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]