 |
 |
Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=10061, phase=CONNECT, target=127.0.0.1:2306). The server is probably not started.
----------------------------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. *******************************************************************