I am an educator in a large art museum in Toronto. For almost 10 years I have been experimenting with the use of audio, computer and other technologies in exhibits. My experience ranges from the practical(including writing communication objectives, preparing instructional designs, writing content and developing software), to conducting audience research in the installations, to writing about the theoretical issues of meaning-making in museums. Personally, I feel excited by the possibilities of using technology to do things that museums have not been able to do well in the past, or to do things that museums have not been able to do at all in the past (ie. exploring new roles and potentials of the museum). But I am clear that technology needs to be seen as the servant to the experiences of users. In my thinking on this topic, I continue to wonder how museum professionals decide which worthwhile goals technology (particularly computers, multimedia and networks) can serve effectively. The current trend seems to be towards extending the traditional authoritarian paradigm of museums - that of the expert/novice. In this scenario, the expert museum uses technology to configure its knowledge in ways that are thought to be interesting to users who are less knowledgeable. Although there is an important role for the thoughtful, 'authoritative' perspective of the museum expert, recent museological thinking (eg. as expressed in the AAM's report "Excellence and Equity") suggests that these insights are not sufficient. Rather, the real stuff of culture lives in the dynamics of interaction between people, things and ideas. Although many examples of technology that have been developed for museums often have taken some account of the need to make the programs pallatable and engaging for people with different learning styles and backgrounds, and are often designed to give the user the feeling that they have some control in the learning process, I remain skeptical that the real potential of technology has yet been tapped. For some time, I have been thinking that museums often have more than enough knowledge, and not enough wisdom to know what to do with it or to see its limitations. To me, if technology offers a real opportunity for museums to become more relevant in our society, then this goal is more likely to be achieved through an emphasis on communication and dialogue, rather than on the transference of 'knowledge'. Sure, it is important to share whatever insights specialists acquire in the course of their work. But the public has a great deal of personal insights into cultural objects - insights that are beyond the reach of scholars. I would like to see technology used to facilitate multi-directional communication between people about the living meanings of cultural collections and other carriers of cultural identity. The purpose of this note is to make contact with others who have an interest in talking through some of these issues about the potential of technology, and how we as museologists can best work towards optimizing the potential. If you have any thoughts, concerns, or experiences that relate to this issue, I would like to hear from you. Douglas Worts Art Gallery of Ontario Toronto, Canada [log in to unmask]