Claudia Nicholson raises a point with which we in history museums must
constantly grapple - how to help the visitor understand what we are trying to
say when we show an historic artifact - that may be repugnant or misunderstood.
(Come to think of it, it's a pretty universal issue in heritage institutions,
thank goodness! Otherwise, those of us interested in evaluation and visitor
studies would be out of work!)

It is an issue I've thought about for a long time and I offer my tentative
conclusions (related primarily to addressing the problem in history museums and
sites).

First, I believe that there is nothing like a good ORIENTATION device, be it a
gallery, a video, a sound and light show, or what have you. I have not seen
many good examples, in my visits to hundreds of institutions in a number of
countries. Among the best are:

The Fortress of Louisbourg in Nova Scotia. The visitor is forced to park MILES
away from and out of sight of the fortress and is required to buy his/her
ticket after having first walked down a curving ramp through an excellent
orientation gallery, with very good audio-visuals.

The North Carolina History Museum in Raleigh. There is an excellent orientation
gallery, commencing with a well integrated video and slide show, after which
the visitor walks down from a raised platform and walks around the perimeter of
a round gallery displaying a selection of artifacts illustrating the various
periods in the state's history. My only complaint is that, while it illustrates
well the chronology, it could do a better job on the key issues associated with
that chronology - but perhaps I am expecting too much.

Montreal has an interesting archaeological museum on the waterfront, with a
spectacular multi-media orientation show. It does a superb job in setting the
museum and site (through which the visitor then walks) in context.

Our own approach is much more modest. After walking through a simple gallery
where we communicate by means of huge graphics and simple text statements, the
visitor gets the six main messages we want the museum to communicate - before
starting his/ver visit. Where we have problems (as in the case of the Hitler
head) is in a very few of the specific objects.

I think the solution to that problem is in remembering the need to reinforce
the basic orientation by supplementary orientation devices, at the start of
each significant new theme in the institution.

One problem that severely limits the utlity of orientation areas is their poor
placement in the institution. Examples of this are the relatively new
orientation centres at Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, Old Sturbridge
Village near Boston and Sovereign Hill in Australia. Each is potentially very
effective, but the visitors walk right around them.

I think a second essential is to have an informed HUMAN presence in the
galleries, be it a uniformed host/hostess, a person in costume doing first or
third person interpretation, or what have you. I don't give a damn how many
computer-based interactives and glitzy special effects you have, I am more and
more convinced that the human presence - warm and welcoming, knowledgeable and
even passionate - is irreplaceable. It is worth noting that we have not had a
single complaint about the Hitler head since we inaugurated our new hosting
service almost two years ago.

A third essential is setting the artifact IN CONTEXT. There will always be a
place for "icons" of the museum and other artifacts to be displayed in cases,
but I have come to the conclusion that, in history museums, the optimum
solution is to have a mix of life sized dioramas and cased artifacts in a
gallery and to have the path take the visitors continuously from one to the
other.

This is particularly well done at the Queen Elizabeth II Army Memorial Museum
at Waiouru, New Zealand. Our plans for the redevelopment of our chronological
galleries, to be done 1998-2000, will follow this plan. In the area dealing
with the period up to 1919, we will feature 26 full-sized dioramas, separated
by artifact-rich "corridors". Interactive computer terminals (mini multi-media
"learning centres"), many audio and visual devices and two dioramas, within
which the visitor will experience motion, sound and smell, will also be used.

Fourth, nothing can replace good TEXT. It is amazing how many museums have not
learned that about 70 words is the maximum the visitor can absorb from any
label. We aim at a maximum of 55.

I have become convinced that the ideal label has three levels of text - a big
bold title that at least tells the "streaker" what it is; a second portion
(still bold, but smaller font) which provides a sentence or two of description
for the mainstream visitor, to supplement the label; and a tertiary section
(same size as the secondary but not bold) to add a supplementary sentence or
two for the real "buff". The best examples of this I have ever seen anywhere
are in the Canada Hall of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull, Quebec.
I have conducted visitor studies before and after the new label system was
introduced and I can attest to its popularity with visitors - and its
effectiveness as a means of communication.

These are fairly random thoughts, but I feel deeply about them. I would be
interested in other ideas, as I still feel myself something of a babe in the
woods in these matters.

Harry Needham
Canadian War Museum