I've been thinking about this quite a bit lelaty as well, particularly as references to the idea that the internet provides universal and democratic access have been made in our readings. People have varying degrees of access to the internet for myriad reasons. In some cases it's by choice (I've known some technophobes whose fear was rooted in the philosophical and not in ignorance), but in many other cases it's out of the user's control. Considering how to access historic materials via mobile phones is something I believe we really do need to seriously contemplate. Obviously creating content for smartphones will be easier (although still pretty daunting in some regards) than creating content for more traditional (?) cell phones. Should we assume that smartphones may be the mode of the future and therefore maybe we don't need to seriously consider providing content for dumbphones? That solves the problem, as least when in regards to development. But is it safe and wise to make that assumption? As for smartphones, content development may come more readily in the creation of apps and not so much from the creation mobile-ready websites. Perhaps museum and historic site websites for mobile phones could provide basic information and content: hours, phone number, current exhibits, directions, etc. Whereas apps could provide something more. Layar, an app originally designed for uses in real estate, has an Encyclopedia Virginia layer that highlights VA state historic markers and provides information beyond the text on the marker itself. Of course, Layar requires access to your camera and your gps function to be turned on, but I've played around with it a number of times and it's pretty nifty. Also I've heard that Manassas Battlefield park has developed an app to use while walking around the park. Yet this all begs the question: should we eschew developing digital content for dumbphones in favor of content for smartphones? Or do we just need to be more creative in the ways in which we create digital content?