A Room of One’s Own…

For the first time ever, I have an office of my own.  One that’s not shared with numerous other grad students or that I must vacate when the library closes.  But now the question looms: what’s the best working environment?  Something spartan and clean, or something with a touch of home?  Should I get a comfortable reading chair, or will that invite napping and loafing?  Do you suggest that I cover my bare walls with writerly ‘inspiration,’ or will such clutter only distract me from my focus?  And…just how tacky are whiteboards these days?

Please take the poll below to tell me what elements you think are necessary in an office space.   And feel free to drop other suggestions in the comments below. (note: you can only vote for one item at a time, but you can vote more than once)

Posted in writing | 2 Comments

Sing Your History

I405 Los Angeles TrafficI have been riding around with lonely cowboys, energetic flirts, and cynical Brits. I live in Los Angeles now, and so there is always another opportunity to get in your car. Thankfully, there is also a rich mix of radio stations. If I tire of the straightforward reporting and in-depth interviews of National Public Radio, I can find country and hip-hop, ranchero and indie rock, folk and the blues just by hitting a button marked “seek.” If only other searches in life were so easy!

How does this relate to writing history? I am a sucker for a good story – lyrics that paint the sky, that hold a surprise, that build tension about an answering machine or a bridge washed out. Those are the songs I listen to all the way through. A good song is a small work of fiction (or, occasionally, nonfiction). It evokes a person, an emotion, a place. In short, it has all the pieces of a good work of history can have, plus a good beat and some clever rhymes.

The strength of singing history has been reinforced for me this past month as I listened to my Mac’s automated Text-to-Speech voice read me my page proofs. I know everyone is supposed to read their work out loud to find mistakes, to judge pauses, to find repetitions, and I had done so in earlier versions—and often still overlooked a missing word. When the computer reads, it does not skip a line, it does not think it knows what should be there. It reads, haltingly, unsure of how to parse long sentences. Its intonation is all wrong, and some of its mispronunciations – they can’t get it to say “English” correctly? – are quite amusing. But it was a quite effective way to hear my words in a new way, to find those last small changes, and, thankfully, to stand in awe of a great sentence or two I labored to create.

Now the book is in production, and I am back on the roads, listening to other people’s histories again. But letting the computer sing my history was a valuable new way to make the same words new again.

Posted in inspiration points, resources, writing | Leave a comment

A bit of nostalgia, because it’s that time of year

colorLast night I filled out all of the necessary back-to-school forms for my kids and wrote out the also-necessary checks (it’s funny just how much money one has to pay for public schools nowadays–from PE clothes to textbooks to tech-related fees).  This was the first year that our district went with online form handling, so instead of me filling in the same information repeatedly on different forms, the kids and I sat with our laptops in a circle and clicked through each form together.  It was far smoother than years past, and was also far more fun given that they can type just as fast as me.  Really, the only think they needed me for was for health insurance details and to sign those checks.

Today marks the return of students to Chapman University.  Typically I get to work long before anything is stirring on campus.  I love the quiet hours of the morning to get an edge on my workday and I also love that the traffic is much lighter before 7am.  But this morning, the campus was already abuzz with workers, administrators, and staff when I arrived.  In a few hours I expect to look at the windows of Memorial Hall and see the lawn filled with anxious teens and even-more-anxious parents.  I expect that there will be many checks written today as those parents buy books for their kids and university sweatshirts for themselves.

Given that new beginnings are in the air, you might notice that this blog has a bit of a facelift.  It’s going to be an ongoing process as the look and the interface of this blog evolve over the next few weeks.  As the blog changes, I’m also reconsidering how MHP fits in to my overall work as a scholar and how I can best maintain the podcast in the upcoming year.  This past year saw a transition from me doing interviews to broadcasting event-based podcasts.  While I loved the podcasts from The Past’s Digital Presence conference and the China Beat, I’m hoping to return to more interviews this next year.  I miss the intimacy of those conversations, and I suspect that my listeners do, too.

What’s on your mind at the beginning of this new school year?

Posted in blogging, deep thoughts | Tagged | Leave a comment

3….2…1….Launch! (or, One Week | One Tool goes live)

This post will coincide with the launch of the OneWeek tool, Anthologize.

Yesterday I used the tool for the very first time, selecting and collecting the items from this blog tagged with #oneweek.  I found the interface to be fairly intuitive, though a bit slow to grab and re-order items.  The output also had a few textual bugs that kept it from being a completely seamless experience.  But…overall I am amazed.  I created a “book” in less than 5 minutes! (good job #oneweek Dev team!!)

I foresee many uses for this tool.  I’ll be ‘packaging’ collections of specific blogpost entries to share with colleagues who aren’t blogreaders, or who want to focus on a particular thread in my writing.  I’ll be creating a collection of some of my more evocative soloblog posts for publishing in a chapbook.  I imagine myself collating various groups of posts (by author, by keyword, by year) from the large group blogs that I participate in–for publishing in an attractive book format with photos.  Additionally, I intend to create a pdf of my online portfolio, to use as a CV.  On my campus, I’ll encourage professors with class blogs to publish the content for inclusion in institutional archives, I’ll support faculty who want to use it as an output for their Tenure & Promotion e-portfolios.

How do you think you’ll use Anthologize?  Please share!

Posted in digital humanities, events | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Pencils Down Day (or One Week | One Tool, day 6)

Today started early (maybe too early for those of us up to the wee hours of the morning working).  We reconnoitered at 7:30am at a hotel conference room for an intense few hours of work.  Tom made us promise to put our “pencils down” at 11am so we could talk and have some fun.  That was hard, actually.  The hours flew by until 11am and even then it felt so wrong to stop working.  But we needed some time to make a plan for the next few weeks before we all started heading our separate ways.  And Tom and Dan each gave a little speech.   The end was rather anticlimactic.  Maybe that’s because we all know how much work lies ahead for us after the launch.  We’re only releasing an “alpha” version of the tool on Tuesday because it lacks thorough testing and bug-fixing.  We’re depending on our community of users and developers to help us out with some of that over the next year…

I only have a few minutes before I board my plane, so I won’t be able to be too reflective about this experience just yet….so let me leave you with this thought…when I entered the airport a few minutes ago and stood in line and navigated through the corridors, I realized that just a week ago I walked those same paths not knowing most of the 12 people who I can now call dear friends.  As I passed by strangers in the airport I was overwhelmed with a sense of hope and magic.  I believe that almost all of us humans want to work hard and want to accomplish great things.  Giving us a sense of purpose and an ambitious goal tends to draw out the best in us, and my belief in that informs my teaching practices and my faith in the power of crowdsourcing.  OneWeek confirmed much of what I already knew about human potential, which will continue to impact my work in the university, in the DH community, and in the social sphere.

Posted in digital humanities, events | Tagged | 1 Comment

Risk & Strategy (or One Week | One Tool, day 5)

Today was mostly typing up loose ends.  We followed our now-regular schedule of having an all-team meeting at CHNM HQ at 10am.  Each team reported in on their progress.  Some of the discussion was to clarify what features will and won’t be rolled out on launch day.  Some of the discussion was about what needs to be done before we all go our separate ways, and how we will time the actual product release next Tuesday.

I spent my time much of my time futzing around with the web materials and strategizing the release.  It was a day of incremental changes, refining verbiage, making lists.  Probably the more-tedious-less-sexy day so far at OneWeek.  However, much of that tedium was mediated by the growing number of in-jokes and banter-around-the-table.  We’ve started getting comfortable with each other and with our routines.  But it’s that kind of comfortable that I remember from summer camp–where the intensity of a week spent with my fellow campers means that we’ve gotten to know a lot about each other in a short period of time, while knowing very little about each others’ “real lives.”  Even though that’s the case, we’ll have the OneWeek reunion to look forward to next year at THATCampPrime, and I’m sure our paths will cross often as we’re at conferences and other career-related events.

On Twitter today some of the conversation hinted that maybe all the hype about our tool is just a smokescreen, or maybe we’ve set people’s expectations too high.  It’s true that the tool we’re rolling out offers one small-ish (though significant) innovation.  It’s true that we’re not going to revolutionize the world with what we’ve done this week–it would be impossible (even with the skills of our programmers) to roll out anything too huge after just 4 days of code-writing.  But it’s also true that one of the most important things we’ve learned through this workshop is the importance of calculated risk.  It’s risky to forge forward with a digital project without months of planning, coding, and testing.  It’s risky to trust near-strangers to deliver on such a tight deadline.  It’s risky to assume that we could all get along with each other.  And it’s risky to assume that our audience will believe in our tool as much as we do.

Our team selected one of the more daring choices available for our project.  We were ready to be bold and to dream big.  Even if the rest of the world doesn’t see our tool’s potential to be as earthshaking as we do, the process of manifesting our vision for this tool has been a valuable lesson in and of itself, and will certainly carry through to our future endeavors.

Posted in digital humanities, events | Tagged | 1 Comment

Pants Day (or, One Week | One Tool Day 4)

Today didn’t begin with yoga, despite the fact that exercise was such a productive thing for me in previous OneWeek days.   Instead I opted to sleep in as long as possible, knowing that today would be a long one…

Upon arriving at CHNM headquarters, I passed around the special name badges that the crew designed for our site visit with Brett Bobley and Jen Serventi from the National Endowment of the Humanities (NEH).  Given that the NEH funded our project, they had a strong interest in observing our process. Shortly after donning our nametags, we all moved into the conference room with the NEH folks and began explaining our tool.  Boone Gorges began, explaining the functionality of the tool while showing some live (but not completed) versions of the interface.  Then various members of the Dev team chimed in with their input, and Julie “Glue” Meloni continued with presenting our overall vision for the tool.  The UX team lead, Kathie Gossett, explained how they applied knowledge gained from User interviews into the site workflows.  Outreach team leader Effie Kapsalis reported on our plans for the launch, including social media, a PR kit, etc.

The meeting was not only a ‘reveal’ to the NEH folks, but it was the first time that I’d seen the user interface of the developing tool.  As crazy as that sounds, because we’re moving forward so quickly with this process, there’s very little time for demo-ing, we’re just doing.  Our meeting finished rather quickly and we all hunkered down in our various team spaces again to get to work on our task lists.  During this time our team had more input from CHNM folks who helped us refine our website design.  We hadn’t sketched out all the parts anywhere, so we got a whiteboard and went to work.  That was hugely helpful to putting a lot of vague ideas into a more solid form, especially as we drafted the content that would target specific user audiences.   Doug Knox wrote a lot of the verbiage, as did Effie.  I helped out when I wasn’t busy with other tasks.  I also spent some time chatting one-on-one with Jen, offering my feedback about the process of oneweek.  My overall impression was that the NEH was even more interested in our team experience than in our tool (not that our tool isn’t awesome, but they were funding a summer-institute learning experience and not a specific outcome).

During lunch the NEH folks talked to the oneweek team without anyone on staff from CHNM involved.  Primarily this was a time for us to offer feedback on our experience.  The upshot of the discussion was that building a major DH project is entirely possible in one week, and that doing so circumvents a lot of the red-tape and endless meetings usually affiliated with development projects.  I think it’s also significant to note that everyone on the team is a ‘doer’ type of person, so there’s not any time spent fussing over team members who aren’t pulling their weight.  I suspect that our group’s enthusiastic get-it-done spirit would be difficult to replicate on projects with looser deadlines and institutional baggage.

The team ate both lunch and dinner together today, so we could keep even more focused on our tasks.  Work stretched out long into the evening, with some of us (like me, right now), still camped out in the hotel lobby.  We’re fortunate that the staff at the Mason Inn have been quite generous in letting us work and eat in the social spaces of their new facility.

A highlight of today was when Tanya Clement stopped by.  We gave her our first-ever ‘pitch’ for our tool.  Tanya listened carefully to Effie’s explanation and offered some good, pointed questions about the tool’s functionality and possibilities.  Having her as a sounding board helped the Outreach team plan the questions we need to answer in our FAQ, as well as helping us refine how we can best describe our tool to an interested audience.  Tanya seemed particularly enthusiastic when we mentioned TEI (hint, hint)…

On twitter we kept joking about today being “pants day” because it was our first time revealing what we’ve been up to to an outside audience.  “Wearing pants” was a silly way for us to acknowledge how much we wanted to impress our visitors.  And I’d say that we did.

Posted in digital humanities, events | Tagged | 2 Comments

Identity Crisis Day (or One Week | One Tool, day 3)

Today’s not over yet, but I’ve got a few minutes of downtime, so I thought I’d take a moment to summarize today’s events thus far….

First of all, I’ll reveal that I’m on the Outreach Committee.  So I can really only speak to the issues that the four of us faced.  Hopefully other committee participants will chime in with their experiences.

Today our committee tackled the problem of choosing the name for our tool.  We’d started the brainstorming yesterday and went late into the night.  We kept a running list of nearly everything we’d thought of as well as some major concept words and ideas, maintaining this all in GoogleDocs.  We sat around in the hotel bar as we brainstormed, and oneweekers from other teams would pop in occasionally and offer some thoughts.  Mostly, I suspect they were laughing at us as we came up with a bevy of ridiculous-sounding ideas.  We made two strategic decisions in this process.  The first was to not choose a vague name like Omeka or Zotero, even though this is the CHNM tool-naming pattern.  We wanted the name of our tool to illustrate its function.  But of course this made it even more challenging because of the difficulty of finding unique domain names.   The second strategic decision was to cut off the name-choosing process midday, and settle with the best choice at that point so we could move on to other items on our to-do list.

Around 11am we had a list of about 20 possible choices.  Our committee members voted on our three favorites and we narrowed the list to the top 5.  We created a poll and sent it around to the entire oneweek team asking for their input.  We quickly ruled out some of the 5 names based on the feedback we received.  And a winner emerged as we realized that the other options were problematic for one reason or another.

By 2 pm we had a mockup of the website front page (thanks to Trevor Owens).  We presented this to the all-team meeting in the early afternoon and received positive feedback.  After that, our team hunkered down with Jeremy Boggs as he took us through the steps for writing the wordpress theme for our site.  He wowed us as he worked on three projects simultaneously while taking our ideas from conception to reality.  Trevor also helped us continue on with our work when Jeremy moved on to other duties.  Dan and Tom sat down with us throughout the day and gave valuable support to our efforts, too.  I don’t think there’s any way that we could be accomplishing this project without the mentoring from the CHNM folks, and I appreciate how much of a educational experience they’re making this process for us.

By 5pm we were writing taglines, website verbiage and to-do lists for shwag, targeted outreach possibilities, conferences, and the like.   We also continued to brainstorm logo ideas.  In just a few minutes we’ll meet back in the hotel lobby to continue our work on the logo.

Throughout the afternoon several non-Outreach oneweekers wandered over to our workspace and offered suggestions for us.  I got the sense that most of them were excited about what we’d come up with and were eager to offer their input.  At the same time, I felt that most of them were glad not to be doing the outreach work, and were happy with their roles on the other teams.  Because we chose our own roles, we each seem to be sitting in just the right spot for our individual proclivities and skills.

Posted in digital humanities, events | 4 Comments

Decision Day (or One Week | One Tool, Day 2)

This post will mostly be about our selection process.  Perhaps this will be uninteresting to most of you…but I wanted to just get it down somewhere before I was too mired in the details of the project to remember what happened today….

We began the day by facing the whiteboards full of brainstormed ideas from yesterday.  We then added to and refined some of the ideas on the boards.  Mostly, we asked ourselves what we’d forgotten the previous day, and filled in gaps. To narrow down the dozens of ideas on the boards, we each took 3 sticky notes and placed them by our favorites.  This yielded six major ideas/projects.  For each of those projects we discussed exactly how we imagined their implementation.  Then there seemed to be a general hesitancy among the group about how we should proceed.  So we turned to twitter, sending out the ideas and asking for input.  Dan stayed behind to tabulate the votes while the rest of us went to lunch.  Interestingly, at lunch I heard a lot of avid advocacy for some of the less-popular choices.  When we returned and saw the twitter tally, it seemed obvious that not everyone on the team agreed with the crowdsourced choices.

We then evaluated each option in terms of their feasibility, audience, impact, extensibility, and sustainability, and discussed even further how we imagined their implementation, especially what the immediate product would be and how new features could be rolled out in the future.  We then voted by secret ballot, everyone being allowed to vote for their top three choices.  Almost without exception, we all chose the same three tools.  Then we voted for just two of those three, with our second choice being weighted at 50%.   That was a sobering moment.  The tool that garnered the highest score was actually most everyone’s second choice, with the top choices being split among the two other tools.  That caused some concern, and I wondered if we would re-count or re-think the decision.  I felt sort of let-down that my first choice actually received the most “first-choice” votes from the team, but that we’d be developing a different tool.  It took me a moment to get over that, and to get as excited about the winning project as I had been about the one that I’d hoped we’d develop. [Note: the tool that we're building will not be publicly announced until the close of #oneweek.]

And then, the work began.

We clarified, as a group, exactly how this tool would work and how it would be built.  We went around the room and chose our roles for the project, and then began some rough discussion of how we would proceed.  However, it was dinnertime and there was some aimlessness and frustration.  It seemed evident that we needed some leadership and some better-defined plans.  We separated for an hour with the charge to think about what we wanted our role in the project to be, and reconvened later at the hotel.

From the discussion at the hotel, three separate teams emerged: Development, User Experience, and Outreach.  We re-defined which team we wanted to be on.  We chose leaders for each of the teams.  We ensured that all of the bases were covered for the project.  And then we separated into our subgroups and started working (and working and working).

It’s quite late now and I’m a bit too tired to offer much analysis of the experience, other than to remark on just how nervous I was during the selection process this morning.  It was something akin to the jittery nerves I’ve gotten prior to giving an important conference talk.  I have a lot invested in the success of this project already, and I really want it to be useful and important to my community.  (And it will be.  Y’all are really gonna love this tool.)

Posted in digital humanities, events | Tagged | 4 Comments

Some initial thoughts from my DH summer & One Week | One Tool

I’ve been calling this past few months my “DH Summer” (or #DHsummer for those of you who follow me on Twitter), because of so many events and experiences that I lined up in the field of Digital Humanities.  First, I attended DHSI, an intensive week-long DH Institute at the University of Victoria, where I studied GIS (mapping software).  Next, I traveled to London for THATCamp London and DH2010 at King’s College, London.  And, now, finally, I’m at my capstone DH event, working on the One Week | One Tool development team at George Mason University’s Center for History and New Media.

At each of these events I’ve learned some new aspect of DH work.  At DHSI I learned a specific piece of software to aid in a project to complement my dissertation research.  While at the events in London I broadened my view of the DH field to include the concerns of scholars from all over the world, and including those whose institutional models and conditions are quite different from my own.  Additionally, I began thinking more broadly about larger-scale project-based DH work, especially the challenges of using crowd-sourced data and development.  All of this, has, in some fashion prepared me for the work I’m doing at One Week | One Tool, as has my recent small-scale development work from my new position at Chapman University.

Today was our first intense day at OW|OT meetings, where we were “talked at” by the lead developers of the Omeka and Zotero Projects.  Jeremy Boggs started us off by giving us an overview of Project Management principles.  It was a lot to absorb in such a small space of time, with concepts like BaseCamp/37 Signals, Trac, Github, version control, and the like bandied about.  He discussed testing procedures and the merits of an active user community for solving problems.  All of Jeremy’s talk was helpful to me, as someone who’s barely getting her foot wet in the field of project management.

Trevor Owens then discussed his work with Zotero, specifically focusing on the outreach necessary in creating a community of users for a tool. He explained that he’s become an ombudsman for Zotero rather than an evangelist (he leaves the evangelism to the user communities).  My rough-ish summaries of his main points:

-Outreach should be ever-present & part of the planning process (not at the end of things)

-Value proposition: Your users need to see the to see the utility of your tool immediately, in 5 minutes or less.  Build in gratification points.

-Leverage existing communities: i.e. Zotero used babblezilla community for translation, building community through targeted email, etc.. Look for forums where potential users are already gathered.

-Focus proselytizing on those who will teach others to use tool, not just users.

-Look reputable by whatever means necessary. Build trust through the polish of the site & the brand.

After our meetings and some discussion, we moved on to brainstorming about the tool that we’ll be creating together this week.  The brainstorming brought out numerous provocative ideas.  Most of them reasonable, but some were obviously beyond the scope of what we could tackle given our short timeframe.  Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this discussion was the breadth of the ideas.  To me, all of them sounded plausible (and even necessary).  With our list I could well imagine a year of DH where every week there was a Tool created.  And even then we couldn’t have developed them all.

However, tomorrow will be the day of decision.  We’ve been tasked with selecting “our” tool by noon.  I suspect that it might take a bit longer and that some team members will feel disappointed when their idea isn’t selected.  Perhaps it will even be me who’s disappointed…which is a concern given that I will be promoting this product over the next year.  I want it to be something that I can care passionately about(!).  But I also want it to be something that we can agree on as a group.  I’m hoping that it can be both.  So….stay tuned to find out what happens!

Posted in digital humanities, events | 3 Comments