by
lmh » Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:38 pm
Sooooo agree with Mary Carson. Posters with massive blocks of tiny text are horrible to read. Most poster-sessions have 100 posters, and everyone is milling around chatting to friends, and probably a bit tired after several talks, and they're balancing in one hand a cup of coffee and as many biscuits as they could grab. Only those posters that are strikingly simple, and that can be read in a minute, will actually get any attention.
On the other hand, a poster should tell me something. I hate posters that say "We are great because we've written a great bit of software/developed a new method" without telling me what's great/new about it. A poster needs a story, just a very very short story.
Loads of good posters have been made using PowerPoint. Your thought, planning and design-skill make more difference than the software. You can minimise technical disasters by giving the printer a printout of how it looks on your normal office printer. If you send a .ppt file, make sure you embed the fonts.
Think what you want your reader to take away (the message)
Decide what key data they need to see, and cut it to the bare minimum, as simplistic a view as can be made
Explain the message, the experiment, and the data in as short a text as you can
See if you can make the text any shorter
If you have room, and there's anything really pretty you can add, which doesn't detract from the story, but which makes your poster stand out visually, add it
Try Mary's test that the whole thing can be read comfortably on A4 paper.