----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Forwarded from the NINCH list.

Judy

-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From:   David Green, INTERNET:[log in to unmask]

Date:   6/10/97  4:48 PM

RE:     Early Draft Outline of CONFU Guidelines Testing Project


Dear Colleagues:

Below is an extremely early draft of what should become a
description/proposal of a testing/observation of the CONFU Digital Images
Guidelines in practice.
This text is the result of my own understanding of the situation together
with very brief conversations with Pat Williams and Mary Levering.

I'm sharing this now with a group of advisors and potential participants to
get feedback both on the idea and on the specifics of an evolving proposal.
So I'd be grateful for any level of discussion of this idea (together with
the correction of any errors or inaccuracies of fact).

I would personally be very interested in crafting a project that might in
some way include the participation of organizations that have rejected the
proposed guidelines but which might be interested in conducting
observations that would bear on the process of testing or evaluating what
the effects of the Guidelines would be "in the trenches."

I should like to empasize that I see NINCH as a convenor rather than as an
organizer of this project: I would see this as a collaborative enterprise.



************************************************************************

CONFU Digital Images Guidelines

Proposal for Pilot Testing/Examination of the Practicality and
Usefulness of the Proposed Guidelines


A group of creators and users of digital images in educational contexts
are interested in applying the CONFU Guidelines to a practical test.
This would take place in the interim period between the publication of
the CONFU Report (due mid-July 1997) and any further development
of these Guidelines before a further proposed CONFU meeting in May
1998-or the development of broader Principles to guide users in the
stead of more specific guidelines.

It should be noted that of over 100 participants in the CONFU process,
60 organizations responded to the call for endorsement or non-
endorsement of the Guidelines in general. As far as the Digital Images
Guidelines went, 19 voted against accepting them, 4 supported them
and 4 indicated they had no position.

The American Association of Museums, which voted to accept the
Digital Image Guidelines for one provisional year, conditional on such
testing, has, in association with the Association of Art Museum
Directors, proposed the development of field testing.

On a parallel track the Visual Resources Association, opposed to the
Guidelines, thought that the next year could be used "to observe how
institutions are using digital images and what the problems and
concerns are for both users and rights holders."


AAM has indicated that participants of such a test might include, on
the owners side, the following institutions: the Metropolitan Museum
of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, New York, the Weisman Art
Museum, the Virginia Institute of Fine Arts and the Museum of
Contemporary Art at La Jolla. (It might also be advisable to include
some museum participants of the MESL project, which have been
working with universities on digital image issues for two years).

Of users, there is interest among MESL participants, notably American
University (Diana Vogelsong), Cornell University (Noni Korf Vidal),
University of Maryland, College Park (Sally Promey, but now on leave) and
University of  Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Beth Sandore).

Representatives from interested associations such as AAM, CAA, ACLS, AHA
and others should be included, either as participants or observers.

An outline of this project might include:

1. An initial meeting that would include a demonstration of teaching
practice using digital images. The purpose of this meeting would be to
set the objectives, parameters and measurement tools to be used. The
meeting should produce a clear set of questions that would need to be
answered within a certain time period.

2. A development period of no more than a month during which the
specifics of the testing/observation program were developed by a core
group.

3. The limited testing/observation period itself.

4. A preliminary report to be written and produced by a core group.

5. A final meeting at which the findings of the report would be
presented and discussed.

6. A final report would be written and produced.


*******************************************************************