>>> John Benfield <[log in to unmask]> 05/22 2:06 pm >>>
> Having looked at the museum webguide, I can't help thinking that it's
taking a very negative approach. Surely it would
> be better to showcase and celebrate good practice, rather than to 'name
and shame' what a critic feels to be bad
> practice - after all, even the museum webguide site itself contains an
obvious typo... ;-)
> Many museums are charities that are scraping by on a shoestring budget,
it's hardly surprising that some of the things > they do are restricted in
terms of commercial 'polish' - and I'm not just talking about web sites!
> I'm all for raising standards, just not sure that this is the best way to
do it.
Although learning by other people mistakes (and successes) can be a valuable
experience, and one certainly to be shared, I cannot help but be a little
disturbed by the presence of such a web site (in its current format). It
begs the questions: who chooses the sites to be critiqued, do the creators
of the sites have any knowledge that they are about to be critiqued, what
credentials do the critics have and what criteria are being applied?
I think the 'museum webguide' is a potentially good idea, but I would,
similarly, like to see both good and bad aspects pointed out, along with
some kind of guide to good practice, as well as the opportunity to comment
on the sites in question and comment on the comments made by the critics. I
am sure this kind of dialogue would benefit us all, both large and small
institiutions.
John
____________________________
Dr John Benfield
New Media Developer
The Natural History Museum
London, SW7 5BD
www.nhm.ac.uk
Tel: 0207 942 5491
email: [log in to unmask]
____________________________
>
|