I agree with Michel, but I would add that a truly great hands-on exhibit is
minds-on and communicates on its own. By participating, visitors get it.
Text isn't necessary. That's my ideal. I'm still trying to get there.

Of course, if you want to get something across that you can't communicate
with an interactive, I guess you have to write about it. But then the
question is, why don't you write a book instead? I don't go to museums just
to read and look at photos.

BTW, I'm a writer by training, and I'm writing a lot of labels for our new
permanent exhibition. I feel like I've got no choice, because some factions
within the museum always complain if something isn't "covered." But I know
it isn't really covered for most of our visitors, because any one label will
only be read by a small percentage of people.

>Hi Marta,
>
>About the type of information that one should find on a label of an
>interactive science exhibit, i would say that an hands-on without any
>instructions nor scientific explanations nor historical context has no
>value at all.  Let the people go in an arcade instead, where they can push,
>pull or use their reflex to repletion.
>
>In my point of view, an hands-on is a mean by which one can understand a
>scientific principle by experimenting or manipulating objects that are
>related to the topic.  The value of an hands-on is in its capacity to help
>understand an abstract principle.
>
>Michel Harnois
>Science, culture & technologie
>
>