Responding to msg by [log in to unmask] ("Lawrence F.
Gall") that reports that
 
>The transaction logs also show that Mr. Baron didn't
>read any of the support documents on the gopher's menus when
he visited
>us electronically a few days ago.  These describe the
>purpose and scope of the gopher, the history of the museum and
 
its
>collections, and offer guidance and hints on searching that we
 
hope are
>useful to end users.
 
So, how many internet surfers actually do read the support
documents?  Anyway, the customary strategy is to go directly to
 
the database and worry about the documentation later.  Not the
best approach, I admit, but a practical one when one is just
snooping around.  Anyway, my criticism stands, and from what
Mr. Gall noted in his posting, it was one that had already
occurred to
the the caretakers of the database.
 
One may conclude (falsely I believe) that the issue is one of
audience: A professional will know how to query in a productive
 
manner, and the occassional onlooker will not.  The problem is
really (as I see it) a question of modes of access.  There
really are not two audiences, lay and professional.  This
notion is a figment of our preconceptions.  In fact, each user
embodies a continuum of varying degrees of expertise, and for
this reason databases such as I described require entry modes
consistant with multiple needs.
 
The same problem exists on the other end of the spectrum of
computerized access to museum data.  Kiosks intended to
introduce the public to collections often err on the side of
assuming a very low level of expertise, which is an assumption
that I believe is often untrue.  Users should be given a choice
 
of entry paths to information systems made available to the
public.  Sometimes the people most likely to benefit from
computerized presentations are just not given a way into the
product.
 
I should clarify one point: Being able to access a museum
database such as the Peabody was, itself, a wonderful
experience.  Certainly, users may marvel at the wonders in
store for them now and in the future.
 
I would like to add that (not that I thought of it before, but
now that Mr. Gall has mentioned it on the museum-l list), I
would have assumed that the record of my interaction with the
Peabody
gopher is not public information.  Just as a library is
required to uphold the confidentiality of its readership (who
read what, when) so too should Mr. Gall have respected the
confidentiality of what I did and did not read on the gopher.
 
There are other ways to state that the contents of the
documentation clearly incidate the assumptions the creators
have made about users and the methodology they require in order
 
to use the database.
 
______________________________________
Robert A. Baron, Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont, NY 10538
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]