Two comments in response to Matthew White's note of July 25

1)  With respect to computer discussions:  perhaps there's a happy medium?  I
think there are some issues about making education, collections and exhibition
materials available on the net that are profitably discussed here.  Those of us
who are not computer junkies learn some useful things.  But if it gets to
detailed discussions of various packages, that, I think, belongs on another
listserver.  I like getting generally useful information and cannot handle the
output of another list.

2)  Matthew's question about access is a good one.  Probably we all agree that
we have obligations to our users (better than "visitors Matt?), but the question
may be is our obligation the same to all possible users.  Are there gray areas?
If a museum is small, and cannot afford the renovation to provide unlimited
access to part of its space, must it limit its offerings to the space available
to all?  Is it that if all can't see it, none may see it?  Does this apply to
people with visual impairments and other problems as well?  How many museums
honor this (in fact, not in intent)?

The answer may be yes.  Everything must be accessible to all.  And at least part
of the moral argument (never mind the legal ones) may be that if one can dismiss
access problems, the pressure is off to solve them and they will persist for
ever.  If we could count on everyone to do what is right always and without
rules, what a wonderful world it would be.  Perhaps we could get an opinion on
this from the Regents of the University of California?

Gordon Murdock
Bell Museum of Natural History
and Museum Studies Minor Program
University of Minnesota
[log in to unmask]

In message  <v01520d02ac3b35b46b14@[168.143.8.5]> Museum discussion list writes:
> Eric Siegel wrote:
>
> > I'd like to put up a "STAY ON THE MUSEUM TOPIC" flag here. I'm
> >   sure many of us are passionate about our computer platforms
>  >  (??!!), but please lets not make Museum-l one more place where
>   > this theological debate is thrashed out.
>
> I seconf that and I would like to turn these discusions inot a broader one
> concerning our obligation to our visitors (although that term is
> anachronistic as we seek different ways to reach people who will never
> visit us).  And to get off the whole netscape enhancement jag allow me a
> small story t oillustrate my point that does not touch that issue.  Last
> week I visisted a new exhibit at a local maritme museum on changes of
> propulsion of boats on the Chesapeake Bay and the social effects of each
> generation on the lives of people in Maryland.  The exhibit has earned some
> much deserved praise in the local press and I though it was an outstanding
> addition to the Museum's permanent exhibits.  I did however notice that the
> entire second floor, slightly less than 1/2 of the exhibit, was completely
> unreachable by anything but stairs.  I mentioned this to the director of
> education who was conducting the tour and he claimed that they were not
> required to because of thier funding source.  I am not overly familiar with
> details of  the ADA so I cannot comment on the correctness of that
> statement.  I do know, however, that as good as the content of the exhibit
> was, I cannot help but be dismayed that a sizable portion of Maryland's
> citizens will never be able to see 1/2 of the exhibit as it is now
> constructed.
>
> This brings up my question;  to what extent should we be concerned with the
> visitor's abilities to enjoy  an exhibit, program, or other educational
> program when designing it?  Certainly there is no hard and fast rule, there
> are so many variables to consider.  I think we can all agree that writing a
> Web page that not all people can enjoy is not the same as designing an
> exhibit that is not handicapped accessable.  One of the many
> differentiating factors is that one is voluntary (which browser or computer
> to own, if any) and one isn't (not being physically capable to climb
> stairs).    But it seems to me the end result is the same, excluding some
> potential visitors from learning what you have to offer.
>
> My question is to what extent should we care about the limitations, imposed
> or voluntrary, on our audience?  Is it an obligation, a concern, an
> annoyance?
>
> What is the magic percentage of people who we can please and not care about
> being more inclusive? (We obviously cannot include everybody, nor do we
> want to.  Who can afford an exhibit, gallery guides, or tour tapes in every
> possible language?  )
>
> What are the most important issues:  Disabilities? Languages?
> Transportation? Money?  I personally feel that computer platforms rate
> about the lowest on this scale, but still in the ballpark.
>
> Just wondering from a guy who never went to Museum School and got to
> discuss this fun stuff in school.
>
>
> MATThew A. White
> Director of Education
> Baltimore Museum of Industry
>  & Coach of Champion Duckpin Bowling Team
> e-mail [log in to unmask]