My point about separating the content from the container is focused, in one way, on the idea of ownership of the content. I would hope that my “message” here about History and Web 2.0 can be accessed and shared in a variety of ways: RSS feeds, here on my site, copying and pasting it into an email, printing it and reading it, heard through a screenreader, etc. By making the content accessible to a wide variety of people and in a wide variety of ways, we enable people to use the content to learn in ways they like best. A Word document is virtually meaningless unless someone has a copy of Microsoft Word (or some way to convert the file to a format their machine can understand).

I still think the message is key; no matter what the medium is, people still have to be able to have access to and understand the message. I would hope that less control over access and sharing the message would enable people to accomplish this. Despite where I work and what my minor field is (history and new media), I still hold out for the day when we stop calling it “digital history” or “history and new media” and simply call it “history”. Likewise, stop referring to “history blogging” and “history bloggers” and simply call them “history” and “historians”.

One thing I struggle with is the whole content v. presentation/ medium issue. While I totally support “separation” of structure and content in the “behind the scenes” parts of web design, I wonder how much the medium changes our (the historian, scholar, educator’s) content? We have ideas about what we are trying to convey and then seek to do so in a new medium (harnessing all of its “powers” etc). But I wonder whether we are actually aware enough of the cognitive changes that are occurring as a result of new technology and adapting our content appropriately? Are we using the true strengths of the medium or applying old methods to a new format?

In print studies we have a similar debate. Scholars argue over whether the content of early modern newspapers proved liberating OR whether it was the very act of reading that instead inspired people to feel more independent and therefore to move towards more liberal political activities. (Roger Chartier, for examples, argues this—the act of reading as liberating—of the French newspapers preceding and during the French Revolution.)

While it’s not exactly the same argument, I think it has the same overtones of trying to get at how much the medium affects people as opposed to the message. Where the diving line is, I am not sure. But, I think it’s an important thing to keep thinking and talking about…

I actually had lots of trouble earlier this week when I tried to upgrade to WordPress 2.0. I had to backup my database, completely wipe all of the tables in my database, install WordPress 1.5, then upload the backup of my database. Though that’s probably not causing the tabbing problem, I’ll bet the reinstall has messed up my spam filters, cause your comment was in my spam box. Sorry about that!

(On an unrelated technical issue, something very odd is happening when I tab between the fields on the comments form – instead of going straight from one field to the next it tabs to the top of the page and then to the next field. I’m using Firefox.)