“Is it negligent to skip straight to AT? No, and it doesn’t make someone a bad archivist. It is less than ideal and maybe even a bit risky, but it’s also a very practical approach. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that this is the most immediate value of a tool like AT/Archon.”

That’s very perceptive. When we developed Archon, the idea was to make EAD and online access possible for those who would never have time/inclination to edit raw xml. I don’t particularly think one needs to know anything about EAD in order to do good description. However, it is essential that one understand DACS, ideas such as access points, levels of description, difference between intellectual hierarchy and physical order, etc. Most of the problems that implementers run into with Archon, in my experience, is because they don’t understand these concepts or are clearly using the application to describe archives in ways that DACS does not recommend.

However, I would also add that a basic understanding of EAD and DACS go hand in hand, so familiarly with EAD is a good benchmark of whether an individual is ready to begin using a tool such as AT/Archon.