I don't know if this is within the bounds of netiquette, but I'd like to
defend my colleague Larry Gall, whose efforts to make the Peabody
collections accessible to a large, varied, and eager usership around the
world have been Herculean.
 
On Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:46:45 -0400, Robert A. Baron wrote:
 
>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 caretakers of the database.
 
I don't think it is self-serving to view the Peabody Gopher as a work in
progress.  We are, of course, interested in the patterns of use and try to
learn what we can about the users so as to serve them better.  Is it
excessively optimistic to hope -- obviously one cannot expect -- that
people will use the support documents when they encounter difficulties?
 
>
>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.
>
Come on.  As both Larry and I have noted, the number of entry paths is
being increased as we speak, but the reality is that people who find their
way to the Peabody Gopher are already, almost by definition resourceful.
Dozens of people had found their way to it, in fact, within minutes of its
being online, and tens of thousands have accessed it since June, ranging in
their degree of utilization all along the spectrum Mr. Baron postulates.
The predominance of technical nomenclature is, to some extent, an artifact
of the history of the system but it is also a form of recognition that the
primary clients have been the scientific community to date; as Larry noted,
as other clients identify themselves we'll adapt to their needs as best we
can.
 
>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.
>
Well, thanks, I guess.  Might I add that it is an advance of
considerable, if not immense, scientific importance.
 
>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.
 
Maybe Larry crossed the line, but Mr. Baron seemed to me to have
opened up the question of how he used the gopher himself in his
critique.  We would be, of course, irresponsible if we did not maintain
and study the transactions on the gopher for all sorts of reasons it is
not necessary to go into here.  Larry could have simply said that the
documentation was there for anyone to use but that would have let stand
the implication that it was hard to find, hard to access, hard to
understand or simply not helpful -- and none of those implications is
valid.
 
If we were all better people, I suppose we would not even feel, let alone
succumb to, the temptation to respond to a cheap shot with a cheap shot.
But this is a museum that is trying to do its job the way it's supposed to
be done and none of us like to be told we are being elitist, careless, or
thoughtless in how we are going about it.
 
>______________________________________
>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]
Ken Yellis
Assistant Director for Public Programs
Peabody Museum of Natural History
170 Whitney Avenue
Box 208118
New Haven, CT 06520-8118
[log in to unmask]
(203) 432-9891/9816(fax)