While I acknowledge this is a bit of a quibble, I’d like to see if I can explain and defend the differences and distinctions between a ‘Chronology‘ and a ‘Timeline.’
To me, the distinctions have to do with the different insights, understandings, and experiences that arise from viewing information in one format versus the other.
Let me show you what I mean with a simple example using the same basic dates and information displayed in the two formats:
Chronology
- 1598 – Juan de Onate creates first permanent settlement
- 1706 – Albuquerque area settled and named
- 1821 – Mexican Independence
- 1848 – U. S. Territorial era begins
and then —
Timeline
1598•••••••••••••••••••1706••••••••••••••••••••••1821•1848
•Onate creates •Albuquerque •Mexican first permanent area settled independence settlement and named •US Territorial
To my eye, the time context of the dates seem to tell a different, and somehow more effective, story in the timeline format. I believe one gets a deeper feeling for the relative periods of time and cultural influence from this format.
That is why I chose to use a timeline format, even though it required a lot (a lot) of trial and error to:
- get all the information into a single coordinated format
- keep the overall physical length to 16 feet
- figure out where to use 100-, 50-, 20- and 10-year visual time segments
- see that adding a true-time-scale at the bottom was necessary to really effectively visually represent the relative time frames for the 600 year timeline period
From most comments, it seems to work OK and support individuals in seeing the fascinating interactions between time, geography, demography and culture.
