flynn0013

R users may be interested in this poster... not sure what to call it. Template? Package? It’s here , in any case. I am not an R user, so I am not in a position to evaluate it. Hat tip to Karthik Ram and Milton Tan . Rolf Hut proclaims this the best poster from EGU 2017 meeting. Nevertheless, controversy erupted . Hat tip to Nasty Lab Manager . Dani Rabaiotti has a long post on conference etiquette . It is mostly concerned with asking questions and avoiding the “all out war” scenario. Hat tip to Stephen Heard. Catherine Cavallo forwarded this advice from Graham Phillips of the Australian television show Catalyst. While I think it is geared to journalists, it applies to posters, too. Hat tip to Melissa Márquez . A free little ebook on using Inkscape for biological illustration . Hat tip to Chris Borkent and Morgan Jackson. Melissa Márquez has a post on conference networking . At its core, networking isn’t about how other people can help you… it is how you can help other people . Thi

Margaret Moerchen wrote : Every poster needs an executive summary like this! I appreciate the sentiment here. Summaries are good. Highlighting those summaries is also good. But this doesn’t go far enough . Four bullet points is too much. Let’s turn the mic over to “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, who famously pronounced : Would Austin get the same reaction from the crowd if he said, “And those are the bottom four lines”? Do we say, “Get to the points?” “Cut to the chases”? No. It’s singular in every case. Here’s what I would suggest. Drill down those four points to one . Looking at the points above, I might suggest: “New techniques to measure carbon contents in vapor bubble,” or “Carbon content in the Hawaiian plume may be higher than in the MORB mantle.” Which I’d use would depend on whether I wanted to emphasize the techniques or the preliminary results. Then, instead of sticking that one point away as a bottom line, make that one point the title of your poster. Don’t make people with 30

Not one but two posters are up today! This is fun, because I don’t often get to show people trying different things. Today’s posters are both from Chris Miles , a graduate student in mathematics. Chris writes: I’m in a weird misfit field: mathematical biology, which seems to take certain aspects of each culture, like posters from biology. However, this leads to some culture clashes, like having a math-heavy poster. I guess my question is: how math-heavy is too math-heavy if math is the focus of the poster? This is an excellent question, and reminiscent of a similar question I got about posters in the humanities . Let’s see. Here’s Chris’s current poster (which you can click to enlarge): I like this. Clean, straightforward. Colouring a lot of the text bring some visual interest. There are a couple of elements that distract me. The right side of the title bar. The logo on top of the names on top of the department affiliation are not harmonizing. I expect to see more space around t

Here are two posters from the same conference, photographed at roughly the same distance. (Identifying information has been slightly pixelated.) This poster is not using its available space well. The board is half empty. But although I cannot read virtually anything at this distance except maybe the headings and title, I can see that there are bar graphs on the poster. I can see blocks of colour. This poster is about the same size the one above, and suffers from not using its available space well. But it’s suffering in so many more ways. The content of the poster has faded away in the distance like disappearing into a fog. There are no blocks of colour; everything has turned to gray. You can make out that there are columns of text, but you can’t make out anything about the figures. I am not sure either of these posters would pass the “arm’s length” test . But while both posters are far from ideal, the top one succeeds in that at least at these long distances, you can make out somethin