DPS Critique – Mega-Event 2007
Bob Odenweller, David Herendeen and Fran Adams
The following is a general letter provided as feedback to the participants of the 2007 DPS Competition.
“The jury for Digital Philatelic Studies (DPS) entered in the 2007 Mega-Event in New York reviewed each submission using the Mega-Event DPS definition as a basis. The jury suggests exhibitors review the following points, in addition to their evaluation sheets, to assist in further developing their entries.
A DPS is NOT a scan of a regular stamp exhibit and is intended to be much more. A DPS is more closely related to an article or research paper than an exhibit.
In an article, the first paragraph establishes the article’s goal and the rest of the article provides further details.
The goal of the DPS must be stated up front and the rest of the DPS must support and illustrate that goal.
A DPS differs from a physical philatelic exhibit in that it is not restricted to a limited space and the content is not limited simply to philatelic material with descriptive captions. A DPS should include more. In addition to story line text, enhanced graphics, references and explanations of terms are expected as supportive information to elaborate on the goal and the philatelic material shown.
A common mistake is to present material like a bulleted slide show. Bullet points can’t convey stories, they’re triggers for you to speak to. When giving a slide show, you have speaker notes used to tell your story to an audience. All that background information is not on the slide you show. The idea is to include “some” of that story line text in your DPS as you’re not present to tell the story.
Don’t be afraid to do things differently, but make sure viewers can read your work. Centering text under an item as a caption is fine. However, would you read a novel with page after page of centered text?
Many facets of a study demand showing details of stamps, etc. Enlarge those details and flaunt your errors and varieties. Ensure that the viewer will be able to visibly recognize what you’ve taken the time to describe. When doing so, give each enlargement its time in the sun. Don’t cram everything on a single page. Making enlargements appear at the reader’s request rather than forcing all viewers to see all details provides the viewer with interactivity and gets them involved with your study.
Take credit for personal research, but give others their due and cite your sources. Showing your research and knowledge is simple – include a bibliography at the end of the DPS. Have a synopsis? Link it in. Did you write the definitive article on the subject? Great; link it in.
A method of tying all this information together must be employed or it’s just a bunch of “electronic stuff.” A single file or a file with links to external files is the best method and a navigation system is required. Using the ‘enter’ and ‘backspace’ keys is fine (please do not disable this function), but employing links to move between sections or pages is better. To help viewers navigate through your study, a description of control mechanisms should appear early in your presentation.
A Table of Contents is a great addition. Link the entries to the main sections within the study. Do you use abbreviations and jargon? How about a page at the end with an explanation of terms, or use of a tool-tip that defines a word when the cursor goes over it? Simply try to help your viewer as much as you can.
Keep in mind what you appreciate in others’ writing. Have someone else review your DPS as a “sanity” check. A non-philatelist can often be most helpful.
Lastly, keep it simple as fancy effects are very disruptive to a viewer and are not required. Many have said this before: “Because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
Respectfully submitted, 
