I find this thread increasingly interesting, especially considering
the messages are comming to me interleafed with messages from another
list, sci.virtual-worlds.apps, devoted to the type of Gibsonian
technology we are discussing.
 
Ben Fuller wrote (stuff deleted):
 
 
> I agree with those that point out that we have not yet figured out the
> best marriage of exhibits and technology.
 
I agree.  We need to do a lot more experimenting with virtual museums
to make the effective communication tools, but to be fair we are
comparing traditional museum displays (which we have 200+ years of
experience with) with electronic museum displays (10 or so years).
Give it time.
 
>         Virtual museums, access to the museum's database is something that
> does not necessarily have to happen at the museum. It is a one-on-one
> encounter, and may be more effective at 6am on a Saturday as I am writing.
>         The exhibit is fundamentally different; a broad band experience
> taken in conjunction with other people, not a focused one-on-one. Any use
> of technology in it has to allow multiple simultaneous users: if no more
> than repeater screens so that lots of people can see what you are doing.
 
This is not necessarily true.  Look at "places" like Diversity
University or any of the other MUD/MOO spaces (multi-user on-line
environments).  Granted they are currently text-based but graphical
interfaces are in development.  There have also been multi-user
virtual environments for the last five years or so.  As hardware and
software price/performance come down we'll see a lot more.
 
> (stuff deleted) Interactivity with the exhibit is one
> reason live interpreters succeed.
>         A second reason that they succeed is that they can provide
> information conversationally to a depth controlled only by the
> interpreters knowledge and by the visitors curiosity, again to a number
> of people at the same time. The best interpreters can explain process  (in
> a history/technology museum) and can get the vistor to "see" the object
> through other eyes, providing additional contyext.
 
This assumes you have highly trained interpreters on-staff.  An
expensive proposition in these hard times for small to medium sized
museums.
 
>         Only when technology can provide the virtual reality of a Gibson
> ("Neuromancer" et al) or a "Snow Crash" will the electronic museum be
> able to replace the physical exhibit.
 
I do not think a virtual museum will ever replace the traditional
object based glass case exhibit or reconstructed room environment.
There is too great a desire to see the "real thing".  Nor should we
try to replace the physical exhibit, as I said above it has served its
function for a long time - and good exhibits do a wonderful job at
communicating something of the wonder of the world to our audience.
 
However, as Robert Guralnick mentioned in his message, there are
experiences which can best be done with a virtual exhibit - his
example was a visit to the Jurassic, but you can also make a similar
case for a vist to any point in the past, be it to the signing of the
Rights of Man or to the Battle of Gettysburg (look what Burns did with
still photo's, music, the human voice and imagination!).
 
Richard Gerrard
Registrar, Collections Management
Toronto Historical Board
[log in to unmask]