I printed my poster today (see this post) for the 11th Bayesian nonparametrics conference. Here’s the final version (42in x 60in).
While I was first satisfied with it, as it appeared on my computer screen, staring at it full size changed my perception.
Before jumping into the critique, let me list a few things I like about the poster.
- The content, which has been thoroughly reviewed.
- The text size (44pt). It is clear and easy to read between 3 to 9 feet away.
- It is self-contained and explains itself.
- I left plenty out. I listed the two main contributions of our work and that’s what I talk about.
Now for the things I dislike.
- The titles are too small.
- Using letters in both calligraphic and normal font. This makes it harder to refer to the poster.
- It looks messy. The structure of the poster should be graphically emphasized rather than follow columns of text.
- The white background is unattractive; the title banner is bland.
- “References” should be replaced by “Works cited”.
- Should I talk more about Bayesian procedures / posterior simulation? I could have shown posterior mean estimates, the graphs of densities smoothed using our operators, etc.
In short, I have mixed feelings about the poster. On one hand, I like that the text is large, that it is self-contained and that it goes pretty much straight to the point. There are no meaningless graphics under a “result” banner. On the other hand, it looks messy and I’m afraid people will get lost in it.
Next one will be better.