• Register
• Key Dates
• Schedule
• Local Info

April 11-14, 2007
San Francisco, California

Who Are You Calling Cheap?

The Museum Context

What is a small museum? There is no standard definition in the UK, though the Scottish Museums Council has in some circumstance categorised museums according to the number of items in their collections -  not a particularly useful measure of capacity. The AAM defines a small museum as one whose annual revenue budget is under $250,000, and this figure is also used by the ILMS in the United States. Wherever we draw the line, some characteristics are common amongst small museums. They rely more heavily (indeed, sometimes exclusively) on volunteers, and what staff they have wear a number of curatorial and administrative hats. The stereotypical museum with specialist curators belies the fact that, in a number of institutions at least, most museums are small. The Scottish Museums Council has over two hundred members, of which 32 represent local council museum services. Of the remainder the vast majority are small independent museums – and of course some of the local authority services are quite small, too.

When it comes to developing and maintaining an on-line presence, the perception of barriers plays a significant part in preventing small museums from making use of ICT and the Internet.

Many barriers can discourage smaller museums from taking advantage of the Internet as a method of communication and tool for meeting their mission. These barriers may include the cost of creating an on-line presence, the staff time for determining and developing an online strategy, and the concerns involved in maintaining any effort taken (Bellnier 2004).

Yet the power of ICT to 'level the laying field' – on the Internet, famously, no-one knows you're a dog – and the proliferation of cheap, or indeed free, tools to facilitate the creation of on-line content, together with the low financial cost of maintaining an on-line presence, mean that the difficulty of surmounting these barriers is being over-estimated by many small institutions.

You don’t need a large team of people to develop and maintain complex proprietary software. The tools are out there - free, open, ubiquitous and relatively easy to use. (von Appen, 2006)

Despite the low level of usage, the concentration of power in many organisations in the hands of a few 'experts' (often not that knowledgeable); and the perceptions of difficulty and expense and other barriers to uptake, there is yet a strong desire amongst small museums to make more use of especially the Internet as a means of reaching out to audiences. But we are all starting from a very low baseline.

In Scotland, substantial amounts of public money have been invested in the digitisation of museum (and other) collections, principally funded through the National Lottery. In particular the Scran (http://www.scran.ac.uk/) and NOF-Digitise (http://www.enrichuk.net/) programmes resulted in the creation of more than 300,000 ‘digital objects’ (mostly in the form of images plus accompanying text and metadata). In the main it was larger institutions that were responsible for most of the content, but large numbers of smaller, volunteer-run museums and even private collectors participated. But as Filippini-Fantoni and Bowen (2005) note, there has been a

...lack of financial support from local or national government...which, after having contributed to the collections' digitalization process, are now somewhat less eager to invest in the transformation of these resources into educational and entertaining services for the public... Even when external funding is made available for the development of multimedia resources, through the support of private sponsors, the projects are usually carried out outside of the institution itself by external companies. There is no real integration of the project into the museum structure and therefore there is no development of internal competence that could be really beneficial in an environment where the already scarce personnel have little expertise in this respect.

Of course, all cultural institutions complain that the funding is not adequate, and consequently they lack both the equipment and staff resources to do all they wish to do. But according to the Scottish Museums Council's 2004 ICT Survey (Edgar, 2004), only one-third of all museums had a broadband or better connection to the Internet.

Fig 1: Museum Internet connections, 2004

Although nearly 92% of respondents had at least one computer for staff use, almost half of these computers were over three years old. There were also notable difference between local authority (council) museums and independent museums.

Fig 2: Comparison of local council and independent museums IT provision, 2004

The survey pointed to a need for training and skills development, and the difficulties, particularly for small, volunteer-dependent museums, in addressing this issue.

54% of respondents said that full-time staff at their museum have access to ICT training...However, this figure is less (23%) when applied to volunteers...Only 12 respondents have a dedicated ICT training budget.

38% of respondents consider themselves to have adequate ICT skills in-house...Nearly 30% of respondents either rely on a volunteer for technical support, or have no support available to them ...More geographically remote museums also cite the location of training as a problem.  (Edgar, 2004)

Fig 3: Usage of staff computers, 2004

SMC's response to this was to set up a grant fund specifically aimed at helping small museums. The ICT Small Museums Fund  would give small grants to purchase equipment and training. In the event, most applications were for hardware, and few of these included any element of training. In the Impact Evaluation of the ICT Small Museums Fund 2004-2005 (Quick, 2006) it was noted that

Several museums indicated that extra training in the use of new equipment or software would have been very helpful. Several also referred to difficulty in either getting information about equipment or knowing how to choose the best solution for a particular requirement... A skills base is hard to sustain in a volunteer run museum, where resources are often stretched and time is the most precious commodity. There is a need for continuing support and assistance in this area, both responsive and proactive, to help museums to exploit the opportunities available and continue to move on.

In 2005, SMC published guidelines for ICT projects (Thomas, 2005), which recommended amongst other things that projects should

• ensure that there is a suitable exit strategy in place to retain or, at worst, transfer the skills and expertise developed as part of the project and maintain momentum;
• ensure that the technology is as flexible as possible, for example so that new items can be added and the system transferred from an in-house terminal to a Web site. This will broaden the application, making future planning more cost-effective and straightforward.

It is in this context that we came to develop the Digital Resource Development Team project.

The Funding Background

In August 2003 the Scottish executive published An Action Framework for Museums. The guidelines for the Regional Development Challenge Fund were published on 22 December 2003, with a closing date for applications of 31 March 2004.

At the instigation of Herbert Coutts, then Director of Culture & Leisure at City of Edinburgh Council, a consortium of museums in Scottish Borders, East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian, Edinburgh and Fife, including Local Authority, independent, university and national museums, had already been established in the Autumn of 2003 with the aim of submitting applications to the fund for specific projects which would be of benefit to all the partners. An initial seven proposals had been whittled down to four, of which two – the Digital Resource Development Team and the Regional Training Project - were successful in gaining funding of £300,000 each over three years. The grants were announced in October 2004.

The aims of the Digital Resource Development Team project were fourfold:

• to provide staff working in partner museums with the necessary skills and required knowledge to create their own on-line digital resources;
• to increase their confidence by building on their existing skills in using computers, expanding their abilities into new areas;
• to give them a knowledge of what the technologies can (and can't) achieve, how they work, and how they may fail, leaving them better equipped to knowledgeably commission work from third parties without being ripped off; and
• to increase their understanding of the technologies underlying the provision of Web content.

Two staff were employed to deliver training and to work with the partners in producing digital content both for exhibitions and for the Web. It was an important element of the project that there should be actual productions for end users of the museums and their Web sites; and that learning would take place through the creation of meaningful digital resources of value to the partner museums and appropriate to their scale and staff resources. The two project officers were both used to working with people whose ICT skills and knowledge were at a very low level. By the end of January, 2005, when the project officers started work, we had over twenty potential partners lined up, a management group consisting of one member from a museum in each of the counties in the region, plus a member from Learning & Teaching Scotland (part of the Scottish Executive) and a member from the e-business project at Napier University in Edinburgh, and a partnership agreement for members to sign. The project was led by Peter Gray, the Principal Museums Officer with East Lothian Council. The staff were employed by and the project's cash flow was underwritten by East Lothian Council. The whole of the specific cash expenditure on the two staff and individual projects was covered by the £300,000 grant, but the time and efforts of staff in partner museums were their institutions' contributions to the overall project. The original business plan for the project can be found on the DigitalMages site at http://www.digitalmages.org/wb/media/download_gallery/business_plan.doc (Mages is simply an acronym for Museums & Galleries in the East of Scotland, and implies no claim to great occult knowledge).

The Delivery Process

The East of Scotland Museums Partnership was the vehicle for bringing together museums across the region, but each funded project needed to have partners explicitly sign up to take part. This involved an appropriate person in each organisation signing a partnership agreement outlining how the project would work, what partners could expect to receive and what they would be expected to contribute (principally their time). Actually getting the signed agreements proved to be quite time-consuming, particularly where partners required Board or Council Committee approval.

Coupled with the sign up process was an initial assessment of specific needs and capacities. Two surveys were sent to prospective partners – one for the partner organisation assessing access to equipment and expertise and the use currently made thereof; the second for individuals assessing their own skills and knowledge. The feedback from the surveys was used to compile the detailed project plan. Some £80,000 ($154,000) was set aside in the business plan for ‘projects’. The project management group agreed to set aside £20,000 as a ‘Challenge Fund’ to which partners could bid for 100% funding for specific projects. To date (January 2007), some ten projects have received funding (in addition to support and advice from the project officers). The grants awarded have ranged from £80 for a piece of software to £1,500 for a gallery interactive.

In addition to one-to-one work either on-site or by phone or email, there have been 33 training sessions for groups on Web site creation; digital still image capture and manipulation; value for money software and hardware; and audio/video capture and editing. The training has been tailored to meet the needs of the participants, and has been aimed at helping with projects they are currently working on or about to start (e.g. Linlithgow Union Canal Society video project; East Lothian Museums podcasting project; “Simply Samplers” touring exhibition Web site).

A project Web site was set up (http://www.digitalmages.org/) both as a point of contact and as a repository for the help files, partner test sites, documents and newsletters. The factsheets, tips or on-line guides include:

• Basic Image Manipulation (2 versions – Gimp, Photoshop Elements)
• Basic HTML and Cascading Style Sheet site construction
• Individual Guides to the following Content Management Systems – MAMBO, eZ Publish and Website Baker
• Guide to basic video editing and a guide for video editing using tired, old equipment
• Guide to providing video suitable for YouTube
• Advice on using the RAW image format
• Advice on choosing digital stills cameras
• Thoughts for implementing successful touch-screen displays
• The ins and outs of white balance when taking digital images
• Tips on Premiere Elements
• Lexicon

A regular newsletter is e-mailed to the partners and available for download on the project site (http://www.digitalmages.org/wb/pages/downloads.php). It includes news about partner activities, recommendations of cheap or free applications – a favourite ‘freebie’ each issue - tips and tricks, and so on.

The project officers themselves have worked on producing digital resources for individual partners, though always with the aim that the recipient organisations will be able to continue to maintain, update or renew the resource themselves. Examples include touchscreen interactives running from a local Web server for East Lothian Museums, Fife Contemporary Arts & Crafts and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh museum.

Fig 4: Home page of gallery interactive, Dunbar Museum, 2006

They have also worked on a number of partner Web sites, including the Friends of Kirkcaldy Museum (a work in progress, but the Mobile Museum section is completed: http://66.197.196.213/~friendso/wb/pages/mac-and-outreach-services.php); Remember When (http://www.rememberwhen.org.uk/); and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards Museum.

Fig 5: Fife's Mobile Museum home page
http://66.197.196.213/~friendso/wb/pages/mac-and-outreach-services.php

It was an important aim of the project to show partners, most of whom have very small budgets, that there were low-cost (or even free) alternatives available to them for most of the activities they were planning to undertake – OpenOffice instead of MS Office; Gimp instead of Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements instead of the full program); Audacity for audio editing, and so on. In addition, we wanted to overcome the perception that doing anything on the Web was bound to be expensive – showing them that hosting could be very cheap; that a CMS need not cost more than the time involved to create the content; and that there are free services like Flickr, YouTube, and Bebo which can provide facilities that otherwise would be both technically and financially beyond the means of all but the largest organisations.

Fig 6: Using YouTube for streaming video – free is as cheap as it gets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ0kZsAQ2B0

Remember When

The laws pertaining to homosexuality were different in Scotland from the law in England and Wales. The decriminalisation of (male) homosexuality in the Sexual Offences Act 1967 was not extended to Scotland until 1980.

Fig 7:  Home page of the Remember When site
http://www.rememberwhen.org/

Remember When… was a two-year long oral and community history project to document the lives and achievements of Edinburgh’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people, past and present. It received support from the Heritage Lottery Fund, Edinburgh City Council and the Living Memory Association (http://www.livingmemory.org.uk/). Alongside the part-time project workers and administrator, and the city staff, many volunteers contributed to the project with interviews, participation in the collection and accessioning of objects. The principal outcome of the project was intended to be an exhibition (Rainbow City) at the Edinburgh City Art Centre; it took place from 6^th May to 9^th July 2006. The material and immaterial information gathered during the project’s lifetime were passed on to complement the City museums’ social history collection with a LGBT dimension.

The Remember When project team consisted of three part-time project workers plus volunteers from the city's LGBT communities, working under the guidance of the Living Memory Association, a voluntary organisation dedicated to Edinburgh's oral and community history. The original project did not contain a Web element, but the Digital Resource Development Team project provided the opportunity to make the material collected – objects, images and oral histories – available via a dedicated Web site (http://www.rememberwhen.org.uk/). This would also provide an opportunity for additional resources and content to be added as an ongoing project.

Support for the creation of the Web version of the project included the setting up of the Web site. Since it was planned that the site content would be created by a number of different individuals, none of whom had any previous experience in creating on-line content, it was decided to use a content management system, but that the look of the site would match the existing publicity material for the exhibition (which at this point had not taken place). Initial discussions suggested that there would be a large number of users adding content to the site, and their access would need to be limited to specific areas and functions; therefore they would require specifically-tuned access permissions. However, there was no actual budget assigned in the original Remember When project to the creation of the site. It was therefore agreed to use eZ publish (http://ez.no/) as the CMS. This application was chosen both because of its price (it’s free) and because of its powerful user permissions system, the most flexible of any of the free CMSs. In retrospect, it was perhaps an overpowered solution, as the numbers of contributing users has not been as large as originally thought. A simpler solution such as Website Baker (http://www.websitebaker.org/) would probably have been sufficient. Since it was hoped to provide large quantities of images and video, as well as sound files, through the site, a key element of the hosting was to find a package with sufficient storage space. Again, with other alternatives that are now available (YouTube for the video and Flickr for the images, for example), an alternate way of storing and providing access to the material (still via the main site) would perhaps have been simpler. As so often with ICT projects, it seems that there is never a right time to make a decision.

The initial funding for our Remember When project was from The Heritage Lottery Fund and this finished last year. There were, however, several volunteers who were still very enthusiastic to carry on taking part in project work. This grant has been a tremendous way of enabling these volunteers to continue and learn new ICT skills through working on the Website (Heather Robertson, Living Memory Association).

The project officers also helped to create a QuickTime tour of the exhibition. It will be available through the Web site, providing a permanent means of accessing this temporary exhibition, as well as a video guided tour.

Linlithgow Union Canal Society

The Linlithgow Union Canal Society (LUCS, http://www.lucs.org.uk/) was founded in 1975 to promote and encourage the restoration and use of the Union Canal, particularly in the vicinity of Linlithgow. The Society is a voluntary body, and unpaid volunteers man all facilities. The society now comprises some 600 members of whom approximately 100 are active in the organisation. All members are volunteers. The society is a registered charity and is a company limited by guarantee. Its headquarters are at the Canal Basin at Manse Road, Linlithgow. Here the formerly derelict stable buildings were leased from British Waterways; members restored them to form the small museum (opened 1978) and the tearoom (opened 1994). The museum forms a core part of their work with schools. They cater mainly for primary children, who get a short presentation on the canal in the museum and a trip on the boat (often their first experience of being afloat). In a typical year they have around 50 – 60 school parties. These vary in size from about a dozen people to large parties of 60.

The motivation for taking part in the project differs from organisation to organisation, and from person to person. In the case of LUCS:

Personally, being now retired I miss the support that comes from working with people who are up to date with computers and software. The support of the project in overcoming this professional isolation, and in providing a short cut to the best solutions to what we want to do, has been invaluable. Organisationally, we increasingly felt that what we had on offer, both in the museum and in our outreach work (a video cassette, and 35mm slide show respectively) had begun to look old and tired. The video was not ideally suited to the full range of viewers. These include casual adult visitors and primary children from the earliest years up to P6 or 7. We wanted, ideally, to provide three distinct offerings, one for casual visitors, and two for schools, one for younger and one (basically the existing one) for older classes.

Initially we hoped that whatever equipment we acquired to update the schools programme would also be suitable for delivering our outreach programme. However, on Angus’s advice we separated these two elements and concentrated on the schools programme. Angus’s view was that no single piece of equipment was suitable for both functions. (Nuala Lonie, Curator)

Using the money given us by the project, LUCS acquired a computer with a large disc drive and memory suitable for manipulating images, and a flat screen monitor with a wide viewing angle suitable for the small museum space where school parties meet. They also bought a slide scanner and video editing software (Adobe Photoshop and Premiere) and, with guidance from one of the project officers, downloaded numerous free programs for word processing, database and spreadsheets, among other things. They borrowed equipment bought for shared use amongst the project partners (large numbers of whom have older material on VHS that they would like to re-purpose) to transfer their schools’ video (and other film which they had) to the computer. This immediately brought them within sight of where they wanted to be as it provided a digitised version of the ‘older primary’ programme.

Fig 8: Screen grabs from the LUCS videos digitised from VHS

At the end of the LUCS season (October), the Curator, Nuala Lonie, began scanning the society’s slide collection. This work is still ongoing. She started with the slides used in the  outreach programme and in the museum display, and these will form the core of the “casual visitor” slide show. Advised by the new Education Officer who is a former primary head teacher, the curator has written a story for very young children, giving basic information about the canal (i.e. that it was made by digging it out by hand and that it carried coal on barges pulled by horses). She is currently engaged in making illustrations for the story (49 in total). The plan is to scan the final pictures in at actual size to accompany the text. The effect will be like a story book.

So far the main usable output is a version of their video suitable for older children. They could also at any time produce very easily, for casual visitors, a slide show from the scanned slides. This will play in the museum in the background for people to view. It is simply a matter of making a selection of the slides they wish to input to this project.

What have been the benefits of participation in the Digital Resource Development Team project?

Filling the knowledge gap that appears when one leaves work has been a huge personal benefit to me and the training provided has given immediate access to new software that otherwise I would have had to learn to use by trial and error.

One of the uses that we intend to put the computer to, as well as the museum and schools projects described, is as a central repository for key documents and forms that we use in running the society. These include driver records and passenger records which we are required by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to keep. We also have work sheets for schools. At present there are different versions of these documents on computers belonging to society members in Linlithgow and beyond. The society’s treasurer also has thoughts of putting his accounts on. Finally, our bookings secretary – not an enthusiast for computers – has agreed to learn how to operate the bookings system using an Excel type spreadsheet. Probably we will do this using the free software.

It has been a very positive and useful experience. As to the next project, ideally we would like to return to the idea of digitising our outreach programme. This would entail acquiring equipment and software for PowerPoint type presentations, and training our outreach members in their use. (Nuala Lonie, Curator)

Keeping It Going

As so often with projects of this kind, continued funding is very uncertain, indeed unlikely. To ensure that the gains made are not lost and that the skills learned do not wither or fall behind will be a key aim of the final year. Building a digital resources support group across the region (and possibly wider) will help, and the East of Scotland Museums Partnership is already working on further funding proposals to build on the successes of their three projects.

We have tried to ensure long-term sustainability of projects for the wide range of partner organisations, but all organisations – and particularly small ones – remain vulnerable to the loss of key staff. Indeed, in a small museum all staff are key staff. By establishing the East of Scotland Museums Partnership, we hope that at the very least there will be a sustainable group of people with the knowledge, skills and expertise to help one another in the future. The digital products of the project on the Web and within the museums will remain, to be re-used, shared, changed and updated, and in the process the learning will continue and the skills base of the partners will be maintained. The touring exhibition Simply Samplers and its accompanying Web site (http://www.simplysamplers.org/) will continue beyond the lifespan of the project and will serve as a model for planning the digital version of exhibitions along with their physical manifestation (rather than as a last minute add-on). But in the end, it will all depend on the energy, enthusiasm and commitment of the partners, and more than anything on their ability to commit time, rather than cash, to maintaining and developing their digital resources and their on-line presence.

Fig 9: Simply Samplers touring exhibition FAQ page
http://www.simplysamplers.org/content/pages/faqs.php

The Learning Curve

The short time scale created by the Scottish Executive (effectively twelve weeks from the announcement of the guidelines to the closing date for completed applications) meant that there was lack of initial detailed research about specific needs, and just as important, a lack of time to prepare potential partners. We were thus unsure from the start what specific projects would be wanted – essentially, we were basing our ideas on the little research conducted by SMC, and trying to keep our options as open as possible. As for the partners, it’s very hard to articulate what exactly you want when you don't know what you can want. This meant that the first months of the project were taken up in assessments of partner needs and capacities and in educating the partners about the sorts of things that would be possible for them. A longer lead time for developing the projects would have informed the project plan and allowed us to get down to work immediately. It is vitally important in a project with a large number of partners scattered over a wide geographic area that you keep plugging away at the partners to respond to offers and enquiries. Since the great majority of the partners are small, often volunteer-run, museums, each person working there has a lot of tasks competing for their attention, and it’s easy for staff to let things slip. In the end, persistence pays.

Coupled with this is the thorny issue of who it is you have made contact with. How do you know your letters and e-mails are going to the right person? Are the contact details correct? Often the initial point of contact is in a senior position (Chair of the Trustees, Director or similar) and information may not reach the appropriate people: really you need, as it were, to ‘speak to the minions’. This can be a problem in all types and sizes of organisations. It is invaluable to have a project advocate within each organisation, and in at least a couple of instances it took a long time for the project to make contact with this person.  In one case, the institution had heard nothing about us until a chance contact was made, and in another it depended on a change in staffing taking place.

The possibility of resistance from specific individuals or groups should not be underestimated. There may be individuals with vested interests (sometimes financial) in existing practice, or simply a resistance to changing established methods of working or taking advantage of new opportunities.

Corporate policies, particularly with partners who are embedded within larger organisations such as local councils or universities, can slow things down (or even stop them completely). Indeed, in large organisations, network policies may prevent access to services like Flickr and YouTube. Decision making may take place at a substantial remove from the actual activity. Conflicts within the organisation may also stymie progress.

The centralisation of purchasing proved to be a problem both for the main project and for some of the partners, when what was required either could not be sourced from approved suppliers at a competitive price, or in some cases could not be bought at all.

Not Costing the Earth

The project is now two-thirds through its three-year programme. Over twenty partners, responsible for more than forty museums across the region, have participated to varying degrees. Some have grasped the opportunity with both hands and have produced resources and acquired the equipment and skills to do so on into the future in ways that would not have been possible without the support of the DRDT. When we began, we were far from Web 2.0: most of the partners were still at the stage of Web 0.2 beta. We have moved on far from there, and though the cost may seem large, it amounts to no more than £2,500 (about $4,750) per museum per year. The increase in skills, knowledge and confidence is apparent in the work that has been produced, but much remains to be done, and the developments have been unevenly spread. We have shown our partners that it doesn’t require massive funds or huge development teams to produce worthwhile digital content; that there are cost-effective, value for money alternatives for almost all of the big brand-name applications you might need, and that the future financial costs of maintaining their Web presence need only be modest provided they can commit  time to doing it.

Who are you calling cheap? Why, us – but it’s a badge we wear with pride.

References

Bellnier, K. (2004). Riversdale Historic House Museum: A Small Museum and the Internet. Last updated 25 March 2004, consulted 23 January 2007. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2004/abstracts/prg_265000660.html

Edgar, D (2004). Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Scottish museums - Final report. Edinburgh: Scottish Museums Council. Last updated 10 September 2004 08:58:53 GMT, consulted 23 January 2007. http://194.200.63.26/pdfs/Publications/ICT_survey_report.pdf

Filippini-Fantoni, S. and J.P. Bowen (2005). Can small museums develop compelling, educational and accessible web resources? The case of Accademia Carrara. Last updated 29 July 2005, consulted 23 January 2007. http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0508/0508066.pdf

Quick, E. (2006). Impact Evaluation of the ICT Small Museums Fund 2004-2005. Edinburgh: SMC.

Scottish Executive (2003). An Action framework for Museums. Last updated 14 September 2005. Consulted 23 January 2007. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/08/18021/25451

Scottish Executive (2003). Regional Development Challenge Fund Guidelines. Last updated 18 December 2003 16:05:07 GMT. Consulted 23 January 2007. http://194.200.63.26/pdfs/RDCF_guidelines.pdf

Thomas, H. and S. Crossman (2005). Museums, Galleries and Digitisation: Current best practice and recommendations on measuring impact. Edinburgh: Scottish Museums Council. Last updated 21 October 2005 10:15:24 GMT, consulted 23 January 2007. http://194.200.63.26/pdfs/Publications/Digi_impact_full.pdf

Von Appen, K., B. Kennedy and J. Spadaccini (2006). Community Sites & Emerging Sociable Technologies. In D. Bearman and J. Trant (eds.). Museums and the Web 2006: Selected Papers from an International Conference. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2006. last updated 21 January 2007, consulted 30 January 2007. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/vonappen/vonappen.html

Cite as:

Gray, P., Who are you calling cheap?, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 1, 2007 Consulted http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/gray/gray.html

Editorial Note