Blog 4

I decided to explore the website labeled under the letter “B”. 


Website number one:


Strengths: Overall the website is easily navigable. Everything is clearly labeled on the front page. You would be able to find the resources, advertisements, documents, profiles, and exploratory essays,  easily.  When browzing, you are able to find a very specific time period or even date that want to search for which I found to be useful. Also, the website clearly states the intended purpose of the website on the front page.


Weaknesses: Overall the websites looks are not great. It looks like a website you might have seen in the 2010s, this doesn’t really impact the quality of the content found on the website, I just think that the appearance could be better which affects the experience of the user. 


How the information is presented:   The information is presented in a very clean manner.  It splits the advertisements into two different categories, advertisements, and documents.   When investigating the advertisements, you can filter by,  “detailed search”,  “browse”, “Full-Text search”,  and “Maps and Timelines.” When investigating documents you can filter by, “Official Records”,  “Newspaper Materials”, “Slaveholder Records”  and  “Literature and Narratives.”. 

Each of these filters has sub-filters with time period searches. 


Accessibility for readers: This website is very accessible and navigable. As mentioned in its strength, everything is clearly labeled and easy to find. The website is not cluttered and gets to the point.


Website Number Two:


Strengths: The website looks great. I can tell that time and effort were out in to make sure that the user has a good experience navigating through every tab and resource. Just like the last website, the purpose/mission is clearly stated. 


Weaknesses: I do not like how the website presents its information. I think the website looks cluttered even though it still looks good (if that makes sense). I also noticed that some links don’t work when you have it in a split-screen mode which is really annoying. 


How the information is presented: After finding the link to the information (I’ll get to that next), the information is presented in a good manner. After accessing the database it brings you to a page that tells you some stats about how many advertisements, contributors, and contributions there are. You can click on “search” and it brings you up to a page where you can filter everything. You can filter from advertisements, runaways, enslaver, and events. 

Accessibility for readers: This is my biggest complaint with this website. For some odd reason, they made the link to the resource at the top of the page (not in the navigation part). It took me a solid 2-3 minutes to find it. I also disliked that the website is only one page. This makes it tough to read about one certain section.

One thought on “Blog 4

  1. I really like how you presented your evaluations in different categories and your observations are very detailed for both websites. With the Geography of Slavery website (#1), it has a copyright of 2005 at the bottom which indicates to me that this is more or less an “archived” project with minimal efforts to sustain it. This happens a lot to digital projects, and its because upkeep costs time, money, and energy. With that said, I completely agree that the wealth of information on the site truly speaks for itself. It is an excellent database for that reason. The second website is much newer, although as you mentioned, I agree that it is a little clunky and disorganized. This is a concern as it *seems* to be intended for broader audiences (and younger students at that!).

Leave a Reply