Steven Lubar wrote this blog post after AHA2015:  Crossing borders, or not, at the AHA

He's wondering about his own reactions to listening historians talking about history museums without considering the "non-historical" parts such as visitors:

Why did these historians, many of whom had studied museums, or consulted with them, seem so oblivious to the parts of the museum that weren’t directly historical in nature: visitors, for example? Or perhaps well-meaning historians were crossing into my territory, raising my hackles? Was I defending my territory?

My own reactions, just reading the tweets on digital history, were similar. What do academic historians know about how to design or build a website? Are they operating on the twenty-year-old idea that "if you build it, they will come?"

Still, they're building some really cool tools and I'm anxious to try some of the out. Other tweets indicated that there were some questions about letting cool tools excitement override good historical questions. Just as I would have voiced my concerns that good history research built into a cool tool isn't necessarily enough to bring in an audience.