At 11:40 PM 4/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Actually, I consulted in Florida in person and on the phone, from California,
>where I live. This was during concept development a long time ago, and
>clearly, I have never been there and you have.  Sorry -  the sharpness of
>your reproof tells me how touchy this is - that I got the city name wrong.
> I'm interested that you feel that the connection between the inventor's and
>the processes is not clear.  The push-pull of interactive exhibitions in a
>hall of fame was clear from the beginning, and I am eager to see how it came
>out.  I'll remember to go to *Akron*.
>
Didn't mean to be snippy...if the "push-pull" of interactives and hall was
clear from the start, then it got muddled in the process. The hall exhibits
are quite separate from the interactives--off and away, up on balconies
overlooking the interactives. For instance, the interactives that give the
visitor a chance to play with and begin to understand how persistance of
vision is critical in the design of movies and animations are not clearly
tied to the historic investigations, e.g. Muybridge or Edison et al.

The interactives are wonderful. I went "undercover" one day, masquerading as
a chaperone for a group of fifth graders. We had a great time and the
students couldn't be pulled away when it was time to get back on the bus. It
was expensive, though, and the staff were modeled on the Exploratoriums
"explainers," but I felt that there could have been more interaction
person-to-person between students and staff--especially for the fee charged.
But that is, really, just a quibble. It's a pretty nifty place.

I do understand that their operating costs are quite high, but I don't know
how their budget is going. They're just in their first year and time will time.