Broad topic: Interpretive priorities @ the DIA and their use of technology. Technology should augment the gallery experience. If it can already be
done in a "non techie" way, why bother?
*Ideal characterists of technologies in gallery:*
(1) Should encourage social experiences, e.g.: get people talking to each other in the gallery, not "silo" them away to their PDA's.
(2) Should place focus on artifacts and add something that couldn't be provided before the tech was there
(3) Should faciliate experience (emotional, social, intellectural, learning/critical). Does it help you think more critically about something, or is it just a cool interaction that serves no interpretive purpose?
(4) Should provide a way for people to "talk back" to the museum and the way it EXHIBITS AND INTERPRETS artifacts
(5) Should allow people to connect ideas explored in the gallery with the outside world and their own lives - connections to communities,
culture, books, music, art history, etc. Does it teach you how to learn more?