Site 1: Stanford Constructing the Sacred
Reconstructing the Sacred Website
Like: I like that the home page has a clean, simple aesthetic and layout. The button to continue further into the website is bold and clear as to the forward progression of the site. The opening website blurb is engaging. The animated site graphic is simple but visually interesting, showing a digital time-lapse of the ancient site construction. The blue and grey color pallete isnt the most inspiring, but the colors work well together. I appreciate that the website guides you in a linear path through their thought proccess having you scroll and then click to the next section.
Don’t Like: The academic research aspect of the website renders the pages very word-dense. This can be unengaging.
Works: The footnotes present throughout the article are well-formatted and clickable, to reveal the citation information while you are still present on the page. The video playback feature works well, and the videos are well-formatted. Each image and video has tabs underneath for description, details, citations, and source file. The headers for each paragraph section are bold and effective. Each new large section of the website comes with its intro page, followed by a table of contents, with a large continue button.
Doesn’t Work: Everything seems to be in order; I don’t see anything that “doesn’t work” with the website. It may not be the best fit for our group project, but it is a well-organised, effective site.
Incorporate? The continue button guiding you through the website could be a great way to do visual history with Devil-Goat day. The endnote feature is also something to be considered for website adaptation.
Site Date: Originally published in 2020. The site itself is within a 6-year period of today, which doesn’t make for a huge difference. The nature of the work did not seem to be heavily affected by the pandemic, but in the fine print, this may contribute to some of what’s said on the website.
Sources: The sources are both reference-based and original research, all of which is formatted in an endnote style. Because they are reconstructing an ancient settlement, many of the sources range in decades as they contribute to the image this website is trying to build. The sources are very archaeology-heavy, with inclusions of academic discourse.
Site 2: Valley of the Shadow
Like: The history of the project section runs through the project’s conception, to the modern reimagining in a new website format. This section was extremely informative about the structure of the website and the work that went into it. The narrative structure of the website is wonderful, as it contextualises a rich archive database. The website is extremely knowledgeable, but also has a very intuitive interface. I do not feel overwhelmed by the layout or information. The graphics and color scheme are very eye-catching. The website animations are professional and sleek.
Don’t Like: After scrolling the website and analysing each section, I cannot find something that I don’t like. Some elements may be trickier to implement into our website, but I feel that this website is extremely well done.
Works: The tactile nature of the website is very effective. Every section and button has confident placement, and it is clear when you are moving through the website that the features are purpose-built.
Doesn’t Work: While everything is present on the site that is needed to contextualize and understand the archive, it may be complicated to navigate for some users, particularly those who lack digital literacy.
Incorporate? The three-act history structure, each encompassing a set of years, could be a great design for illustrating 100 years of Devil-Goat day.
Site Date: The original site archive from 2007 is no longer active. Viewing the updated site, I am unable to find the new date for this iteration. As it stands, I see no difficulties introduced by its age. The website feels up-to-date and well laid out.
Sources: The majority of the sources are primary sources, such as documents of the 19th century. The secondary sources are scholarly and provide discourse for the material at hand. The website utilises a sources page with proper citations, even searchable by category.
Site 3: Virtual Paul’s Cross Project
Like: I like the concept of the website and the information sections. For 2014, exploring the augmented/ digital recreation space of history is fascinating, but it has been improved upon since.
Don’t like: The grey, white, and red color pallete isnt a poor shade combo; however, the way it is used on the website is dull, and feel rudementery. I do not like that hovering over sections lacks any animation. This can make the cursor feel dead and unresponsive to the item you are hovering over. The grey body text loses some readability, not exactly ADA-friendly.
Works: Thez drop down menues are clean, but as stated above, lack any change when you hover over them.
Doesn’t work: The source list should be broken up into categories as opposed to a laundry list. The website lacks a clear narrative flow, and is unintuitive to scroll through.
Incorporate? I don’t feel that this site in particular is desirable. I feel that there are other websites, such as the Ancient Site Project, that are more effective at displaying works of reimagining historical sites.
Site Date: The site was published in 2014. Certain features feel outdated, and certain images have to be opened in another tab as they no longer load on the page. Since 2014, site builders have become more intuitive, especially WordPress. This website needs a rebuild.
Sources: The sources are rich in original work for the recreation project itself, and include some good primary historical records, but are poorly laid out and not directly referenced effectively on the website.
Site 4: Petitioning for Freedom
Like: The layout is simple, but straightforward. The hover mechanic on sections is something I like, with assigned colors and animations. I like the glossary of terms, helpful in site exploration. The location search for the archive material is professional and well laid out.
Don’t Like: Some of the layout is a little hard to navigate. The content itself is good, but the structure lacks some connective tissue.
Works: The color palette and body paragraphs are well-formatted and interesting to read. Back-to-top button on pages is a good element to have, especially with dense archives.
Doesn’t Work: The website itself is well-maintained, and it works overall when navigating. No glaring issues present.
Incorporate? The “read their story” sections are well laid out. I like how each one has a cover image of the document. This is something that might be useful for the Devil-Goat day project. The Who, What, When, and Where sections are good elements to get people interested and oriented on the website.
Site Date: The site publication is 2025. This site is up to date, and has citation information for the website that suggests this website is still managed.
Sources: Yet to find an overall source list. The archive sources are integrated into the search and have the necessary entry information. Heavy usage of primary sources, as this is an archive website. Integrated sources work well, would like to find a complete source list.
