Comparing Neatline and StoryMap JS

Neatline vs. StoryMap JS

The two mapping tools I have used for digital humanities' projects have been Neatline (through Omeka) and StoryMap JS. Within these programs, I have noticed quite a few differences in terms of usability and ease of use.

Neatline seems to have the largest learning curve between the two programs; however, it also seems to be the most complete it terms of the control you have on the story-map presentation. Through Neatline, users are able to select ranges that the window will zoom or zoom out to. This ability allows users to more easily see the landscape and geographical components. Neatline also has multiple maps that are available to the designer, so you can include the topographic features within a presentation to better display the information to the audience if needed. And, lastly, Neatline seems to to be more difficult to navigate and use for novice designers. Without a tutorial or supplemental information, users would find much difficulty in designing a presentation.

StoryMap JS, however, is much more user friendly, especially for novices. Without any training or supplemental information, I was able to design a presentation for the final chapter of the novel The Last Man, by Mary Shelley. Like Neatline, StoryMap JS allows users to type in the name of a town, but StoryMap JS seems to allow you to choose the zoom simply by pressing the + or - buttons within the map, making it easier to plot point. Also, StoryMap JS, does not require uploading images or links for images to another program. This creates a much more user-friendly interface and navigation than Neatline. Lastly, StoryMap JS, incorporates less metadata within each plotted point's descriptor. Although this seems to be more efficient for novices, this feature also takes away from the richness of storymapping. That is, it minimizes any useful metadata that the audience may or may not need. So although this makes the storymap seem "cleaner," for more in-depth storymaps, this could be detrimental.

Although both mapping programs have benefits and weaknesses, I preferred the usability and low learning curve of StoryMap JS. I do believe that Neatline is a useful program, especially for rich, metadata driven storymaps; however, the learning curve for novices seems a bit too high. And although I have had much experience with Neatline, the ability to quickly map a story and include only the basic metadata needed makes StoryMap JS a better digital humanities tool for more basic storymaps, whereas Neatline seems useful for storymaps with a rich source of metadata.