Bonnet’s article underlines the pedagogical importance of 3D technology, both in terms of teaching methodology and valid response to a world in which “the constraints governing story-telling are changing, and that, in turn, the forms will as well.”  Even if the efficacy of digital tools in teaching approach and the concept itself of digital natives are still highly debated (for example here and here), it is certain that humanities professors are dealing (and will deal more and more) with students whose access to information and experience is mediated by digital and visual interfaces. I believe that this “mandate to attend to society”, something perhaps not enough stressed by scholarly debate, is per se a valid reason (if not the most important) in pursuing a digital tools expertise by humanities scholars. I also think that the contraposition between digital and traditional approach as the best way to conduct research (both Favro and Bonnet deal with this question) is a false problem. Why one approach should exclude the other? The Theban Mapping Project posted on the blog by professor Lubar is a great example of how video, oral narration, 3D representation and written text can work together to enhance the understanding of a specific artifact. The idea that adding complex layers of interpretation could stimulate the peculiar intuition of researchers seems to be also underlines by Bonnet when he says that, “Researchers in a variety of disciplines — from ethnography to cognitive psychology — are pointing to growing bodies of evidence that suggest 3D immersive environments can enhance creativity and transform the way we see the world.”