As usual, we started our meeting by going over some of the things we had done within the last week:
Richa made a lot of progress on the project website, especially with the reading views for the tragedies. With the exception of Medea, all of our tragedies have a reading view page, where the box on the left has the pain instances, and the box on the right has the full text of the tragedy.
Vidya wrote about our methodology, and pushed that HTML file to our repository.
Alexis finished writing the bios for the team members and our TAs.
There was some confusion with WinSCP/Fetch regarding files not showing up and uploading files to the server (for Cherina and Alexis respectively), but we figured it out.
Our first main topic of discussion was the project showcase. We went over the plans we had made during the last project meeting, and Caroline had some suggestions:
We should probably try and send at least an overview of what we're planning to say in our Slack channel
What we individually have to say should be said within three minutes, so we should practice and time ourselves
After that, we talked about the reading view that Richa had created. Caroline mentioned a few things that we could change, such as:
The way the scroll bars look. Richa wanted to change this, but couldn't figure out how to. We had several minutes of confusion, because the scroll bar showed up as black on some of our screens, but not everyone's, and then the scroll bar turned gray again. We concluded that this is probably just due to the browser itself.
Adding more padding between the scroll bar and the text in the boxes. Some of the words are rather close to the scroll bars, so it would be helpful to have more space.
Not underlining the headings of the boxes. Dr. Birnbaum believes that instead of underlining, one should just make the text bigger so that it stands out by itself as a title.
Linking to the reading views of the other three tragedies on each reading view page. After a user clicks on the text of a pain instance and then clicks the button to go back, the back button just takes them to the top of the page, and they would have to click twice to get back to the page that has the links to all four reading views. Caroline said it would be more convenient to direct users to the other reading views by having links on each reading view page as well.
Richa then discussed her ideas for the filtering of pain instances, which she had started thinking about/working on. She is thinking of taking inspiration from the Dickinson project website, and having the filtering options only become visible after a user clicks on the text about it. She wants to put it above the two boxes on each reading view page, since that seems like the most logical place. Richa sent us a picture of how the filtering options would be organized, and she discussed this with Caroline and Charlie for a bit.
The other main topic of discussion was data exploration and visualizations. At Richa's request, I had looked at certain relationships within the data, so I talked about those (gender and direct versus indirect pain, and gender of pain receivers and whether they fit norms). After that, I talked about the two visualizations that I had sketched out:
For pain type and the gender of the pain receiver, I think we should do a stacked bar graph. Caroline said that if I'm going to do a stacked bar graph, I need to display the data as percentages, since that is a better representation of the data.
For the gender of inflictors versus the gender of pain receivers, I think we should use a bubble graph. Caroline said that bubble graphs are well suited to representing multiple pieces of information at once, so I should keep that in mind.
I noticed some discrepancies in the numbers generated from the XSLT I used, and this might be due to Medea, which is currently not valid against the schema, so that has to be fixed.
Other things we talked about regarding visualizations:
As mentioned last week, we could potentially also try and use a butterfly graph for some of our data.
Caroline said that what is most important is that a visualization is appropriate for the data it is trying to display.
Charlie said we could think of using pie charts, but because pie charts are difficult to work with using SVG, one alternative is to do something similar, but using rectangles, which is interesting.
Richa said that it would be cool to do a pie chart but with stacked circles instead of slices.
This discussion led to the question of who is going to do what over the course of next week, a question that Vidya brought up. These are the conclusions from that part of our conversation:
Caroline will help with figuring out the errors in Medea and validating it against the schema.
Alexis will validate Philoctetes against the Schematron schema that Vidya made.
Cherina will check Women of Trachis and look at the issues the Schematron highlighted.
Vidya and Cherina will work on SVG together, taking inspiration from other teams' code if needed.
Richa will continue work on the reading view for the website.
Cherina will help write the analysis for our website.
As usual, we started our meeting by going over some of the things we had done within the last week:
There was some confusion with WinSCP/Fetch regarding files not showing up and uploading files to the server (for Cherina and Alexis respectively), but we figured it out.
Our first main topic of discussion was the project showcase. We went over the plans we had made during the last project meeting, and Caroline had some suggestions:
After that, we talked about the reading view that Richa had created. Caroline mentioned a few things that we could change, such as:
Richa then discussed her ideas for the filtering of pain instances, which she had started thinking about/working on. She is thinking of taking inspiration from the Dickinson project website, and having the filtering options only become visible after a user clicks on the text about it. She wants to put it above the two boxes on each reading view page, since that seems like the most logical place. Richa sent us a picture of how the filtering options would be organized, and she discussed this with Caroline and Charlie for a bit.
The other main topic of discussion was data exploration and visualizations. At Richa's request, I had looked at certain relationships within the data, so I talked about those (gender and direct versus indirect pain, and gender of pain receivers and whether they fit norms). After that, I talked about the two visualizations that I had sketched out:
I noticed some discrepancies in the numbers generated from the XSLT I used, and this might be due to Medea, which is currently not valid against the schema, so that has to be fixed.
Other things we talked about regarding visualizations:
This discussion led to the question of who is going to do what over the course of next week, a question that Vidya brought up. These are the conclusions from that part of our conversation: