Design Tools

  • Blogger (Mac & Win)
    Excellent blogging tools that is free; must use Flickr to create a photo album; excellent range of professional designs.
  • Bubbler (Mac & Win $)
    A beta blogging tool that offers a number of creative feature and possibilities; lightning fast and very flexible; built-in photo album; a nice array of professional templates.
  • Flickr
    Photo sharing at its best; can be linked to a variety of blog application; excellent commenting and tagging; slideshow facility.
  • RapidWeaer (Mac $)
    A clever next-generation website creation application that is almost WYSIWYG; its blogging component lacks a commenting facility
  • Streetprint
    An excellent application for creating an archive of images or images of documents; can be collaborative; substantial user manual with good technical advice; installation may be a bit challenging.
  • StyleMaster (Mac & Win)
    Really a CSS style sheet generator but its Wizards produce competent, standards-compliant web pages; more useful for a website rather than a blog or photo album; must know what you're doing
  • Textpattern (Mac & Win)
    An elegant blog tool (or content management system) that will be going to version 1.0; photo album as plug-in; installation may be challenging; exceptional customization; templates available from 3rd parties.
  • TypePad (Mac & Win $)
    One of the most well-developed and fexible blogging tools; includes a photo album at Level 2 subscription; excellent professional designs.
  • WordPress (Mac & Win)
    Popular and fexible blogging tool with a variety of plug-ins; photo-album plug-in available; installation may be challenging although several hosting services provide 1-click installation; a variety of templates available.

« What Do You Think: Example #5 | Main | What Do You Think: Example #3 »

February 27, 2005


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Do You Think: Example #4:



This site is broken down well. Looks like documentation is good. The mention of historiography lends credibility.


Background info for the authors is an automatic plus, especially if they're credible or known people. Also, the terms "historiography" and "evidence" and "citations" make me think that these people know what they're talking about.

Bryan Back

appeared outwardly credible with sources of information presented. the site was detailed and appeared to offer a bounty of information.


Anyone can put together a website, I need to know who these people are, what are their credentials. Are they from Harvard or DeVry, you never know unless they tell you.


thought this one was credible. had available information regarding the author, histiography and good complete information links.

David Tiley

Instant credibility, because it tells me it has an audience of peers.

Would I go further? If I figured I had a fair amount of time because I know this is going to stretch me.

But the question is not about whether I bump into a site and want to go on - that is about appeal and seduction. I would come here because I had already googled for some term that indicated a deeper interest.

As a tool for communicating research to a technical audience, this is just fine.

Debra Hutton

Blah, blah, blah! It may be credible, but it was so unappealing that I lost interest. Sorry... that's harsh, but we surfers have little patience.

Carolyn Leck

Example #4 "The Difference Slavery Made:.." used a map that seems to tell me there was perhaps too much information within the site. I felt that I would need to study a road map to find where I was going.

Steven Clark

My rating was based on the subjective nature of the analysis and summary. I did however like that the references were included.

John Seal

This site if used properly could give students a chance to use analytical skills that are now asked for in the state standards many of us are being asked to use. I found that this application portion of our standards needs to be beefed up and this site gives an excellant chance to do this.-John Seal


Kind of cold and uninviting. It does show some credibility and seems easy to get into.

Brian Ogilvie

I agree with Sharon that the results of the ten-second sizing up are disturbing. This site listed the names of the authors and appears to provide information on their careers and publications. It appears to distinguish between evidence, conclusions from evidence, and analysis of those conclusions. Yet a surprising number of people seemed to think that because it didn't have the imprimatur of some institution on it, it was good. And after reading what I've read about the Smithsonian's new Museum of Native American History, I'm pretty skeptical about that site, despite the Smithsonian Institution logo on it.

And I disagree with Mike O. This site (#4) doesn't have bells and whistles--but hello, we are here to learn, not to be entertained. I detest it when someone calls a book, an article, or a website dry or dull; that is often as much of a judgment of the person who makes the comment as it is of the object of their judgment. I just spent six hours today reading an early 18th-century treatise on numismatics. Dull? Not if you want to know what's in it.

Don Hageman

Not too sure I'd use this site--sort of confusing.

Mindy A.

In 10 seconds, I liked the citation tab.

Bill Wolff

While looking professional I wasn't quite sure of its credibility.

Eddie K

This site was difficult for me to get a good read on it. At first glance, this is a site I would probably bypass.

Eddie K

This site was difficult for me to get a good read on it. On first glance, this is a site I would probably bypass.

Debbie Shaffer

This site was difficult to tell if it was credible. It didn't grab my interest enough to want to pursue reading this site.

Mike McEwan

Liked how they had a link to find out about the authors and the locate citation tab

Mary C.

There were no primary sources to this and nothing that looked really professional about it. Made me really question it.

Greg Traxson

This site was borderline, it had somewhat of a professional look yet lacked appeal. I would say at a glance this is good material but I'll visit another site first.

M. Ballard

Not credible at first glance in my opinion. I have never heard of the authors. Design was not appealing to me. I might navigate just to check it out if I had time.


When first looking at this site I thought it looked credible, but then it seemed more hard to tell. It listed the author, and seemed to be all right. I would sway more to credible than not. But I found it hard to tell. Plus, it was kind of hard to read.

Jeremy Neville

I noticed that this site does not have many links to other sites that would provide more information.


This site appeared professional and had the authors listed, but I did not know them and it did not say if they were associated with a particular organization, so I could not say for sure.

The comments to this entry are closed.