In search of an online and hybrid poster session that works

Over the last few years, I’ve had a lot of discussions about conference accessibility and online conferences. The advantages of online conferences became almost immediately apparent in 2020, when the pandemic quickly forced the issue. Since then, many conferences have stepped back from the online experience, which I think is a shame.

I think there is still room to innovate! A recent paper by Moss and colleagues (2024) steps up to the challenge of how to make a large hybrid conference. And by large, we’re talking about over 2,600 participants, with 600 online.

Poster session has seemed to be the one part of a conference that has proved hardest to translate into a positive online experience.

Here’s how this team did their poster session:

An example of (freedom to experiment) was the hybrid poster set-up where online and in-person presenters and participants could interact freely in real time via Zoom. When it became clear that existing commercial providers could not realize this vision in a cost-effective way, a custom approach was devised that involved purchasing 100 sets of equipment, managed by the (organizing committee) and a dedicated set of volunteers. The physical set-up was fairly straightforward, incorporating digital screens, Raspberry Pis, mice, keyboards, webcams and ethernet connections. While this experimental approach was not without challenges, it successfully enabled hybrid posters in an unprecedented and innovative way.

I would have liked to hear from conference attendees about their poster experience. Did they feel it was close to a face-to-face session? Was it easy to navigate? Were there genuine interactions from both the in person and online attendees?

Regardless, I commend the organizers for their generosity:

This approach also led to a sustained and lasting impact on the community: because the equipment sets were purchased outright rather than rented, they are being donated to schools across South Africa, bringing benefits to people well beyond the (conference) and facilitating educational opportunities that would have otherwise been inaccessible.

Now, you might read that and think, “Wait, they bought all this equipment for the poster sessions for use at one conference? Surely that was a money loser for this conference!” The authors don’t think so:

(N)o more than 18% of the total conference costs can be in any way attributable to online attendees (but) this is a substantial overestimate, as (audio-visual) equipment is necessary for all participants, not just those online. When removing (audio-visual) costs from the calculation, hybrid costs were only 3% of the budget — considering that online registration covered 6% of the total budget, it is likely that IAU more than broke even with its online registrations. ...

Far from adding excessively to conference costs, the experience of the IAU GA demonstrates that hybrid can greatly increase reach (for instance, more than 10,000 unique viewers on YouTube) for a small fraction of the conference budget.

It can be done, and it can be done better. I would very much like to see more organizations pushing harder to develop a great online poster session.

Reference

Moss VA, Venugopal R, Govender K, Hotan AW, Kobayashi R, Rees GA, Tasker EJ, Vertue DG, Le Jeune A, Kerrison EF, Roux J, Blumenthal K, Ekers RD, Peel MW, Takalana CM, Barocci-Faul S, Benkhaldoun Z, Binneman A, Breytenbach H, Chibueze JO, Cunnama DC, Kubheka DV, Mdhluli JE, Macfarlane SA, Zamxaka M, van Zyl L. 2024. Accessible hybrid conferences are possible and affordable at large scale. Nature Astronomy: in press. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02448-9