Digital humanities seems to be something that does not only create it's own niche but applies to other 'non-digital' areas of scholarship.

This is interesting, that we must now also question the tools themselves rather than only the content of the information.

Interesting to bring it into a specific area of study such as postcolonial studies. Digital humanities seems to be something that acts as a way to bridge the gap of postcolonial themes where we are working towards a 'non-colonial' world.

Many people define digital humanities as a toolbox rather than a set of ideals.

This sentence confuses me.

I find the idea of online marketing connecting with digital humanities interesting. Is this something that connects humanities to business, or is it saying that digital humanities scholars act in the same way with their information, that they produce information and consume it?

A person who influences the purchase of a product; they don't only consume it, they convince others to buy it by consuming it themselves. e.g. a you-tuber who is sent clothing, wears that clothing in a video, and then links it in their video as a product for purchase and gets money for it.

Why are they aggressive compared to other deadlines?

aiming it at both is such a great way to bring scholarship out of schools and into the bigger world, and makes sense to our globalizing and knowledgable world.

Thinking of designing knowledge is a complex idea that I have never even thought of before.

I find this interesting to think about a project as being a display or a presentation instead of an argument. As an English major, most projects and presentations I do involve an argument. Understanding that not all projects must be an argument opens my mind up to new ways of thinking critically, and towards the development of new responses to text I had never thought of before.

I fully agree with this statement.

What if no scholars are available to assess the project, would this mean students are limited in the field in this way?

This is huge, not just in digital humanities but across all learning. Failing is learning, and it's difficult to produce anything of value if the biggest fear is of 'failing'.

Working with other institutions is a great for opening up the perspective of students. As an undergrad, I think seeing how people from other universities and other areas of the world view ideas and how they work with texts etc. would open up my learning experience and my scholarly perspective.

Interesting. Due to changes in technology we must change our ideas towards what is considered 'intellectual'. I like the idea of combining 'intellectual labor' and 'making', especially in terms of cross-curricular responses to ideas such as creating an art form or video, etc. instead of an essay. If postsecondary education pushes essays as the only form of response, we may be stuck in a cycle of writing essays as the 'only' form of scholarship, which can shut us in intellectually. How can we experiment (and thus ideate better) if there is only one form of allowed response?

numbers and texts?

What is the difference between a digital humanities project and a humanities project? i.e. why must there be differentiation between digital projects and non-digital projects, as they seem to be based in the same idea of collaboration. Is this a way for digital humanities to build itself up as a more substantial realm of study, by giving specialized terms to already developed ideas?

The fact that digital text design involves multi-media and physical texts involve only text reveals that digital writing can be more creative than 'physical' writing. Creating a blog, or other digital responses, is a far different form of writing entirely. Studying digital humanities is interesting in this way, as if you were to write scholarship on the digital world, does that mean that you can write a response with multi-media as well for it to be considered 'scholarly', or do we keep to text only in order for it to be deemed relevant?

As someone who loves design (especially to do with books and texts (e.g. Coralie Bickford-Smith's work with Penguin Publishing)), this is very interesting to me. This may not have to do with digital humanities per say, but the interplay of physical books (especially publishing companies and their need to $compete$ with digital texts) with digital modes of communication has led to the design of more aesthetically pleasing book designs. This idea makes me think that maybe books are viewed as elitist forms, and digital texts are viewed as 'lower' forms.

What were these experiments? I am confused by the focus of these experiments, and how they worked. I understand that digital humanities focuses on how the digital 'era' has affected our society, and that it explores how technology can be used to change the way people interact in the humanities, but I do not understand how experimenting with 'links and nodes' connects to humanities studies.

This changed the way libraries worked, and thus how we as scholars work with texts and research. It is interesting to think about how people used to work with texts, as although I still take out a lot of books from the library, I can find them (I assume) much easier than scholars who used the 'typed index cards'. I find it interesting how this ease of resource finding has changed the way the humanities works in terms of expectations of one's work as a student. That is, because it has become so easy to find information, (something which comes with it's own difficulties), how, if at all, have the expectations of students, and student expectations, changed?