The NDN is intended for research, not only for historians but also for school students and teachers, who are the focus of a variety of lesson plans and encouraged to submit 'Feature' articles. It seems that in opening these archives and presenting the material on the web, the NDN designers have followed the idea that these archives are now more accessible. However, their view of the intended purpose of the site limits the nature of the site to that of research, albeit regardless of academic level. This is contradicted to a degree by the structure and navigational framework of the site. Within the Photo Gallery or Document Library, individual pieces can only be accessed by browsing within categories and sub-categories (according to the classifications of each piece). Although this is termed 'searching', a true search can only be carried out at one place in the site: from the top right-hand corner of the front page or menu bar. To its credit, this search allows searches to be undertaken across all the archives, and the categories are not so numerous that it would be impossible to browse all of a certain area. More worrisome, is the fact that the individual pieces are listed under very few categories which have been determined previously in an undisclosed fashion.
The research nature of the NDN is reflected clearly in the strict maintenance of a separate zone for the archive. Links between features and sources to not facilitate easy movement between the two. This seems to indicate a reluctance to destabilise the primary source. Despite being a product of a new and allegedly destabilising medium, the NDN privileges text material, or at least, claims to make an attempt not to have it de-privileged by the overabundance of photos and images. This gives a clear message of the importance of texts to research, and, arguably, creates the impression that images are not as important or useful. This categorisation is facilitated by the digital environment and would not be so easily a feature of a 'real' archive.
On the other hand 'The Fifties Web' is presented to an audience of 'fans'. That is, specifically to 'boomers' (for whom there is no fine print!) who grew up in this time. The tone is lively and fun, which promotes the purpose of the site as one not only to inform but also to entertain. In keeping with this, areas of information are embellished with 'chatty' excerpts, which also function as a type of context. This personal element also breaks up larger blocks of historical analysis or narrative, which keeps the focus light and non-academic. Overt phrases such as, 'But, enough of that history stuff', draw users back to looking at the cultural artefacts from that time. This approach also seems to recognise the 'opening up' potential of the web. In contrast to the NDN, this 'amateur history' site uses language, style and format to maintain an accessible image. As a consequence, it is harder to extrapolate the 'pure' primary or other sources if you have a research purpose.
Within each Fifties' topic there is an irregular format, with a small degree of hypertext linking to an internal subscreen of information. For larger categories, sources are presented under sub-headings. Occasionally, two alternative browsing fields are supplied, for instance chronological and alphabetical. It seems that finding something specific is not the aim of this site, despite the vast amounts of information contained within it, accordingly the search engine is very difficult to locate, on a separate page. Rather, the site is geared towards browsing, with a visual presentation which seems important to attracting and keeping the attention of users, and takes advantage of the ability which Landham refers to as the 'capacity to indicate mood' (Featherstone). All these features suggest that 'The Fifties Web' is designed with the purpose of being an experience, rather than an archive purely for information retrieval. Nostalgia and re-creation of memory are as important to this site as is discovery of other.
Mike Featherstone, "Archiving Cultures", British Journal of Sociology (Jan./March 2000), 176.