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]