##Response to Mitchell Whitelaw, Towards Generous Interfaces for Archival Collections

I agree with Whitelaw’s approach: if the interface is the user’s only representation of the collection, it needs to be generous in its expressive and accessible capacities. Search functions are important tools for funneling us towards artifacts, but it cannot constitute the entirety of an archive’s user engagement functions (as pointed out by others cited in this article, search carries central assumptions that must also be met, and it is often the end of the line for users of online museum archives, as described in the example of the UK National Archives collection). While necessary to have search functionalities, they should not be considered a prerequisite to our archive experience; rather, they should be a background component that enhances our experience. Once we have found what we are seeking, we should be able to easily identify further characteristics of the work’s creator(s), expand our “search” into the years or decades surrounding the artifact, and observe demographic and metadata that are pertinent to our view of the object(s) and period(s) (as shown in the example of the Collection of the National Gallery of Australia). In essence, the interface itself is a search function, but also an exhibition function. In examining the author’s principles and patterns, they align beautifully with the concepts of an immersive experience. They also remind us that of utmost importance is the quality of the representation of the object in view, including its visual quality as well as the context surrounding its creation and illustration.