[HN Gopher] Make Scientific Posters Easier Than Using PowerPoint
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Make Scientific Posters Easier Than Using PowerPoint
        
       Author : flybrand
       Score  : 67 points
       Date   : 2022-04-15 12:17 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (app.biorender.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (app.biorender.com)
        
       | open-source-ux wrote:
       | If you're creating a scientific or research poster, this 20
       | minute video is full of excellent advice on creating effective
       | posters:
       | 
       | > "The traditional approach to research posters is ineffective.
       | Watch this video to learn how to create new, evidence-based
       | poster designs that get you more visitors and transmit your ideas
       | to more people at the conference."
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYk29tnxASs
        
         | tomcam wrote:
         | Thanks. I'm not a scientist nor do I need to create posters but
         | I love me some information presentation literature.
        
         | gammarator wrote:
         | #betterposter is a great format. Really helps folks get the key
         | message across in a crowded poster hall.
        
       | hammock wrote:
       | Is this a skin on tableau?
        
       | lyaa wrote:
       | Inkscape with a Latex extension is the best tool for making
       | scientific posters imo.
        
       | spullara wrote:
       | Why do these still exist? Is this really how academics find out
       | about the paper and not just read the paper? I'm flabbergasted
       | conferences are like middle school science fairs.
        
         | rsfern wrote:
         | To add some complementary points to what others have posted,
         | poster sessions are great for undergraduate students and junior
         | grad students to cut their teeth on presenting research in a
         | lower pressure environment. Plus networking -- the poster
         | sessions can be great for established researchers who might be
         | recruiting students and postdocs
        
         | PeterStuer wrote:
         | The poster session is a social occasion. Besides, there's not
         | enough time in the conference to let every attendant present,
         | and most participants need an accepted paper to be granted the
         | funding to attend.
        
         | molbioguy wrote:
         | Work presented in a poster doesn't have to be published. And
         | the biggest benefit is you usually get to talk to a person
         | standing with the poster that did the work. Lot's of
         | interesting information comes by that route, not to mention
         | connections.
        
         | lqr wrote:
         | The poster is an advertisement for the paper. Same goes for
         | oral sessions. Almost all talks include the phrase "for
         | details, see our paper".
         | 
         | Posters are a nice middle ground between an abstract and a full
         | paper. Spending 5 minutes at a poster talking with the author
         | is almost always enough information to decide if you want to
         | read the paper carefully. This is especially important in
         | theoretical fields where it can take hours/days to fully
         | comprehend difficult proofs.
         | 
         | Poster sessions are also important for meeting people in your
         | niche.
        
         | vibrio wrote:
         | There is tremendous value in poster session. Most data is
         | prepublication, and getting candid 1 on 1 discussion with
         | others in the field, including potential reviewers, is great.
         | Also, the networking is valuable- many next jobs start in
         | Poster session discussions. And also wandering through rows of
         | posters and having the investigator walk you through the study
         | us a great way to broaden knowledge. In my day some meeting
         | used to have beer/wine at poster sessions. Good stuff.
        
       | ta988 wrote:
       | Diagrams.net works great. Just needs more shapes for bio, chem
       | and physics and it would be a perfect tool.
        
         | staindk wrote:
         | I like the site too, and use it often.
         | 
         | But I find that with more complex "diagrams" (my attempts at
         | somewhat "technical drawings") it can often feel a bit clunky.
         | Small imprecisions add up quick if you e.g. need to snap a
         | bunch of different shapes together and have them meet back up
         | again. Also I found it impossible to create regular
         | pentagons/hexagons/etc-agons - maybe I missed something though.
        
       | flybrand wrote:
       | As someone who attends a lot of poster sessions - saw this and
       | wanted to share. PPT is a terrible tool, anything is an
       | improvement.
        
         | SubiculumCode wrote:
         | I use PowerPoint a lot. It's pretty powerful; I wouldn't call
         | it terrible at all. It can be frustrating, sure.
        
         | azalemeth wrote:
         | In my world, people either use LaTeX or PowerPoint for making
         | posters. I know it's unfair to suggest that the LaTeX ones are
         | better de facto, but honestly, they are -- it's a pretty big
         | signal that there will be more mathematical content and as a
         | medical physicist, I really enjoy being able to scan things
         | quickly.
        
           | amelius wrote:
           | The LaTeX ones are better because they require you to pour in
           | way more time, thus making it more important that the message
           | comes through.
        
       | jabl wrote:
       | When I started out in science I used LaTeX with the a0poster
       | package. Which gets the job done, but produced a bit boring
       | posters.
       | 
       | At some point I used Scribus but wasn't entirely happy.
       | 
       | If I'd still be in academia, I think I'd look into Inkscape,
       | heard mostly positive experiences from people using it.
        
       | classichasclass wrote:
       | Every scientific poster presentation I ever did was QuarkXPress.
       | I still have it in SheepShaver for opening up my old ones.
       | 
       | I hit save a lot.
        
       | thenoblesunfish wrote:
       | You can do it with LaTeX (using baposter or another template) and
       | in my experience it worked well for the kind of things Beamer
       | works well for - that is, text, equations, and simple images.
       | Positioning and resizing things is as annoying as you'd think,
       | but using something with an auto-updating preview (latexmk -pvc
       | or Overleaf, etc) makes it a little more tolerable.
        
       | NmAmDa wrote:
       | This looks interesting, but as someone working in academia, I
       | find the pricing for individuals not realistic. 35$ per month (if
       | paid annually) is too much for a tool that would be usually be
       | used a couple of times per year. You don't design a poster each
       | month. I think a better pricing model would be per usage. Even
       | the subscription price of ~40$ (if paid monthly)is too much for a
       | poster or two.
        
         | ray__ wrote:
         | Agreed on the pricing, and IMO nothing can compare to a real
         | vector graphics editor for posters (either Illustrator or
         | Inkscape). How would you standardize fonts in figures or do
         | true alignments with this tool (or PPT)?
         | 
         | BioRender is cool for premade vector images, but their license
         | (and cost) is still too prohibitive for that, especially for
         | grad students. Bioicons (https://bioicons.com) is a nice FOSS
         | alternative.
        
         | fabian2k wrote:
         | The price is quite insane, and a subscription is not really a
         | good fit for something you do not that often. Making posters is
         | not a core activity for scientists, and while Powerpoint is
         | really not a good tool it actually works well enough for the
         | purpose.
         | 
         | Edit: Looking closer the title is deceiving, making posters
         | seems like a new feature, but not the core purpose. Making
         | figures seems to be the main purpose of this product, and that
         | is a lot closer to a core activity for scientists than posters
         | are. Still very expensive, but I could see a lab buying a
         | license or two, mostly for the large library of
         | icons/components.
        
       | andi999 wrote:
       | I have never seen a landscape format poster. Is this normal in
       | some scientific communities?
        
         | arjvik wrote:
         | Frankly, I've never seen a portrait format poster :)
        
           | gs17 wrote:
           | I've mostly seen posters in portrait, just not the academic
           | kind of poster.
        
         | arbot360 wrote:
         | In Machine Learning / Computer Vision I've only seen landscape
         | posters.
        
         | jhbadger wrote:
         | You mean wider than it is tall? That's pretty much the standard
         | format at least in biology -- it's weird when they want the
         | other way. For example, the ASM (American Society for
         | Microbiology) wants things 8ft (long) by 4ft (high)
         | 
         | https://asm.org/ASM/media/Events-PDF-s-2/Poster-Presenter-Ch...
        
         | kingcharles wrote:
         | In the UK all movie posters are "widescreen", which I prefer
         | compared to the US format:
         | 
         | https://www.originalfilmart.com/collections/british-quad-mov...
        
       | dangom wrote:
       | Are scientific posters still a thing in all conferences you guys
       | attend? I see many communities transitioning to "digital
       | posters", by which they mean PPT slide decks... I sure miss
       | traditional posters, but curious what the future holds for them.
        
         | rsfern wrote:
         | Yes (materials science) - my absolute favorite poster sessions
         | are at Gordon research conference in my sub field, but the big
         | meetings still do the arena style poster sessions, mostly with
         | conventional printed posters
         | 
         | The worst is trying to have remote poster sessions though,
         | haven't seen one that was worthwhile yet
        
         | cycomanic wrote:
         | Yes still seeing them in photonics. Conference organisers are
         | still a bit ambiguous about how to make the online compatible
         | as many conferences run hybrid, as someone else said it
         | typically doesn't work well, although I think it could work
         | with some of the platforms that are available (like gather
         | town), but typically the conferences are so entrenched with
         | zoom that they don't really try other options.
        
         | mbreese wrote:
         | Yes. I was just at a cancer biology conference with thousands
         | of posters (multiple days). This year, it was also hybrid,
         | where posters also had to uploaded to be viewable by virtual
         | attendees. But these were still full posters, not a slide deck.
         | However, physical posters were still there and much more useful
         | than a digital equivalent would be.
         | 
         | When walking the isles with that many posters, you're not just
         | looking for ones that you flagged because of the title or
         | abstract. You're also looking for new work, or things that
         | catch your eye. I stopped and talked to a person who's poster I
         | just happened to walk by because it had the words "Shannon
         | Entropy" on it. Turned out, I learned something because of it.
        
           | dangom wrote:
           | This. Being able to walk and discover new work or see a
           | poster that draws your attention is so much more engaging
           | than scrolling through slidedeck titles on a screen.
        
         | joshvm wrote:
         | Yes. At NeurIPS (big AI conference) the _vast_ majority of
         | papers are presented as posters. Getting a paper accepted into
         | the conference proceedings is considered a good achievement,
         | the presentation format doesn 't matter so much. Many people
         | prefer going to the poster sessions because the spotlight talks
         | are very short (10 mins) and there are so many attendees that
         | it's difficult to speak to the author. (Though there was
         | serious overcrowding last time because the poster sessions
         | weren't staggered).
        
       | medimikka wrote:
       | The day I or any academic on the poster circuit have $35/month to
       | spend on a freaking POSTER, I question the very fabric of
       | reality. Which, admittedly, I do at most biomed conferences.
       | 
       | But for $35/month I can get Illustrator and a bored CS undergrad
       | trying to get some actual impact points in.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-04-16 23:01 UTC)