I have two related responses to this discussion of virtual museums.
 
First, I am still uncomfortable with the concept of a virtual museum
(and I'm sure I'm not the only one).  Since it exists in a two-dimensional
form, what distinguishes it from an electronic library or archive?  When
we digitize images of artifacts in our collection, don't we treat the images
in-house as part of the museum's archives or collections documentation files?
Are the lines between museums, archives and libraries becoming so blurred
in the information superhighway (as television, telephones and other media
soon will be) that we need to stop using these labels altogether and come
up with something new?
 
The one thing that these virtual museums are missing is the multi-sensory
experience.  (I don't think we can call them multisensory, despite what
is said in the message from KIDSPHERE.  Two senses - sight and sound - does
not make for a multisensory experience.  Maybe bisensory?)  I do not agree
with the statement that it is difficult to touch in a real museum.  Engaging
the sense of touch is becoming more of an integral part of the museum
experience every day.  (And it is frustrating that more teachers don't know
this.)  There are some museum where you can even use your sense of smell:
the wonderful Yorvik Museum in York, England comes to mind.
 
Maybe I'm too much of a purist stuck in a conventional mindset, but I
don't think we can really talk about virtual museums until the day comes
when hologramic images can bring a more three-dimension-like experience
to the computer screen and where some of the other senses can be engaged
an a more all-encompassing reality: the real meaning of virual reality
as it is used even today (with the use of goggles, hand controls, etc.)
 
I part with a quote from the KIDSPEHERE article:
 
"Whenever we empbrace virual experiences, we must ask whether we have
protected the virtue (essential nature or quintessence) of that experience.
 
 
Amy A. Douglass
Tempe Historical Museum
[log in to unmask]