They then develop interpretive objectives for each building within the larger site, and in doing so, highlight the significant elements and downplay the less critical. Factors such as short attention spans, average length of visit, and visitor flow, further influence staff decisions about what to interpret and how. The quantity of detailed information on everyday aspects of life make these sorts of decisions more challenging. Visitors connect to the ordinary patterns of life quickly, finding them most relevant to their experiences. The best missions balance use the typical to connect with the significant.
Historians are often untrained in using material culture as evidence.
As a result, artifacts may illustrate their books, but rarely do things warrant analysis in traditional history. Anthropologists or archaeologists on the other hand may focus too strongly on the object. Historians, observes Cary Carson, should not center their interpretation on the object as an archaeologist might, but instead should determine how the object is integral to their historical inquiry, supporting, reflecting, even refuting, doctrines evident in the primary and secondary evidence. This should guide research for living history programs. The process of living history poses challenges, and many interpreters realize the need to continually improve presentations.