Analysing the Monticello Website

I have gone about the analysis of the Monticello website comparing the affordances of the website with the declared mission and vision of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.
It's mission is :

• preservation -- to conserve, protect, and maintain Monticello in a manner which leaves it enhanced and unimpaired for future generations -- and
• education -- to interpret and present Thomas Jefferson to the widest possible audiences, including scholars and the general public.

Followed by their vision:

• The Thomas Jefferson Foundation engages a global audience in a dialogue with Jefferson’s ideas.
• Facilitate conversations and to use its extensive research and knowledge to stimulate interactions on a variety of topics that were of keen interest to Jefferson, the most powerful of which are liberty and self government.  Through virtual, off-site and on-site engagement, the Foundation seeks to excite the world about Jefferson’s relevance today and ignite a passion for history.

The website has done an excellent job of presenting this extensive knowledge in a format that makes it interesting and engaging for a wide audience. Accessibility and interest are achieved in many ways: 

• The house and grounds are described in separate short mulitmedia animations.
• These animated tours incorporate many of the different areas of interest in the house and grounds (history, architecture, geography, culture, people etc)
• Commentary is given in audio and written format, which caters for different disabilities and preferences.
• Floor plans and maps of the grounds accompany the animations
• Extensive background/further reading material is presented by organising it in separate subject matter sections.
• Users can explore whichever areas interest them at their own pace.
• I was able to access the material via both pc and mobile devices.

I noticed it has missed a number of opportunities to fulfill its vision and mission:

• Sadly english appears to be the only language (misses the global ambition?)
• Although the site educates in an engaging format, there is no way of interacting with the site via feedback, blog etc. (misses offsite interactive and engage in dialogue ambitions?)
• I came across no use of music (lost excitement opportunity?)

All in all, I think a creditable job of presenting the material reflecting many of the values of the organisation has been done. 

I imagine three keystone species which were essential in creating the website were: 

• all of the various historical/subject experts, 
• sensitive multimedia artefact designers
• people with extraordinary user focus, who can look at this subject naively

I  can see how the group that have created the site are operating in an ecology, but am not sure how the user becomes part of that ecology, other than as an observer. Or have I missed the point here?