When one opens The Renewing Inequality Digital Humanities Project site, they are directed to a screen that displays the title, a black and white photograph, and a brief description of what the project is about. The page is variations of gray, black, and white; the background is gray, the text white, and the photograph black and white. The title of the project appears at the top of the page, however, the second half of the title lies on top of the photo. The bottom of the page is where the brief project description appears. The “Renewing Inequality: Urban Renewal, Family Displacements, and Race 1955-1966” digital humanities project studied the effects of housing development (a government response to blight) throughout the United States, and how these federally funded housing redevelopment projects acted as catalysts to the displacement of thousands of families between 1955 and 1966. They collected, analyzed, and present data detailing the magnitude and impact of urban renewal and displacement. Other than this, there are no tabs, links, video, audio, anything on the page except if one notices below the project description that there is a text box link that reads “Next.”
Upon clicking next, the user is directed to another similarly formatted page as the first page. The second page is titled “How to Use This Map” and displays a white-outlined box with icons and descriptions next to them. This page instructs the user on how to use their interactive digital project site. The website displays four different elements (icons) and brief descriptions of how they are to be interpreted and what they represent: what circles and colors (green, purple, gray, and white) represent on the map; city views that show project boundaries and types; bar charts; and an opportunity to explore other projects similar to this one. The bottom of this screen gives the users three clickable items. The first item is a text box that says “Enter,” inviting visitors to view the formal project site; there is also a back button to return to the previous screen; and lastly there is a checkbox for the user to choose whether or not they wish to see this page again that reads “do not show again.” Other than these elements, nothing else adorns the page. Like the previous page the background is gray with a box containing the four main elements of the project. The page functions as a guide to navigate the user in what they should expect next.
Clicking on the “Enter” text box sends the user next to the main “Renewing Inequality” project site. It is as if the previous pages functioned as the hallway to a physical museum exhibit, introducing the topic and what visitors would find beyond the doors. It sets the mood and pace for what is to come next. Therefore, unlike the previous pages, this one is filled with images, texts, charts, tabs. It has a lot more detail and ways to manipulate the views of the maps, charts, etc. The top of the page has the full title again, this time accompanied with the following tabs: The People and the Program; Sources & Method; Legislative History; Citing; About; and Contact Us. The manner in which the project data is presented is with interactive visual elements: maps, charts, and images. The map is interactive (with a cartogram and chart as well) of the United States with bubbles in different colors (green, purple, gray, white) that represent displacements by city. The bigger the bubble, the more families were displaced in a given city. In the top right corner is a search box where the user can type in a city or state to see those specific statistics and trends. Below that is block of text detailing the contents of the maps and project.
Overall the site seeks to function as a central hub of information (or data) on the displacement of families in the United States between 1955-1966. They make it clear that this is the first project of this magnitude to collect all of this data together in one place. Therefore, this project most likely has a wide (targeted) audience. The primary audience would most likely be historians, sociologists, and all other academics in between who desire to conduct their own research and use this project as a source. Secondary teachers could also add this project to their lesson plans if and when the topic of housing in the United States is in the works. Additionally, because the site for the most part is easy to use (for the average user), local communities and historical and/or cultural institutions might also fit within the targeted audience parameters.
Because the data is so expansive, the user could learn as much or as little as they desire from the project. With minimum interactions with the site, users learn that displacement was a national mid-twentieth century issue, that it significantly affected African American families, and that displacement was not only an urban issue but a suburban one as well. Users wishing for more specific information could look up their own local communities, or determine trends throughout the Midwest, or other desired geographic area. Someone writing a paper or article could make ties between their research and the housing issues of their chosen area. Options for utilizing this project’s data for study, research, or curiosity are not lacking.
Though the user interface may be easy for the “average” internet user to manipulate, however other users may not share in that experience or opinion. The site designer(s) assumed that everyone would (and could) approach their work in a specific, more direct way, evidenced especially with the first two pages before the project is fully revealed. Though highly informative, the project is not a “universal design.” Essentially, it is not designed for a wide range of abilities and disabilities. Sheryle Burgstahler touches on this issue in her article “Designing Software that is Accessible to Individuals with Disabilities.” Someone with vision disabilities might have a hard time reading the site and its various visual elements. Many have to rely on assistive technology in order to listen to recordings of a given text. Burgstahler states, “To ensure access to all potential users, it is important that software producers avoid creating access barriers to people with disabilities and develop products that are compatible with assistive technology.” This issue also clashes with the second universal principle of design “flexibility in use” because it does not take adaptability and choice of method(s) into account for this community of users. Accessibility and design needed to have been considered in the creative stages of this project site.
The organizational structure of the project is understandable for the “average” user. The main page is relatively easy to look at and navigate. However, “The People and the Program” tab, though visually intriguing, could pose potential problems for those not used to reading information in this way. Additionally, the information in this tab is technically a full block of text (with images breaking up the text) that is not organized into clearly defined sections. If someone visited the site, left it, and then came back to look for a specific piece of information, they would have to scour the entire text for it since the designers did not add headings or subheadings to this section.
Cultural barriers are also apparent in this detailed project. There is no option to translate the original language to a different one. The user interface does not leave room for diversity in information consumption. It forces the user to view the information in a specified and controlled manner, especially text housed under “The People and the Program” tab. Evers, who authored the article “Cross-Cultural Understanding of Metaphors in Interface Design” asserts, “It is imperative that producers of globally market software recognise cultural differences in perception of interface design, and that they develop a frame of reference to accommodate these differences.” The author goes on to conclude that, “This cultural awareness should be fueled by the desire to improve widespread use of information technology around the world and offer equal opportunities in technological development for all people.”
The “Renewing Inequality: Urban Renewal, Family Displacements, and Race 1955-1966” digital humanities project is a welcome and much needed addition to the documentation of America’s housing and displacement history during the mid-twentieth century. Its uniqueness and breadth make it a project that could be used by many, from scholars to those wanting to learn about their city’s past displacement issues. It makes work on this topic, as well as adjacent and or similar ones, easier to navigate and understand, that is, for the “average” user. The impact of this essential project is lost on those who are unable to read, see, or understand the language it is written in or for those with disabilities. This is why it is critical that digital humanities projects consider all user interface elements and considerations to ensure that their work is accessible for a wider variety of communities.
Amber Sophia 