{"id":7186,"date":"2020-08-25T15:20:20","date_gmt":"2020-08-25T15:20:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/?p=7186"},"modified":"2021-09-15T14:09:14","modified_gmt":"2021-09-15T14:09:14","slug":"what-is-the-optimal-design-for-a-scientific-poster-insights-from-the-founder-of-the-betterposter-movement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thepublicationplan.com\/2020\/08\/25\/what-is-the-optimal-design-for-a-scientific-poster-insights-from-the-founder-of-the-betterposter-movement\/","title":{"rendered":"What is the optimal design for a scientific poster? Insights from the founder of the #betterposter movement"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As Mike Morrison, a PhD candidate in organisational psychology at the University of Michigan, noted at the recent International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Annual Meeting<\/a>, the majority of scientific posters follow the same design, which has changed very little over the years. With his #betterposter<\/a> campaign, Mike is pushing for a move away from traditional, text-heavy posters to a more user-friendly design. The Publication Plan talked to Mike to find out more.<\/p>\n

Could you tell us how you became interested in scientific poster design and how your background as a User Experience Designer influenced the design of the #betterposter?<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Sure! The first lesson you learn being a User Experience (UX) Designer is that we are lazy-efficient in how we process information. People say they read everything carefully, evaluate every website logically, and of course need every last fine detail. But when you watch people use interfaces, everybody skims and filters frantically, looking for the bits they need and ignoring the rest, and they\u2019ll give up the instant they feel overloaded. After ten years of watching and testing designs against visitor behaviours on the web, I started my PhD program in psychology with maybe fewer illusions about people\u2019s information processing limits.<\/p>\n

But of course, like every other terrified first year grad student, I started by completely ignoring all that and blindly conforming to what I saw everybody else doing. My first posters looked much like a traditional wall of text. Like most of us, I just assumed there was a good reason for the old poster approach. Then I would have posters get totally ignored, or when people did stop, they would start conversations that implied that they hadn\u2019t even read the full title of the poster. After too many of those, I was just like \u201cWait, what am I doing?! What are we all doing?!\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

When a design is extremely broken, you\u2019re trained in UX design to wipe it clean and start over, adding one element back at a time, only when it becomes obvious that an element is indeed necessary. Usually, you end up with a more efficient design.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

When a design is extremely broken, you\u2019re trained in UX design to wipe it clean and start over, adding one element back at a time, only when it becomes obvious that an element is indeed necessary. Usually, you end up with a more efficient design, with a pile of unnecessary fluff that never needed to be added back. That\u2019s what #betterposter version 1.0 was for me: a hard reset for posters. I\u2019ve since reintroduced components to the approach over the last year as they\u2019ve proven necessary (like big key figures), but only when I was confident that it would add more value than clutter.”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

#betterposter version 1.5<\/p>\n

Your YouTube video<\/a> on how to create better research posters has gained over 500,000 views. With so much interest, do you think the scientific community has embraced the #betterposter design or is there some reluctance to move away from a poster design that has been the norm for over 30 years?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Both! I was actually shocked at how positive the initial response was. The #betterposter template file now has over 250,000 downloads, so clearly a ton of people are using it, which I am really overjoyed about. I thought I\u2019d be bugging conferences for years to try it! But we still have a long way to go.<\/p>\n

Overall, tons of people have embraced it, and some have been reluctant. I get the impression that there is also a large \u2018silent majority\u2019 who really like it but are afraid of what their advisors will think if they break with tradition.<\/p>\n

Incidentally, the new #betterposter version 2.0 layouts<\/a> are faring better than version 1.0 on this front. They include more data and figures (the key concern with version 1.0), and also show the principles so presenters can make their own layouts.”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Example of a #betterposter version 2.0 layout<\/p>\n

Are you aware of any concerns around the use of the #betterposter design? How would you respond to these?<\/strong><\/p>\n

“I\u2019m extremely, painfully aware of the concerns. Some are really legitimate and helpful (eg presenters have highlighted the need to visualise methods, and raised concerns that the figures were too small on version 1), and those have led directly to the improvements in the #betterposter version 2.0 video<\/a> and layouts<\/a>. I intend to release improvements every year, and I need to listen to concerns and suggestions to do that!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

BUT, there are also some people whose concerns have been\u2026less thoughtful. The traditional \u2018wall of text\u2019 poster does one thing well: it gives an overall impression of density, and difficulty, and effort. You look at all of those paragraphs and figures, and you think \u201cWow that\u2019s a lot of effort and detail!\u201d You don\u2019t learn anything, but you just blindly trust that anybody who puts that much text and that many figures on a poster must have thought their study through. These new designs actually communicate well, but they also feel easier (by design!), which offends some people.<\/p>\n

That bias, called the affective heuristic in cognitive psychology, has been my greatest foe in all of this. I made posters that are easier to understand, which ironically makes them feel less ‘sciencey’. It may take us some time to get comfortable with science feeling easier than it normally does.<\/p>\n

If you still have concerns, please watch the #betterposter PART 2 cartoon<\/a>. You may find that most of your concerns have been addressed in the new evidence, new data-centric layouts, and reliable design principles shown in the sequel cartoon. The PART 2 cartoon incorporates a year\u2019s worth of feedback (both positive and negative). Don\u2019t just glance at a thumbnail of the \u2018base model\u2019 version 1.0 that went viral and write off the whole endeavour.<\/p>\n

Also, keep in mind that we have not been basing the traditional approach to posters on any evidence. Research on traditional posters finds them largely ineffective at transmitting knowledge, and surveys show \u2018meh\u2019 attitudes towards poster sessions. The #betterposter family of layouts (which now comprises four recommended layouts) are at least attempts at creating poster layouts based on extremely sound learning and design evidence, which I spelled out in the PART 2 video. We\u2019re still working to test the specific layouts themselves, but it\u2019s no longer #betterposter version 1.0 or traditional. Now it\u2019s \u201cWill you try applying evidence-based principles, or not?\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, the most common concern I hear with #betterposter-style layouts is that they reduce detail and \u2018lose rigour\u2019. If that is your concern, consider that in most physical poster sessions, the presenter explains everything and most content on the poster doesn\u2019t actually get read. Putting something on your poster is not the same as people actually reading it.<\/p>\n

\n

Putting something on your poster is not the same as people actually reading it\u2026. Your poster can never be as detailed as a paper, and trying to force it to be as detailed will typically ruin it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I\u2019d argue that explaining your methods briefly enough that people can scan them quickly is better than adding so much detail that people gloss over it all and get nothing. You can always explain more in person, and link to papers for more detail! Your poster can never be as detailed as a paper, and trying to force it to be as detailed will typically ruin it.”<\/p>\n

You have conducted research to assess whether the #betterposter design is more effective than a traditional poster \u2013 could you share some of your findings with us? <\/strong><\/p>\n

“Sure! We’re working to publish our initial results now in collaboration with multiple labs in different disciplines. To give you an idea of some preliminary findings:<\/p>\n