Blog Posts About: conference

I’ve been to a few events this year that all had something in common: online chat during the presentations or discussions. Usually it was done with IRC, which allows anyone with an Internet connection and the technical ability to join in the chat. I’ve been thinking about my experiences lately and how it affects my attention.

I have mixed feelings overall. The chat creates a second place for me to spend my attention at the event and I’d say that if I split my attention between the chat and a presentation, I’d be able to devote 30-40% to each. Obviously, I’d be better off sticking to just one.

Sometimes the chat is on-topic, which maximizes both resources. As someone mentions an author (for instance), a chatter will post a link to the book or provide more info about the subject matter. I enjoy these additions to the presentation and often refer to the links.

The off-topic chat represents a unique problem for me. First, I’ve often found it more compelling than the live presentation. People may disagree or discuss something contentious that brings more people into the fray and my peaks my interest. I get sucked into watching the words scroll by. But, it’s off topic, so I feel bad for missing out on the presentation. I don’t want to be rude to the presenter and I would hate to know that it was happening during my presentation.

Something I found interesting last time was my ability to get to know people through the chat. I sat beside two people who were dedicated chatters. By the end of the event, I got to know them much, much more through the chat than I did sitting beside them. It’s a little sad, but true.

We talked about it at the event and I voiced my thoughts that the chat makes me divide my attention inefficiently. I quickly found out that others have a lot more bandwidth than me. I think I’m just wired differently. Tom Coates said he often chats on IRC, IMs multiple people, writes emails and keeps up with the presentation without skipping a beat. Not I, but I bet teenagers today are increasingly capable of this feat.

I saw a couple of examples of heavy chatters asking (in the IRC channel) “Has the presenter talked about XYZ?�?, which to me was an obvious example of presentation attention deficit.

I think the chat also created a digital divide in the room. People without computers were completely left out. Then there were people who couldn’t connect with wi-fi or couldn’t figure out how to get into IRC (I had this problem for a while). I was a little uncomfortable about the how this felt for the folks left out of the action.

So I have mixed feelings. I've only been in a few events with chat going and I'm sure there are a lot of other perspectives out there.

I'm taking a lot from this event (Tech Muckabout) but one thing that is clear is how difficult it must be to plan and manage such an event. The "Muckahosts" have done a great job in creating an event that, by design, is not like any "conference" you've ever been too. I laud them for doing a great job in a new and difficult environment.

Unlike a conference of accountants or lawyers, this groups varies widely in expertise, domain, focus, experience, etc. There are people like Amy Jo Kim and Ross Mayfield at the same table with people who have never seen a Weblog or heard of a Wiki.

This creates a collection of folks where the group looks for common ground. There is often a need to find focus and context in the face of competing needs and expectations.

I think this relates to the very focus of the event- which, in itself is called a "Muckabout" for a reason- it's about getting into the "mucky" issues that surround online interaction, technology and people. In these issues, the focus is a moving and elusive target, where there simply aren't agreed upon standards and best practices, etc.

Thanks to letting things emerge (a theme of the event) as we go, we've been able to find our own small groups where we can find focus and context. I think eveyone would agree that the Muckabout has been a success and may be creating a new model for how to handle a group without it being just another conference.

It's been a great experience, both from participative side and from the observatory side, where I've learned so much from watching our hosts design and manage the event in a manner that lets as much value emerge as possible. It's not an easy job.

Jason Kottke just posted a funny and interesting entry about interactive name tags (nTags) at the recent Pop!Tech conference.

The nTags are little computers that allow you to zap your personal information to another person's tag with whom you're conversing. Pretty cool, but some people didn't like it...

Many attendees liked them and used them happily, but others revolted. Some people started trading their badges with others. Early on during the conference, Whit Diffie hacked his nTag badge to send a sleep command to any nTag badge in range, effectively deactivating them. As word spread of the hack, people sought him out to sleep their hated badges. Others were pissed that he was turning off their badges without permission; someone asked at the end of the conference if sending a sleep command constituted an attack (When Sleep Attacks!). Following Diffie's lead, a woman hacked her badge to send the sleep command and a disgruntled Pop!Tech goer tried to rip her badge from around her neck (When Liberal Nerds Attack!).

Ahh, the drama. Regardless, I think there is a big opportunity to give conference attendees better tools to network before during and after conferences. After all, they are a community- why not just give them an online space?

I met Deborah Grove of IntroPlus recently, which seems to have a great start on addressing this need.

There has been some recent discussion about new ways people are interacting at conferences. The New York Times "In the Lecture Hall, A Geek Chorus" and Ross Mayfield got some of the discussion started and Clay Shirky followed up with some good points.

Here's a quick introduction from my perspective:

It's a little like passing notes in class- except via the Internet. Wireless Internet connections at conferences and lectures are allowing people to use laptops and other tools to communicate in real time during presentations. These communications occur in what is called the "backchannel" (which is a term I've used to mean communications with online community members outside of the community.)

In these backchannels, people use instant messaging, blog entries or text messages to talk about the presentation, refute points, share related web sites, etc. It's been occurring at high tech conferences recently, but is slowly becoming mainstream. Some like the idea, some dislike it.

There are two major points, in my mind:

1. Attention span- people can only take in so much. If they are more interested in what people are saying during the presentation, how can they devote attention to the presenter? Some say that it adds a new level of value to the presentation- but I can't see how splitting attention during the same time frame can lead to a more rich experience from either perspective.

2. Is it inevitable? As Clay writes:

We have seen only the barest hint of the disruption ubiquitous Wifi + automated discovery is going to bring about...It doesn't matter if the Wifi backchannel is a bad idea; it's not going away.

It is intresting to me to think that, in the future, we'll be wirelessly connected to the Internet almost continually- and this may disrupt the normal ways that we are used to paying attention to one another.

In almost any circumstance where a person is attracting or convening a crowd, there will be an opportunity for people to disrupt (or contribute to) their cause via the backchannel. It makes me wonder if speakers in the future will be forced to consider the backchannel in their presentations- perhaps providing quick references to sites and resources that ensure that the backchannel stays on task, or at least interested in the presentation versus each other.

These folks are putting together a 4 day online conference that is focused on helping non-profits and non-government organizations (NGOs) work on the web.

Here is more official info from the organizers:

Conference URL: www.icohere.com/wiredorg DATES: September 16-19 LOCATION: Online

DESCRIPTION
Wired.Org: Nonprofits & NGOs Work on the Web is an online conference (September 16-19) geared to nonprofit and non-governmental organizations, socially responsible companies and educational institutions. Join leading experts like Susan Tenby, Eva Rosenberg, Joni Podolsky, Jayne Cravens, Jared Polis and Dr. James Price III directly from your computer. View and discuss presentations and network with diverse professionals, educators and volunteers. To learn more and take advantage of the early-bird discount, go to www.icohere.com/wiredorg.

CONTACT INFORMATION:
Janet Salmons
Vision2Lead, Inc.
jsalmons@vision2lead.com
303-443-3075