Claudia Nicholson raises a point with which we in history museums must constantly grapple - how to help the visitor understand what we are trying to say when we show an historic artifact - that may be repugnant or misunderstood. (Come to think of it, it's a pretty universal issue in heritage institutions, thank goodness! Otherwise, those of us interested in evaluation and visitor studies would be out of work!) It is an issue I've thought about for a long time and I offer my tentative conclusions (related primarily to addressing the problem in history museums and sites). First, I believe that there is nothing like a good ORIENTATION device, be it a gallery, a video, a sound and light show, or what have you. I have not seen many good examples, in my visits to hundreds of institutions in a number of countries. Among the best are: The Fortress of Louisbourg in Nova Scotia. The visitor is forced to park MILES away from and out of sight of the fortress and is required to buy his/her ticket after having first walked down a curving ramp through an excellent orientation gallery, with very good audio-visuals. The North Carolina History Museum in Raleigh. There is an excellent orientation gallery, commencing with a well integrated video and slide show, after which the visitor walks down from a raised platform and walks around the perimeter of a round gallery displaying a selection of artifacts illustrating the various periods in the state's history. My only complaint is that, while it illustrates well the chronology, it could do a better job on the key issues associated with that chronology - but perhaps I am expecting too much. Montreal has an interesting archaeological museum on the waterfront, with a spectacular multi-media orientation show. It does a superb job in setting the museum and site (through which the visitor then walks) in context. Our own approach is much more modest. After walking through a simple gallery where we communicate by means of huge graphics and simple text statements, the visitor gets the six main messages we want the museum to communicate - before starting his/ver visit. Where we have problems (as in the case of the Hitler head) is in a very few of the specific objects. I think the solution to that problem is in remembering the need to reinforce the basic orientation by supplementary orientation devices, at the start of each significant new theme in the institution. One problem that severely limits the utlity of orientation areas is their poor placement in the institution. Examples of this are the relatively new orientation centres at Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, Old Sturbridge Village near Boston and Sovereign Hill in Australia. Each is potentially very effective, but the visitors walk right around them. I think a second essential is to have an informed HUMAN presence in the galleries, be it a uniformed host/hostess, a person in costume doing first or third person interpretation, or what have you. I don't give a damn how many computer-based interactives and glitzy special effects you have, I am more and more convinced that the human presence - warm and welcoming, knowledgeable and even passionate - is irreplaceable. It is worth noting that we have not had a single complaint about the Hitler head since we inaugurated our new hosting service almost two years ago. A third essential is setting the artifact IN CONTEXT. There will always be a place for "icons" of the museum and other artifacts to be displayed in cases, but I have come to the conclusion that, in history museums, the optimum solution is to have a mix of life sized dioramas and cased artifacts in a gallery and to have the path take the visitors continuously from one to the other. This is particularly well done at the Queen Elizabeth II Army Memorial Museum at Waiouru, New Zealand. Our plans for the redevelopment of our chronological galleries, to be done 1998-2000, will follow this plan. In the area dealing with the period up to 1919, we will feature 26 full-sized dioramas, separated by artifact-rich "corridors". Interactive computer terminals (mini multi-media "learning centres"), many audio and visual devices and two dioramas, within which the visitor will experience motion, sound and smell, will also be used. Fourth, nothing can replace good TEXT. It is amazing how many museums have not learned that about 70 words is the maximum the visitor can absorb from any label. We aim at a maximum of 55. I have become convinced that the ideal label has three levels of text - a big bold title that at least tells the "streaker" what it is; a second portion (still bold, but smaller font) which provides a sentence or two of description for the mainstream visitor, to supplement the label; and a tertiary section (same size as the secondary but not bold) to add a supplementary sentence or two for the real "buff". The best examples of this I have ever seen anywhere are in the Canada Hall of the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull, Quebec. I have conducted visitor studies before and after the new label system was introduced and I can attest to its popularity with visitors - and its effectiveness as a means of communication. These are fairly random thoughts, but I feel deeply about them. I would be interested in other ideas, as I still feel myself something of a babe in the woods in these matters. Harry Needham Canadian War Museum