Internet Archaeol 15. Kathryn Denning. Specific questions about hypertext reception...

4.2 Specific questions about hypertext reception and archaeology's audience

Here are just a few questions, for which even partial answers could help us write better archaeological websites:

What are the differences in reception of sequential exposition augmented by multimedia, versus intensely fragmented hypertext?
For public archaeology's purposes, is it better to use the WWW to publish highly illustrated essays, or to break papers down into small sections with multiple links between them?
How does hypertextual presentation affect the different kinds of information routinely conveyed in archaeology?
Does hypertext affect people's understanding of empirical data (this pot was found within this feature), scientific explanation (how thermoluminescence dating works), experimental procedure (we attempted a new form of analysis), historical interpretation (this pot is from this era and this social group), literary narrative (what the life of the potter was like)?
Within a hypermedia environment, how can we effectively, consistently, and fairly signal epistemic distinctions between archaeological fact, 'standard' interpretation, 'alternative' interpretation, speculation, and reconstructive fiction?
For example, if one is discussing the history of the idea of Atlantis, are there visual cues one might use to help separate Plato's story, archaeological investigations of Thera, and tabloid reports of submerged cities off the coast of Florida?
Are multiple voices best accommodated through structural integration of their content — i.e. in a single synthesis — or through separate, linked texts?
If an archaeological site can easily be interpreted in radically different ways — say, from the perspective of indigenous Britons vs. the perspective of Romans, or the perspective of enslaved Africans vs. the perspective of those who exploited their labour, or the perspective of women and children vs. the perspective of men — then what is the best way of including these multiple interpretations?
Can nonlinear presentations of information beneficially influence epistemological frameworks?
If archaeological evidence and interpretation are represented as a complex web of inference, does this help people's understanding of how we know the past?
What kinds of navigational aids should we provide to our readers to help them locate their subjects simultaneously in space, time, and cyberspace?
Geographical maps, timelines, website maps, menus, frames… what options are best suited for the challenge of representing multidimensional archaeological information?
How do readers of varying ages use websites differently?
Nielsen (2002) notes that the age of the viewer is highly significant, not merely with respect to the content, level of writing used, and the nature of the illustrations, but also with respect to fundamental aspects of Web design. For example, children in the study (a) rarely scrolled down pages, (b) liked geographic navigation metaphors, (c) actually read instructions much more readily than adults, (d) did not discriminate between site content and advertisements, and thus clicked ads much more frequently than adults (Nielsen 2002). This clearly has implications for the 'all-purpose website' that many public archaeology sites try to provide.