The mapping project I chose was the ReVilna mapping project. Here, maps are used to provide an understanding of history – specifically the Vilnius Ghetto, a Jewish ghetto from World War II.
The mapping project assumes that the viewer has a basic awareness of the context behind the Vilnius Ghetto, which may not be the case. For example, before viewing this mapping project, I knew nothing about the Vilnius Ghetto. As the area the ghetto was situated in was unidentified, I had to google to find out that the ghetto was situated in a Nazi-controlled area of Lithuania.
The map also assumes the viewer is aware of the timeline for German occupation of Europe. While each map’s section has events ordered chronologically, when it comes to understanding the timeline of events, the map feels fragmented and unhelpful because no complete timeline is provided.
This map was likely created from the perspective of a historian or academic – someone already knowledgeable about the event. The division of the map into sections like “Health and Education” and “Life and Culture” and provision of a search bar assume one already knows what he or she is looking for.
The map reveals the precise locations of different historical events. For example, in the “Formation of Ghetto” section, the location of the Great Provocation is marked on the map. The pinpointing of locations allows for a more precise understanding of history.
One is also able to note spatial clustering. Using the “All Events and Places” section, one can see that health facilities are often located close together. This is also true for religious facilities.
However, the map obscures what the area and its buildings looked like previously, and pictures provided may not be helpful. For example, the “orphanage” picture does not show the orphanage’s exterior, but only people within the orphanage. One is also unable to see what the area and its buildings look like today and deduce how the area evolved over time.
If I could create an alternate map, I would give it greater zoom capability, at least to a point where the city and country the ghetto is located in become identifiable. If not, I would identify the country and city by indicating them on the map.
I would also show the area’s actual physical appearance (like on Google Maps). Even if I cannot show past physical appearance, I would show the present-day physical appearance so one can visualize the area and possibly imagine its evolution over time.
I would better integrate pictures with the map’s narrative. For example, in the “Soup Kitchen” subsection, I would put a small picture of the actual soup kitchen in the description, or as a small pop-up on the map so viewers can see what is being referred to.
I would also create a separate map layer for casual viewers. It would introduce the rough timeline of and key places in the Vilnius Ghetto so viewers will not be overwhelmed by having to go through each section.
I really like how you broke down the information about the project you looked at and your perspective on it in such an organized fashion! I think its easy for scholars to sometimes forget that the viewers of their work have not spent as much time and energy researching a particular topic, so I’m glad that you brought up the fact that this project was biased from the perspective of someone with more background information. That makes me think about our final DH projects and how it will be important to not assume that our viewers know anything about our datasets, especially after we have spent hours and hours with them ourselves! Great job!
What a detailed look at this mapping project! You really nailed all the assumptions this project takes with its viewer. Without a general knowledge of WW2 it is difficult to understand the context of this material. We should make these projects understandable to those with no context of the events. That, in my mind, is the purpose of DH studies: making complex topics approachable and understandable to a large audience. I also think you suggestions for improvements are commendable and should be implemented!
Hi! You did a great job taking this project and addressing all the points that it attempted to make. It was a very comprehensive analysis! I liked how you suggested providing a 3D type model for an alternative map showing physical and structural growth of the city. That way we can easily see how it changed over time since the pictures provided aren’t super helpful.
Very well written! I really enjoyed how you addressed the fact that not everyone may have the background information needed to fully understand this map. I also think that the idea of adding a 3D type model is very creative and a great idea! Good job, Rebecca!