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]