5th Post, Week 7.On Brandon's Blog

Collective Biographies of Women is a simple and direct to the point type of website, but there are few things that I did not like about it. When I first accessed the website, I noticed the name Alison Booth (who turned out to be the author of the project) right under the main title of the website. Well, I have issues with that. Of course, the author(s) of any project is entitled to state ownership, but perhaps this is not the way to do it when it comes to website, since it replicates books. For example, when it comes to the printed books, we always have the name of the author(s) right there on the front cover under the main title. However, when it comes to publicly accessed websites, I have noticed, this becomes a different case where the title of the project is the most highlighted name on the front page. Of course, the author can place his/her name on the front page, but only when the visitor’s attention is totally focused upon the project itself, not on the one who made it; as it is the case here. Placing, or perhaps attaching, the author’s name to the title of the project, I think, is a strong emphasis on authorship or ownership that, in my opinion, is irrelevant for browsing or researching a website. Furthermore, I noticed that this project has been conducted mainly by professor Alison Booth, as an individual work, but we also have seen many individual works before that did not place much emphasis on ownership right away, At The Circulating Library, which we studied last week, is one for those websites. Last thought on this issue, it is also important to remember that we are not accessing a personal blog or a personal website per se, but rather a scholarly collection or database that we intent to make a use of its content, not perhaps its author.

Other issues on the homepage includes the nonexistence of a search bar. In one of my previous responses, I remember giving a whole paragraph about the importance and the significance of placing the search bar in the middle of a scholarly database where everything else revolves around it, so it becomes the first tool that attacks the visitor (I think NINES is of one of those examples). I also remember arguing against placing it on the sides or the corners of the homepage, but unlike the websites that places the search bar in the middle of the homepage, or even the corners, this website does not place it anywhere. It is offered as a link alongside the other main tags of the homepage, but I do not consider it part of the homepage since it requires leaving the homepage and accessing a different page.

Moving on to a different issue, I have noticed the “Featured Subjects” tag gives the same entry and provides the same kind of information that can be accessed from the homepage. The little gallery window on the homepage gives the visitor only the name of the person and few descriptive words about her. Well, going to the “Featured Subjects” page, the same thing is provided, and the type of information that I can access from this page I was able also to access a moment ago from the window gallery on the homepage. Perhaps providing a more extended information, or even the entry pages themselves, about those “subjects” on this page would make it worth going to, but providing the same info that one can get from the homepage, I say is both a wasted effort and space.

The final issue that I did not like in this website is when I browsed its content. The way the “Browse the Bibliography” page is set up is based on alphabetical order and that is it. The project itself approached its content chronologically, but; unfortunately, there is not even a chronological browsing option here. The alphabetical entries are listed in a way that I did not appreciate and I really wished if there were more options to browse/view the contents. There is, however, one thing that I liked about the website and that is the “Pop Chart” tag. Right there I was able to find an answer to the recurrent question of why digitizing, and I think the data on this page contributes a lot to the answer.


Reply To AJ's Post:

As I have noted in my post, I disliked how accessibility to the content of Collective Biographies of Women is structured, and now, I actually dislike its content, too—thanks to you, AJ. You really raised a very important issue about bibliographies in general and in this website in particular. In terms of content, there seems to be better websites out there (you mentioned some of them) but here we have this website as well. The issue of up-to-date is equally significant, and it does not seem to be at place here either. The “marketability” of its content that you pointed out to with regard to its female subjects is perhaps the motive behind the project and the reason for its survival. I also would like to add that the time scope of its case-study is perhaps another reason that makes it worth going to, but even with that, there are still some ambivalence. However, comparing the content of this website to another female-centered type of content website, such as the Victorian Women Writers Project that we looked at last week, I think the latter wins, since it provides easier accessibility, a wider scope and it seems better updated.