7th April 2009, 02:37 AM
Sheep quote
I don't think the two have to be exclusive though. Some of the sites are not very well laid out and poorly presented, I guess as they are intended for professional use. The information on them is however intresting and if it was better displayed would be of interest to the general public.
For example the Bucks website has some really good info, even has flash games for kids (i recommend the archaeolgy one) but is badly laid out, and the front page is one of the least appealing i have even seen and just does not make the user want to explore more. It is simply a matter of good presentation, a subject however that tends to make archaeologist frown and mutter into their beer.
Quote:quote: These sites were all set up for different reasons and probably with different audiences in mind. For some the aim is to make the entire HER accessible over the web for all users, including fellow professionals. Others are trying to present historic information in an accessible way for the general public. Two equally valid but very different approaches.
I don't think the two have to be exclusive though. Some of the sites are not very well laid out and poorly presented, I guess as they are intended for professional use. The information on them is however intresting and if it was better displayed would be of interest to the general public.
For example the Bucks website has some really good info, even has flash games for kids (i recommend the archaeolgy one) but is badly laid out, and the front page is one of the least appealing i have even seen and just does not make the user want to explore more. It is simply a matter of good presentation, a subject however that tends to make archaeologist frown and mutter into their beer.