Aaron and Robert raise interesting and important points about the relationship between technology and experience. It seems to me that one relevant question is whether there is a connection between the technology and the experience itself-- for instance, I am developing an exhibit on entertainment technology, so all the bells and whistles are directly related to the point we are trying to convey. I've seen other exhibits that specifically were trying to use technology to capture a younger audience, wtihout creating an intrinsic tie between the "what" and the "how." Last year, I visited the Wagner Free Institute in Philadelpiha with two youngish children. One of whom was Aaron's daughter, btw. They were as enthralled by the place-- a 19th century natural history msueum caught in amber-- as they would have been by an interactive playground. And their attention span seemed as long as it would have been in a different setting. There's nothing magic about interaction per se, or about interactive technology. The experience is paramount. Chan Screven identified the concept of "empty interaction" meaning that the interaction does not support the educational goal of the exhibit. And a computer is not pixie dust that sheds sparkle over an exhibit. The great science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon was once asked why 95% of science fiction is crap. "95% of everything is crap," he replied. "Why expect more from sciene fiction?" We beat those odds all the time-- but given the complexities of computer-based interactives in museums (cost, development time which equals cost, maintenance which also equals cost, the short shelf-life of technology) we need to be sure that it is the right medium to deliver the information. Which may be an obvious point, but still is worthy of repetition. Ann Mintz Orlando Science Center Orlando FL [log in to unmask]