The Cyber-Vexillology Problem

NAVIGATION - LOST? CLICK HERE FOR AN OUTLINE OF THE ENTIRE NAVA SITE

THE CYBERVEXILLOLOGY "PROBLEM"

by Phillip L. Nelson

For some time, I have resisted the requests (and temptations) to address the issue of cybervexillology because this area of the vexillological world is still evolving and there is an impulse to either defend it with vigor or to classify all cybervexillological activity with suspicion. After all, there is a lot of erroneous material on the Internet which trusting people take for truth. But the field is burgeoning. Many vexillological organizations now have websites in order to promote themselves and offer a taste of the flags of their region or in general to the public. Few, however, use the Internet as a medium to provide a service to the general public.

As an editor for the Flags of the World websites (and receiving the daily deluge of E-mail traffic with questions and submissions from the general public as well), I see both the gems of the flag world and the misconceptions that people have and pass on to "correct your information." Some of this information is so absurd that it can be readily identified. Other information is not so easily identifiable. But, there are the numerous comments received that say "Thank you for the greatest flag site on the web. Your research is truly astounding and of great interest to amateurs like myself."¹

Cybervexillology, however, is an outgrowth of the popularity of the Internet. Never before have people had access to so much Information on flags. FOTW alone has over 8,000 related images available for viewing. And with a projected 20,000 page views a month². it has become a major source of information for those trying to identify flags, discover the meaning of the colors used, or just to get acquainted with one's own national flag or that of another country. But not all information can be gleaned from the Internet and the quality of sites is variable - ranging from very good to totally erroneous.

Just as there is no vexillological work in the print medium that is totally free from error, the same holds true for even the best sites on the Internet. And despite the fact that the two mediums are different, there Is a distinct relationship between the printed word and the virtual work. The print media, the scholarly texts, the news reports, and so on, become the source information that is used to render images and information into a format that is available for the masses. And if the information in these basic source documents, regardless of the prestige of the authors. is erroneous, then this can find its way to the Internet. For instance, when Reuters reported that Rwanda had adopted a new flag, queries abounded about if anyone had seen the flag. As we later discovered, the news report was in error. Rwanda was proposing a new flag; Reuters had reported it incorrectly; the cybervex community was criticized for "starting" the rumor.³

The same possibility of error holds true for information that is contained in old flag charts. Not every image is perfect, and where possible and when identified, this information is posted with the note that the image is in error solely because the chart has been reprinted so many times that people may want to see what information may be available.

Meanwhile, one can look at what Internet ferreting can also contribute to the vexillological world. It is Important, for instance, to note the time at which any significant text on flags was produced. Politics play an important role in the definition of the meanings of a country's flag and the symbolism of the design elements. One can easily cite the information from a text which says the elements in the flag of country X means this, but this may conflict with the cur rent interpretation that has been adapted or rewritten due to these changing political situations. Such discoveries, on the country's official website can obviously create conflict because the revisionism underway conflicts with the information presented in classic vexillological texts. In such instances. FOTW has adopted a policy to present both the classical and contemporary interpretations.

If there are shortcomings to cybervexillology, it Is the way it is perceived.

Cybervexillology is not a replacement for traditional vexillology. Rather, it is supplementary, a populist approach by bringing vexillology to the masses.
Cybervexillology cannot and should no be perceived as the all-knowing source, rather just another outreach that hopefully can whet the appetite of aspiring flag scientists.
Cybervexillology should be as accurate as possible, while being easy to use.

Unfortunately, it is in this area the most flag-related sites fail as vexillological asset. Many personally built sites have a high percentage of error (and the authors really don't car about this). And even the best should be viewed not as a final product, but continual work-in-progress.

And there are additional factors the limit the potential ability to be perfect the rendering of the image of a particular flag. There are literally hundreds, thousands, or even millions of color available in graphic programs for use the artist. Unfortunately, for the Internet, only 216 of these colors are considered "browser-safe." While most images could be rendered to a relative degree of accuracy in a browser-safe color, there may be images where producing the exact shade is impossible.

Another factor that constrains the ability of cybervexillology is the human factor. Unlike the printed page where dozens of images can be presented on a page without any problem, the Internet poses a different problem. Pages must be laid out from top to bottom for ease of viewing. Page sizes contribute greatly to the ability or inability to communicate. For instance, studies have shown that the average Internet surfer will wait 10 seconds for a page to load, then hit the back button on his/her browser.⁴ A large number of graphics adds to the time it takes for a page to load In the browser and can adversely impact the perception of the consumer. Unfortunately, these page 'overloads" are all too common, even on some of the better sites. Therefore, the cybervex community has the underlying requirement to deliver the most accurate information as quickly as possible or face the risk that the customer will go to John Smith's homepage that is riddled with error upon error.

And there is the problem of language. While many sites are in English, many are in the native language. which creates a barrier to understanding. Even more distressing Is the situation when the source attempts to translate the information into English and uses translation software. This creates more problems than are resolved because the translation is only as good as the software. The result is images that do not match the written description.

And while the growth industry in vexillology during the 1990s has been the flags of municipalities and other subnational entities, in many instances there are not texts presently available to verify that the information on site A is either a true or false representation.

Recently, I received the following communication, which demonstrates the concern that is in the vexillological community regarding the quality of information on the Internet: '... the lack of reliability and the pervasive sloppiness. Is anyone trying to cure this?'

And that is the challenge that is facing the vexillological community today.

This new medium offers a greater visibility to flag information to the millions that have Internet access. The constraints, identified above, must be accepted. The fact that vexillology is not static, rather dynamic, with variations of flags shown in the classical texts being actually used by people or political causes needs to be understood.

Can such an agency to monitor and improve vexillological content be created? For such a proposal to work, there would have to be a standard developed. And that standard would have to include the basics of vexillological documentation as adapted for an interactive environment. Long scholarly texts, for instance, may have their place, but they may not necessarily be adaptable to the Internet environment. The human factors play an important role, particularly if the goal is to present vexillology to the masses rather than to an elite corps.

Additionally, attitude plays an important role in the development of any cybervexillological standard. Traditionalists may see the necessity of longer and better presentations of data while those in the vexillological community see the image presentation as key. Individual perceptions on the out-of-hand "inferiority" of a cybervex product can only result in any standard being considered "dead on arrival." What is needed is, of course, an open dialogue balancing the vexillological expectations and the technical considerations that have to be considered.

And key to any proposal would be the necessary independence of such a standards development group composed of people well versed both in vexillological as well as HTML, graphics, etc. If, for instance, FIAV were to develop a standard, then trying to enforce a standard on non-FIAV members or organizations would be difficult (of course, this leaves a question of the viability of enforcement in general). FOTW, for instance, is not a member of FIAV, although it has a large number of members on its mailing list and editorial staff who are members of FIAV affiliated organizations. The independence of such a standards agency would also allow the dissemination of the resulting standards) not only through vexillological organizations (through journals, etc.) but also via electronic means to those people or organizations attempting to set up sites that may address specific subjects or areas of interest.

But is it hopeful that such a standard for cybervexillology can be developed?

The critical dependency will be the evolving relationship between vexillological organizations and those sites that attempt to present as accurate flag information as possible. If, for instance, vexillological organizations treat cybervexillology with suspicion, if cybervexillology is considered the illegitimate stepchild of vexillology, if vexillology is deemed unworthy of mass distribution, then what can be the result but anarchy and misinformation in the world of flags on the Internet?

Notes

1. This is reproduced unedited from an FOTW post dated December 15, 1999, and only one of numerous examples.

2. Information based upon the web logs of one FOTW mirror and extrapolated to project the potential impact of FOTW.

3. Based upon a FOTW mail list message dated October 4, 1999.

4. Lynch, Patrick and Horton, Sarah. 1997. Yale C/AIM Web Style Guide. Yale University School of Medicine

(back)