On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Gavin M. Roy
<gmr@myyearbook.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Joshua D. Drake
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 13:47 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:If you need a standardized template to get your message across in a
useful way then you are likely not someone who should be doing public
speaking in the first place.
Personally, the only argument I see for standardization is it makes the conference feel more professional. Having been to a fair amount of conferences, I'm more impressed by the ones that put an emphasis on the polish of the event, matching collateral materials (logos, signage, etc). Obviously content is king, but second to content is how the content is conveyed, the design image of a conference.
Agreed. The goals of conference organizers, among other things, are to put on a good conference and to hopefully grow the conference for the next year. The "polish" makes the conference feel more professional and also helps get buy-in from mangement that it's a serious event rather than a little user-group conference. That buy-in does matter when you're trying to get mangement to pay for conference registration and the travel expense.
I'm not sure why the argument is not about image.
Agreed.
It rather seems to be about the quality of a presenter and if a present needs/doesn't need standardization.
It seems to be mostly the presenters who are complaining :)
There is no reason why a standard slide deck template can't encompass all different slide layouts. Think of it like letterhead for the conference.
Agreed. This is generally standard fare.
The most compelling reason I've heard for non-standard templates is the wide variety of presentation tools (or lack of presentation tools)that people use.
Yeah... not to sure how we'd help Bruce with his LaTeX slides :)
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
