Storm to test it.

http://lazybase.com/dbhome?a=797442748 I suggest you search for “F-16”

I quickly found Lazybase was very limited in its field choices–I wanted to put latitude/longitude formatted to use in a mashup, but had to enter it as text. This will lead to format problems with the geo mashup, indicating a more capable database is needed (until lazybase adds geo-tags).

The second learning point I encountered was I need to decide if the artifacts will reside inside the database (uploaded there) or linked from the database. Lazybase doesn’t accept files, so I uploaded the files to my server space and included links.

I found that a few additional fields that might help include: a short description of main mission events (to help search/browse), names of other aircrews on the mission.

Another limitation of Lazybase that would have to be adjusted with a more capable database is that editing privileges are “all or nothing” Either you have editing privileges and can change all the records, or you can only view them. Ouch. If I give you the opportunity to put in your mission, I have to give you the option to delete the whole database.

In the end, the database exercise was an excellent learning opportunity, but makes the case to go for a more capable database.

The Mission I propose an online digital archive to capture and preserve history of the air war over Southeast Asia from 1961 to 1975. The generation of flyers who fought over the skies of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand possess many artifacts from their war. As the Vietnam generation ages, these artifacts and the stories of the warriors, missions, and machines may soon be lost to history. Artifacts that may be of interest may include:

  • Photos–of people, planes, targets–especially pre- and post- strike photos
  • Maps–mission maps used in the cockpits by the crews may indicate the planning detail available to crews at the time, that defensive threats anticipated at the time
  • Audio–many crews flew combat missions with small cassette recorders spliced into their intercom system. The recordings were used to reconstruct missions for debriefing purposes. The stress, confusion, and rapid pace of air combat is captured on these tapes.
  • Video–gun camera film of bomb runs or air-to-air engagements were limited to short film strips, but could be of great use if available and able for digitization
  • Other Resources–kneeboard cards, intelligence briefings, medal citations tied to missions might add depth to the project
  • Personal narratives–the glue that will pull these artifacts together, explain, and add context.

Combat aircrew from Southeast Asia are the most important audience because they are the ones with the artifacts stuffed under the bed or on the top shelf of the spare bedroom closet. The good news is that there are several very active fraternal organizations with magazines and websites that can provide a means to get the word out. Key associations include:  

  • The Red River Fighter Pilots Association (the River Rats–an associaltion of combat aircrews founded during the Vietnam War) http://www.river-rats.org/  The River Rats have the added luxury of a list-serve E-mail update. 
  • Vietnam POWs (NAMPOWS) http://www.nampows.org/
  • Association of Old Crows (Electronic warfare officer association)
    https://www.myaoc.org/eweb/StartPage.aspx
  • The Order of Daedalians is a fraternal order of military pilots stretching back to the First World War http://www.daedalians.org/index.htm

A wider audience would expand to those interested in learning more about the air war over Vietnam, including family members, younger generations of air warriors, enthusiasts, historians and amateur historians. Dissemination could be accomplished through links from military history websites, the Air Force Association, Naval Institute, and Association of the US Army, and the Marine Corps Gazette.   Why Digital? The idea to “go digital” started from the Vietnam-era cockpit audio cassette. The cockpit audio is a potentially great historical resource that can mesh nicely with the web. These recordings are important because they capture intercom and radio transmissions over the course of a mission. Tapes were used by aircrews to reconstruct their missions with intelligence experts, urgent radio calls calling out enemy Migs, dodging SAMs, trying to reach shot down crews have the potential to provide a window on air combat over Vietnam. Many Vietnam era pilots are likely to still have tapes in their war memorabilia, and this generation may be interested in passing this glimpse into air combat of their era on to other generations. If we wait, the tape players may become harder and harder to find, and the context and explanations behind the tapes will be lost with this generation. On a positive note, with software accompanying most sound cards today, digital audio is fairly easy to capture.   Building around the audio element, there are many artifacts from combat flying that may be of interest. Combat maps used in battle lend themselves to digitization and sharing. Maps can explain what the terrain was like, how the crews navigated, how far they had to fly to get to their targets, where the defenses were, how severe the defenses were, and where the targets were–providing an element of rich detail.  Vietnam-era combat had limited use of gun-camera footage, several types of combat aircraft were equipped with small movie cameras designed to film bomb runs or when air-to-air weapons were fired. These 16mm films, although of limited field of view (small field of view, often through the aircraft bombsite) has potential to add detail.  

Additional mission materials and artifacts: maps, kneeboard cards, and citations can add valuable details to history of a combat mission. Maps may present a problem to digitize, requiring large format scanners or a stitch program. The other downside of large maps is the large file size. None of these problems are insurmountable.   Narratives are the necessary fill-in. Personal narratives are desired to provide the context and meaning to historical artifacts. What Else is Out There?There are a few scattered elements of air combat artifacts on the web. Here’s a rundown of several prominent elements: §         http://www.acig.org/ Air Combat Information Group (ACIG) ACIG has a robust discussion forum on the state of air combat today and the history of Air Combat. Discussion threads in ACIG’s forum cover almost any topic under the sun on aircraft, tactics, and air battles around the world. Although the discussion forums are a great slource of info, it’s mostly commentary from secondary sources

§         There are five combat missions recorded on Wikisource. Wikisource is a Wikimedia project to build a free, wiki library of source texts, along with translations into any language and other supporting materials. It is located at Wikisource.org.

§         This article is a great example of what’s possible. This is a possible model for my proposal. Why not go with Wikipedia? Focus. Wikipedia may be all things to all people, a focused site with a more narrow mission has an advantage in drawing the right contributors. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel_mission_5_November_1967

§         F-16 net: This is a site that tracks F-16 news, provides a forum, and interesting F-16 facts. It’s a great resource, fairly open through a user forum area, but dates mainly after the Vietnam era. http://www.f-16.net/“Closed” systems: There are many sites with primary resources on air combat. Some are professionally produced sites, the vast majority are individual enthusiast run sites dedicated to covering one particular type of aircraft or unit. There is value in the resources they provide, but the key limitation of these sites is that they are closed to wider contributions because they are run by webmasters with limited time, reach, or mission/interest.§         History Channel “Dogfight Series”: The History channel has a few online resources supporting its Dogfight series, but resources are very thin without potential to grow or user  http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Video_Clips&content_type_id=52092&display_order=4&mini_id=51833 

§         Craig Baker’s F-105 site http://www.burrusspta.org/thud.html A great site with audio and video devoted to F-105 action in
Vietnam.

§         Unit web  sites. There are many amateur historian-created unit web sites. These can be of great interest, but limited in scope due to the small unit focus. Example: http://www.174ahc.org/ 

 Why this idea fits a need–there aren’t any sites that fill the following niche:

  • Open-ended and collaborative
  • Intended to collect primary sources
  • Focused on air combat

Mediawiki appears to be the most popular wiki engine as indicated by this graph of possible wiki engines: http://www.google.com/trends?q=TWiki%2C+MoinMoin%2C+PmWiki%2C+MediaWiki%2C+DokuWiki&ctab=0&geo=all&date=allOne approach is that there’s safety in numbers, and with a lot of mediawikis around, the possibility of more familiarity among potential contributors is a strong selling point. . Here is a table of features; Mediawiki seems to have many favorable attributes although there are quite a few that will take some research to understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software Making the Idea a Reality 

Phase I: Feasibility of support The first phase is to find an organization willing to sponsor the project. Sponsorship can include server space, monetary support to purchase server space, and IT expertise to help build and support the project. The organizations listed in section 1, “the mission are a strong bet for support. The River Rats are the first and strongest bet for some support. They have a strong base of supporters and contributors, their sub-organization “the Air Warrior Courage Foundation seems like a strong bet for support of the project as we’re looking to preserve stories and primary source materials indicating courage in aerial warfare. Because the River Rats are a volunteer organization (and everyone has real jobs), monetary support seems most likely, but I will be on my own for the technology unless I get lucky and find another member of the organization that has time and expertise.  Phase 2: Selecting the software engine Downloading and trying a few of the front-running software engines seems to be the best approach. There’s a steep learning curve to negotiate here, but it seems that the best method is learning by doing when dealing with new software. I’d like to find a software engine that allows a template to be applied. Standard fields can provide a common basis for entries. Minimum fields are:

  • Date of
    Mission
  • Type aircraft
  • Positin in formation (lead/wingman/soo)
  • Other aircraft in the mission
  • Unit (squadron/Wing)
  • Location of action (geo-tag)
  • Takeoff base/landing base
  • Mission type
  • Narrative/description of the mission
  • Resources (cockpit video/audio/photos/maps/mission materials/other primary resources)

To attract contributors the wiki will have to have a few user-friendly attributes including:

  • Provide information or a service to digitize audio tapes and other mission materials
  • Allow for easy upload
  • Tie related artifacts together by mission, location, and time

Phase 3: taking the leap Building the engine, and template need to be followed by a few “seeder entries” to prime the pump. The game plan here will be to use contacts through the River Rats and other professional contacts (Pentagon, AF Association, etc) to populate a few missions in order to create an example for follow up entries. These initial entries will be collaborative between me and the contributor to get them looking right because follow on work will be participant driven.  

Phase 4: publicizing Once up and running with a few examples, publicizing the effort needs to follow. The invitation to see and contribute will initially focus on the core group of potential contributors (
Vietnam combat aircrew). These individuals are likely to be best able to contribute for the following reasons: most are retirement age and beyond (time available). Most will be tech-savvy (former combat crews accustomed to dealing with technical gear), many will want to share stories (“hanger-flying” among pilots is a time-honored tradition).
 
Phase 5: Sustain Once up and running, as contributors piling on, there’s the question of who will carry the  workload, how much time will be available, and what types of unanticipated conflicts/problems will crop up. Expanding server space and bandwidth are likely problem areas if the wiki succeeds; especially because audio, video, and graphics are likely to be large file sizes and demand lots of server space.

« Previous PageNext Page »