Comparing Emily Dickinson Projects: Discussion

[ebeshero]

The short poems of Emily Dickinson have generated lots of excitement and serious digital humanities projects in our time. Web technology lets more people than ever before view "photo facsimiles" of the tiny scraps of paper on which she wrote, and text encoding has transformed and remixed and circulated the poems to give them a digital rebirth. Let's review and discuss some of these projects to see what text encoding can do with the way we read a poet.

Browse the following projects and choose two to discuss together in your post. You'll need to be patient and "dig around" some of these sites to get to the poems. I'll provide a little guidance to get you in to each one:

1. Radical Scatters: Emily Dickinson's Late Fragments and Related Texts, 1870-1886

   • Skim around the introductions to get a sense of what this site is archiving.
   • Then wander about in the Browse documents: dig into a collection and select some poems: look at each reading view and look at the XML code.

2. Emily Dickinson Project (fascicles 16 and 6) (made/remade by my students from 2015/16!) :-)

   • Try interacting with some specific poems posted on this site, such as Poem 1605, and look at the Dash Reduction Analysis. What can you learn about how Dickinson a) wrote variations on her own wording, and b) how publications of her poems altered her work? How are you able to learn about this?

3. Emily Dickinson Archive: An open-access website for the manuscripts of Emily Dickinson

   • There are three ways to explore this site from the front page: either by Searching the text of the poems for a word or phrase, by browsing by library collection, or by Lexicon: looking up words and definitions pulled from Dickinson's poems. Try exploring some of each.
   • For the Search box, try plugging in some words that jump out at you from the Lexicon. Suggestion: try the word "bee" or the word "fly"
   • If you look up the word "funeral" you'll see how this site archives versions of Poem 1605 represented in the Emily Dickinson student project.

In your posts, you should respond with your thoughts about how any two of these sites compare with each other for a) how you interact with Dickinson's poems: how are they represented and what is the reading experience like? b) what can you see of the text encoding: How easily can you find the markup, and what kinds of things can you see in the markup? How does the markup compare between the two projects you're looking at?

This is a discussion! Since each of you is responding here, you can reply to each other, help each other out (it's tricky to to get a view of the code in the Emily Dickinson Archive but it is there!), and also feature examples (you can use screen captures from the sites in your posts). We'll keep this discussion running online until Friday this week.

[tylerakam]

1. The introductions informed me that each document I was looking at was a "fragment" of a poem in progress by Dickinson. By looking at the page, I could note some footnotes that clarified some information such as publication date and where it was found, along with some context to what was written. As for the actual fragments, I noticed that they documented relevant pieces of information for each document,, such as physical information and history of the document. Upon looking at the XML code, I could see that the information was categorized using attributes that are similar to how I personally would mark up the document. This included separating lines and outlining physical attributes of the words and handwriting of the fragments.
2. From the organization on the website, I was able to differentiate the versions of Dickinson's poems from each other. There were useful toggles for different alterations from Dickinson herself, along with differently presented versions that have been published in different books for different reasons. The toggle feature was useful for showing the reader how many different drafts existed, and allows for the reader to take it upon themselves to compare and analyze the changes made between each version, such as a subtle change of letter case. The fascicles compared to the publications can show how Dickinson changed her writing style to one that can arguably be easier to read and take in information. The different publications seem to highlight her final versions more than the others. Through the set up of the website, I was able to use these toggles to compare all of the information, especially noticing the dashes being removed or altered in publications, something that the website was able to retain the information of.

[ebeshero]

<xml>....</xml>

[julianjmg]

a.) I am taking a look at projects 1 and 2. I really like the second websites interactivity. Youre able to look at the poems and the different versions of the poems. It highlights nouns and characters that are present that may be in one version of the poem, and not in the other. I found this really interesting. For the 1st website you're also able to pick and choose which poem you would like to look at but you cant look at the poems as in depth as the 2nd website. I really enjoyed the 2nd website a lot better. That is mostly because of the more intuitive website layout. Its just easier to read and look at.

b.) I was able to find the 2nd websites mark up files, but it took me quite a bit of time to find the xml for the 1st website. Right off the bat, I can see a pretty significant difference between the markups. The Radical Scatters project uses a div element with an electrictranscription attribute for the root of the xml file. The Emily Dickinson project (2nd website) uses a TEI element for the root element. But I think that the biggest difference between the two files is in the simplicity of the element names. The Radical Scatters project uses simple and abbreviated names like lb, ab, and seg, while the Emily Dickinson project uses full words for their element names like header PublicationStmt... But upon further inspection of the Emily Dickinson projects XML file (scrolling down more) i was able to see that they also head simple names for the elements when it came to the actual poem piece. So the main difference is that the second website includes metadata within their XML file.

[jms9354]

Comparing Emily Dickinson's Projects "Radical Scatters" off initial had a very vintage historical feel, with the stamp and letter heading and the coloring of the website. Radical Scatter's showcases Emily's late fragments and related texts, that consisted of 82 documents and over 100 fragmentary texts composed by Dickinson's the final years of her life. The website seems to be comprised by one writer which is Marta L Werner. It is a very put together, very organized with a library search where she acquired the text and documents. you can even search media where it shows the work Emily composed in pencil or ink. The website also has an archive of her different copies whether they be fair, rough, or intermediate so you can decipher her writing process from each stage.

"Emily Dickinson Project" Their website starts with a picture of Emily and one of her pieces. Also gives you a brief but descriptive biography of Emily Dickinson. They also give you a link to the Emily Dickinson Museum site where there is a ton of archived information about Emily and her work. Their website also speaks of fascicles which is a cluster of pages of Emily Dickinson poems. Well put together website, just not as informative as Radical Scatter's. This website took more of a basic easy to follow approach. This page seems to have started in 2015 at The University of Pittsburgh-Greensburg. The page members are comprised of a collection of members. Current Members: Nicole Lottig, Rebecca Parker. Past Members: being Brooke Stewart, Alex Mielnicki, Brooke Lawrence, and our very own Newt Fire. I find this very interesting and cool because there seems to be a passing of the guard situation to keep the website up to date and functional.

"Emily Dickinson Archive" off first glance seemed very basic until you start interacting and clicking on tabs. it is a website full of manuscripts of Emily Dickinson. The Homepage gives you a description on what their page is about. They have a full archive of Emily Dickinson work from around the world. It also gives you a brief biography about Emily similar to the other websites. The website has tabs you can interact with where you can view images of Emily's work through photos of her actual work. Which is pretty cool because as you click the next arrow it flips like an actual page in a book. While also updating the dates and what piece of work it is, with each flip. They also have a sign up, for what I would assume can be used to receive notifications from the website. I'm not sure because I didn't sign up. Lastly, they have an Emily Dickinson Lexicon which is pretty much her version of a webster dictionary. you can browse through it alphabetically through over 9,000 words.

Overall, each website had similarities far as Emily Dickinson information they just all displayed it differently. Whether that be through physically on the website or through links. They have different bits of information about her that the others didn't. They were also formatted different with few similarities.

[ghost]

Wheew wow, okay. I checked out sites 1 and 3. Both are quite different from eachother:

A. Site 1 is more interested in the documentation and analyzing of different text fragments left by Dickinson. The landing page goes into vast detail about how they categorize and analyze these texts. All sentences that are hyperlinked under "Introductions" are documenting the history and organization of the poem fragments. The very last link is instructions for how to navigate the site, which I greatly appreciated. Below under "indices" you can find her writings. They organized them into 3 categories based on the content and relationship each fragment has with other fragments. Once you get into the transcripts the page is laid out in such a lovely way. You can view a typed transcript, an image of the original writing, and the text encoding for the writing. It is really easy to find readable versions of her poems on this site. Site 3 is a little less nuanced than site 1. It takes a lot more interaction to find what you are looking for. There is a lot of interesting information, and even links to related works. If I hadn't noticed the tiny box that says "Text" on the righthand side of the site I do not think I would have been able to understand what the poem was about (my cursive is really rusty). Once I found that it was easy to read the poem. I liked how they documented what was in the poem by words on a line, documenting the line break, then repeating. Felt like xml but without the code. Finding the xml was the hard part, I also didn't like that I had to download each file instead of it opening in a new window like the first site.

B. The markup is rather simple to find on the first site, the second site is where it becomes a little tricky. The first site adds an insane amount of metadata to the markup (probably because they were trying to build a web of poem fragments) whereas the third site felt more like how I would code something like this. The first site's code was a little more difficult to take in and read, but once you've read a couple it is more easy to understand. Both mark lines and line breaks, however the first site documents that it is handwritten in ink, while the third site doesn't.

[WillStill]

I took a look at 2 and 3 from the list.

The Emily Dickinson Project is limited in the amount of poems by Dickinson, but despite this I think it makes an amazing effort to demonstrate the differences between each publications. By comparing publications of Dickinson's work, I was able to discover which parts have been confused due to interpretation. Source images of the scanned poems are also of a large help, letting me analyze the poem if warranted. Navigation was the biggest issue though, as the menu was reused to guide through fascines and poems. With this site, the authors also allowed visitors to view their own XML in an easy to access way. Reading through the code shows that a majority of the markup prioritizes categorizing the differences between publications.

The Emily Dickinson Archive works well on showing a comparison between the sources and the publications, rather than the publications against themselves. The source images are shown in the center, where transcriptions and edits can be seen on the right. As well, the archive focuses on individual words that can be found in their collection of poems. A lexicon is included with helpful definitions for each term and each of these terms can then be searched for within Dickinson's poems. The site fulfills its purpose as an archive very well, and the method of comparison is neat. However, as an archive the categorization could just as easily been substituted for categorization by title. The text search could help a reader discover certain themes in the poems, but many of the words from the lexicon page have no connotations or have several depending on their use. Tell me what theme a poem is going for when your given the word "octave". XML was more difficult to find, and I dislike having to download the XML for each poem. Each publication of each poem has their own XML file. Lines are marked as l elements, stanzas as lg, and edits are marked with an app element with a type="revision" attribute. lem and rdg elements follow quickly after with the same text inside. At a glance, it seems like the standard XML that we have been learning, but I still don't know why two elements are needed to repeat the same text for an edit.

[JaxAbele]

I looked through websites 1 and 2.

In the first website, poems are put together in a large library and then organized in several different groups based on what the user is looking for. Once clicking a poem you are shown an image of the original piece of work along with several facts such as when the poem was written, where it is stored now, and different versions over the years. The user is also given the ability to look at different reading views and transcriptions including an xml markup. Looking at the xml, it seems pretty simple. It seems that its main purpose is to just separate lines, stanzas, segments, type of document, etc.

The 2nd website seems to have a much different function than the first. I fuund this website to be very interesting. It has a large amount of poems documented that the user can look and and analyze how the poem has been changed and altered over the years in different publications. While many of the differences are minor such as different capitalization or different placement of quotation or punctuation, it is still very interesting to see the changes made over the years to the original document. The XML markup of the poem is much more complicated on this website because of the fact that several different versions of the poem are being documented within the XML.

[JaxAbele]

@WillStill The process for looking at the XML in the 2nd website was definitely a bit of a hassle. While you can download it, I found that opening in a separate tab was an easier alternative. Still a bit of a hassle to find either way!

[MinWu859]

1. The introductions informed me that each document I was looking at was a "fragment" of a poem in progress by Dickinson. By looking at the page, I could note some footnotes that clarified some information such as publication date and where it was found, along with some context to what was written. As for the actual fragments, I noticed that they documented relevant pieces of information for each document,, such as physical information and history of the document. Upon looking at the XML code, I could see that the information was categorized using attributes that are similar to how I personally would mark up the document. This included separating lines and outlining physical attributes of the words and handwriting of the fragments.
2. From the organization on the website, I was able to differentiate the versions of Dickinson's poems from each other. There were useful toggles for different alterations from Dickinson herself, along with differently presented versions that have been published in different books for different reasons. The toggle feature was useful for showing the reader how many different drafts existed, and allows for the reader to take it upon themselves to compare and analyze the changes made between each version, such as a subtle change of letter case. The fascicles compared to the publications can show how Dickinson changed her writing style to one that can arguably be easier to read and take in information. The different publications seem to highlight her final versions more than the others. Through the set up of the website, I was able to use these toggles to compare all of the information, especially noticing the dashes being removed or altered in publications, something that the website was able to retain the information of.

Reply: I have analyzed your post and found it amazing in the context of differentiating the two poem versions. The poet has written on essential topics, but you have discussed the most interesting toggles. The toggles determine how many copies or drafts of a particular poem or fragment existed. It is essential to know that the poets wanted to attract a large audience and increase their understanding. For this reason, it has become necessary to narrate the details of poems in different versions. You have described the detailed footnotes and relevant information quite well. Your discussion inspires me, and I have got informative content from it.

[MinWu859]

1. The introduction of poems belongs to Dickinson, and I looked at the two documents; these were the fragments. The introduction of two fragments were the parts of a poem composed by the same authors. One of the interesting facts that I noted in the fragments and pages was the footnotes at the end of each page. There is some information on each page, giving the audience awareness. The reader needs to know the publication date and other context. Fragments' separating lines and physical attributes were worth noting in the XML code.
2. The organizations on the website and I made the difference between versions of Dickerson’s poems. Different techniques were used in the poem, including the toggles and alterations. Though the poems are composed by Dickinson herself, the author has published different versions in different books. The author has published the versions of poems for different reasons. The toggle feature is shown, and it is essential to show a version's different number of drafts. The readers are used to comparing and analyzing the changes made in each version, like the changing of case letters. I have used toggles to distinguish the different features and the content of versions. I have seen that the poet has tried to make refined copies through the different versions. It has been seen that the original copy is not as comprehensive and good as the versions of the poem. I have found the understanding of poems through the toggles and compared them. Ultimately, I have determined the details of poems and fragments through the footnotes and relevant composition features.

[epp5198]

1. The first site that I looked at was the first listed, Radical Scatters: Emily Dickinson's Late Fragments and Related Texts. This website shows fragments of Emily Dickinson's poems in the works as stated on the home page of the website. Once the fragments are reached the reader has over a hundred pieces by Dickinson to read over. My favorite part of this website is the diversity of views. Being able to switch between views of XML, to facsimile and so on gives a very interesting and useful view to the fragments. The markup used in the XML view uses simple tags (ex. lb to indicate lines) and attributes (ex. type="stanza") much like what we have learned in class so far this semester. Due to the display of these fragments giving the option on what way to view the fragments it was quite simple to find the XML writeups on this website leaving an overall easy experience in using the website and viewing the information needed.

2. Apart from website number 1 I also looked at the second listed website, the Emily Dickinson Project. For me, this website was not as easy to use as the first. This website however is still very useful. The original document is displayed alongside a transcript allowing for ease of read while still viewing the original document. Accessing the XML markup was easier to access through this website than the first as the file can open then and there. The markup that was used on this website shows more depth into the writing as the numerous amounts of tags and attributes help form interesting shapes from Dickinson's work. Many different poems are on offer to view on this website each with its own XML file readily available for ease of use making it a very useful website all together.

[ZSchleger]

I looked at websites 1 and 2

A. On website 1 the fragments of poems are organized based on things like the file location, composition date, or paper types. I like how extensive this system is and I like how you can view the original document and a transcribed version of it. On website 2 the poems are not as well organized, they are divided into two main categories Fascicle 6 and Fascicle 16. On website 2 I like that you can toggle different versions of the poem side by side so you can see variations in the works. The way website 2 is laid out is more visually pleasing and easier to use than website 1.

B. On both websites the markup was easy to access. The markup on website 1 is much simpler than on website 2. On website one, the XML markup mainly just separates the lines and shows the format of the text. On website 2 the markup is much more extensive and shows the variations between the different variations of the text.

[tec5271]

For my post, I will be discussing the observations that I take away from projects 2 and 3. To start, project 2 does an admirable job of giving context to what the website is and how to navigate through the different aspects of the text analysis. They have brought both versions of the poem(the original and the transcripted) and placed them side by side for easy viewing and comparison. This was made with efficiency in mind. The third site on the other hand was not as simple. While there were instructions on how to navigate the site they were not posted on the home page. To find these instructions one must click on the about tab and then click the 'How to use tab. This is something very minor but it would be helpful for something so important to have its own tab rather than being embedded in another. The way that you view the poems is also a bit less engaging than the second site. For the second website, the XML was easy to come across. The markup is super in-depth and revealing to how the coders organized the website. I found it difficult to access the XML when it came to the third. Having to download the xml for each poem is too much of a hassle for any user. It would be nice if this was changed and stored on a public repo that a link could navigate users to.

[gak5275]

I looked at the Emily Dickinson Project first. The poems were relatively easy to find, though I think that there should be an option to access the poems directly from the home page instead of having to choose a fascicle first. Each poem is presented with the original document to the right and a transcript with markup to the left. The major words of each stanza are highlighted. There are several variations of each poem highlighted with different colors (Centenary Edition, Final Harvest, etc.). Most of the differences that I noticed between variations were in punctuation. One version might have a period where another has a dash. The XML for the poems was easily accessible, since each one has a "view original XML" option that takes you directly to it. It looks way more advanced than anything that we have done in class so far, with several lines of markup between nearly every single line. It also has some features that directly apply to the text like a strikethrough (though something like that might be more so HTML than XML).

Next, I looked at the Emily Dickinson Archives. I felt that this site was not quite as user friendly as the ED Project was, but it still was not too hard to find the poems. You can choose to look at pictures of the original documents or search for them "by work", which presents you with the original document, an option to view a transcript, and a search feature with which you can look up any word in the lexicon. There is also a metadata section at the bottom the page. If you search for a word, you will be shown each line in the entire collection that contains said word. The XML was very well hidden on this site, to the point where I almost gave up trying to find it. When viewing a poem, you have click the "Text" tab to view the transcript, then click "About Work", which will then give you to option to "Download as TEI". You must then download the XML file to your computer, rather than just viewing it in your browser. The markup for these poems did not seem nearly as intense as it was in the ED Project, but the poems that I viewed the XML for were on the ED Archive were also shorter. There were a lot elements nested in other elements.

Overall, I prefer the ED Project, as it is easier to navigate. Both sites definitely have value and unique features that set them apart. The ED Project appears to be more focused on analyzing the punctuation in the poems, while the ED Archive emphasizes word usage as evidenced by its sizeable lexicon.

[abbeyypalmer]

I chose to examine projects 1 and 2. For project 1 I found it interesting in how is was organized based on characteristics such as location, paper type, and markings on document body. It doesn't necessarily analyze many of the literary elements, but instead focuses on aspects that are more physical. I thought it was a cool perspective to view Dickinson's works through. Good descriptions for every aspect of the texts were given and it was easy to access the xml, transcription, and etc. Generally, I found the website visually pleasing and easy to use with many features to be utilized.

For project 2 I found the site easy to navigate and understand, with easy access to xml and simple instructions on how everything functions. I like how the original poem can be side by side with the transcribed text, however, I wish there was also a way to only view one at a time inside the website without having to open a pop-up. I liked how they were comparing different variations of her texts and how you can easily toggle though all the variations. In the end, I personally like the first site more because I found it easier to comprehend, but that's just a personal preference. Both have their merits.

[abbeyypalmer]

1. The first site that I looked at was the first listed, Radical Scatters: Emily Dickinson's Late Fragments and Related Texts. This website shows fragments of Emily Dickinson's poems in the works as stated on the home page of the website. Once the fragments are reached the reader has over a hundred pieces by Dickinson to read over. My favorite part of this website is the diversity of views. Being able to switch between views of XML, to facsimile and so on gives a very interesting and useful view to the fragments. The markup used in the XML view uses simple tags (ex. lb to indicate lines) and attributes (ex. type="stanza") much like what we have learned in class so far this semester. Due to the display of these fragments giving the option on what way to view the fragments it was quite simple to find the XML writeups on this website leaving an overall easy experience in using the website and viewing the information needed.
2. Apart from website number 1 I also looked at the second listed website, the Emily Dickinson Project. For me, this website was not as easy to use as the first. This website however is still very useful. The original document is displayed alongside a transcript allowing for ease of read while still viewing the original document. Accessing the XML markup was easier to access through this website than the first as the file can open then and there. The markup that was used on this website shows more depth into the writing as the numerous amounts of tags and attributes help form interesting shapes from Dickinson's work. Many different poems are on offer to view on this website each with its own XML file readily available for ease of use making it a very useful website all together.

I analyzed the same sites as you and also found the second one a bit difficult at first. I feel like there is definitely more of a learning curve with that one.

[DivinexRoyalty]

Ok wow.. this is definitely a lot to take in.

Starting with site 1. After searching and looking through the first site, I definitely feel as though I wouldn’t be drawn to a site like this at first glimpse. Once you begin reading, you can see that site one is compiled of numerous fragments of stories that Dickinson was working on. The website is definitely very information and documentation heavy. I feel as though this website is geared towards someone who is more word oriented and like the info laid out.

moving on to site 3, I loved this one more. This site allowed me to feel like I was uncovering the information using the search bar and allowed me to feel a more interactive sense to it all. I was definitely able to play around with this website more and try to find out more about the author as opposed to the fragments if stories laid out on the first page. I feel as though this site is oriented for individuals who like to do a little more digging. And kids an interactive style.

[DivinexRoyalty]

@abbeyypalmer id definitely agree the XML switch aspect was very interesting, it gave a more analytical depth to the website, which did make finding everything easy in a sense. However, at some points I did have trouble with it and felt deterred from the website because I didn’t feel as though it was as interactive as site 3 thus why I said personally I would use site 3 more. All in all I definitely agree with how you pointed out the use of the xml search helps analyze the fragments of the poems.

[gak5275]

@tec5271 I also thought that the ED Archive was not that user friendly. It is a bit unclear at first how you access the poems. On websites like these, the poems should be front and center and easily accessible directly from the home page.

[MyeishaF]

2) For this website, I liked that it started with a general overview of Emily Dickinson. The homepage included links, in the overview which helped you learn more about the author. However, the Emily Dickinson museum website link didn't work for me? I felt like it was very user-friendly, and the taskbar provided several journeys. I explored Fascicle 16's conclusion. The researchers wanted to eliminate any bias in the data. So, they created buttons on the homepage(all leading to different variations) to eliminate any prioritization, so the reader could decide what's more interesting. The website definitely works as the researchers intended. Also think it was smart highlighting the variations with xml, as it made them more apparent. They made the XML file easy to find. The attributes they used to label the variations were very easy to understand. Like the Letter to Susan Dickinson was labeled ("#lSD"), and Final Harvest ("#fh") it is easy to determine what works are being compared that way.

3)It is a cool idea to have an Emily Dickinson dictionary, but I don't think it's laid out in the most user-friendly way. It's a bit overwhelming for the lexicon to just have many words lined up. Filtering does seem to solve that problem. Compared to the second website, which kind of holds your hand, this one is completely unguided. Apart from filtering, I was unsure of what I should even be looking up. "This site is not a new edition of Dickinson’s poems. It is, as its name says, an archive that seeks to make available in one virtual place those resources that seem central to the study of Dickinson’s work." i think its completing its goal.

[ztd5049]

1. I chose Radical Scatters: Emily Dickinson's Late Fragments and Related Texts as the first website. Navigating this website seemed confusing at first. However, there was a introduction section to the website and all the parts within. This website has many fragments of Emily Dickinson's works and has many different ways to view them. I found pictures of poems written on paper, text transcriptions of each note, and XML markup to go with each one. It was quite easy to find the markup for the poems and the encoded messages were labeled with accurate elements and attributes.

2. Second, I chose number 3. This website was had a better layout in my opinion. It was easier to find certain manuscripts and to explore the website. There is multiple ways to view the sources from Emily Dickinson. Like the last website, there are picture views and text views, but unlike the last website, I was not able to find any XML markup language for the poems. Other views implemented were a book view to flip through collections page by page as you read. With the sign up option, I believe you could add your own hypertext in with lines of the poems for simple personal markup. The Lexicon feature was also interesting because it detailed the language used by Emily and her own meanings and uses of words.

[LizardWizard01]

I chose projects 1 and 3 a. My reading experience for the first website was pretty easy. I didn't have trouble finding a certain poem fragment to read and each one had tabs to click on that would show me the original image, the transcribed digital text, and the xml markup. However, website 3 was much more tricky. It's essentially a specifically tailored dictionary for Emily Dickinson's poems. It allows me to search using words form the lexicon and gives a list of places where a word was used. Finding the original texts and transcripts wasn't the issue, it was finding the xml code. Luckily I was able to find some instructions which told me how to download the xml document for a transcript. b. As stated above, finding the xml code for site 1 was much easier than site 3. Looking at and comparing xml code form both websites, I can see that the code for site 1 transcripts have more to them than site 3. Site 3 transcripts seem to simply be organizational markup, separating lines and stanzas and whatnot. Site 1's markup seems to have more things than lines and stanzas and is organized differently. Besides the inherent difference in organization, part of the difference could stem from the 2 documents I looked at. The fragment from site 1 seemed to have been written differently than site 3's. Nevertheless, both are still similar in general structure of markup.

[jdh6067]

I looked at the first two websites. The first website was interesting in the collection and archive of fragments of her work. I thought it was interesting that the website included all the types of paper the writings were printed on, something that gets lost in digital archiving. I also enjoyed that the website allowed users to view the documents in different styles, from reading view, facsimile, transcription, and encoding. My favorite thing about the website is that it included incomplete and scraps of work.

The second website was that it included the variations in the works as they were published in different places. One of the most interesting things on this website was the graph which showed the removal of dashes throughout the publications, which was something her work commonly featured. It was really surprising seeing how many publications omitted most or all of the dashes. This has implications in data archival, in which the original work should be first priority in archival.

[Stach13]

1. When analyzing Radical Scatters, I found that the website and database as a whole carried a lot explicit and clearly detailed data, especially when it came to fragment changes to Dickinson's poems over time. Despite some of the overwhelming amounts of information compiled from "Textual and Critical Introductions" and "Documents Carrying Poems...", some of the pages depicting her poems and added fragments have a very similar layout to that of other archival and blog type public domains. Strangely, the website layout reminds me a lot of websites like Wikipedia, in which much of the information is contained in a very unorganized structure, yet display all accounts, updates, changes, and original documents together into one site to be stored. In terms of the UI or interaction with some of the drop down menus (i.e. Physical Description, Collection, and Transmission History ) or (Reading View, Facsmile, and Transcription) I believe it categorizes every aspect of each fragment and poem extremely well. It shows that every source is verifiable and credible.

2. When I analyzed the "Emily Dickinson Project" website, it resembled the complete opposite appearance than that of Radical Scatters. Every markup and style layout was extremely well oriented. I especially appreciated the detailed analysis', such as dash usage and Network. It reminded me a lot of a scholarly article, with titles like an Abstract, Results, and Conclusion. When it came to the layout structure of the XML files, I thought they were marvelously organized. For example, In Fascicle 6; Poem 3 the elements and attributes were arranged very simplistically, with <div type="references"> to include images of documents and <div type="witness"> to input major contributors/editors that made new fragments to the poems along the way. With the last elements being the <body> structure caps it off.

[JiayuanWen]

I took a look at Emily Dickinson Project and Emily Dickinson Archive.

Accessing Emily's works in Emily Dickinson Project can sometimes be confusing as it relies on headers for navigation rather than buttons or hyperlinks on the pages themselves. The poems are sorted by Fascicle, each poem in a fascicle is numbered for listing. For each poem, besides pictures of the original manuscript and transcribed text side by side, you can toggle text transcription from different sources, each source is highlighted in both text and image so viewers can spot differences between sources. Getting the markup of the poems is literally a click of a button on the left; To save it to your local storage, you have to create an empty XML file, then copy and paste the content from web page to that file. The markup is very general structure wise except the attributes used on each line of the poems, which are used by the website to differentiate different sources and I find that to be interesting.

Accessing Emily's works in Emily Dickinson Archive is very simple, there is a hyperlink on the homepage that take you to the collection page, from their you choose the work you want to visit. The manuscripts are sorted by sources, how they are sorted within each source depends, some sources sort by fascicles only, some sort by poem names only, some sort by fascicles then poems, some sort the opposite way. it is not consistent. The script pages show the manuscript image and the transcribed text (You have to manually open it), you have the search function for searching specific word within the same fascicle, lexicon for looking up definition of unfamiliar words, and browse for finding poems within the same fascicle. Finding the markup is not straight forward, you have to open the text transcription, click About Work, then scroll down to see the download button. Compare to Emily Dickinson Project, the XML markup is way more complex, some tags took me minutes to figure out what their function is. Minimal attributes are used, most of them are for sorting and search indexing, rarely are they used for site functions like they do in Emily Dickinson Project.

[gzc5211]

When I browsed the first website, I felt that I could easily figure out the structure of the website. This structure allows me to quickly find the knowledge I want to know, but it is difficult for me to concentrate when reading a lot. But when I saw the second site, I liked the arrangement and the nice site design. Different sections can make people quickly find the information they like to know and click. I can still see the big difference when I look at the XML file, the first site is easier to find the markup than the second site. Much different content can be easily found in it. This site has very comprehensive tags and attributes. This helped me to understand the two sites very well.

[kzp308]

I looked at sites 1 and 2. It seems that the first website is much more basic as to what the user would be looking for in each poem. You can see things like the paper type or date in which the poems were composed. The first site does not analyze the poems from a deeper stand point. It's very cut and dry. Straight to the point. In a lot of ways I prefer this type of code opposed to others but, it does not seem that this type of code suits poems. There's not much in terms of depth with the literature. The second website seemed very clear and precise to understand. I really liked how the transcript is next to the original text document. Another element I enjoyed was the graph. It showed the editing done on each publication so that was cool to see the progression. All around the website seemed to have a cleaner and more organized feel than the first website.

[JiminyKricket0323]

I checked out the first site and the second site.

The Radical Scatter shows brief information on the difference between Emily Dickinson's poems and letters in timelines. The first thing I noticed from this website is that I found it was kinda hard to navigate as I saw huge chunks of paragraphs underneath the "navigation bar". It delivers good content, but It would be better if there was some sort of image in between timelines. However, all of the documents and files that were called "fragments" were well organized. It was actually satisfying to see how organized all a large number of files were there easy to find. After reading many poems I've noticed that she has used a variety of signs such as "+", and "-" and also exclamation marks. I was a little confused about her usage of the plus sign but I did understand her usage of hyphens to connect the stanzas. Also, she often used hyphens to end the poem with her name. The last thing that I've noticed from her usage of the hyphen is that she put it in between one word. My understanding of this part is maybe she tried to emphasize the word by making people notice the syllable of the word that she was trying to emphasize.

After reading the first website, I've moved to the second website of the Emily Dickinson project. I loved. I actually loved the navigation bar with the dropdown menus, and the image for the visuals as well. Also, the starting letter "D" that was in different typography definitely drew my attention to be interested to read the paragraph. I liked how simple it was to explore however, there was less content than on the first website. Also, I enjoyed visiting all the in-line links that were super easy to follow.

[SavannahRicks]

I looked at sites 1 and 2. Both websites were very informative with how they present data made by Emily Dickenson. They both contain the original photos of Emily's writings, the translated photos, and the XML encodings of them. There are some differences though. The first site just contains the basic details of encoding, whereas the second site contains the different updated versions of each writing. There can be up to 6 different encodings that can be compared side-by-side if needed. I personally love the second website, soley based on how much detail is put into it. It just showed how much data that can be documented. It reminds me that data is everywhere and infinate, and it inspires me to do more.