04 August 2011

Link roundup, August 2011

Over the last few weeks, I’ve seen various article that weren’t quite enough to trigger off my own post, so a linkfest is in order!


Jim Campbell discusses a comic page layout that doesn’t work.

Less relevant to posters, but also worth checking out, is the problems emerging from forgetting that people read left to right.


There are certain epic battles that just never end. Kirk versus Picard. Coke vs. Pepsi. Serif versus sans serif typefaces. This lengthy post, however, has more research ammunition to back it up than you usually find in this debate. I like this assessment of the problem near the end:

What initially seemed a neat dichotomous question of serif versus sans serif has resulted in a body of research consisting of weak claims and counter-claims, and study after study with findings of “no difference”.


For those looking for new ways to present numeric data, check out the


The new president of the Animal Behavior Society describes how to judge a poster competition. I am interested that she thinks the content should be the only thing posters should be judged for:

What should the criteria of excellence be? I think there is only one: the best, most creative, innovative science.

QR codes

At Museum 2.0, Nina Simon talks about how she used QR codes in museum displays. Many of the issues she describes are exactly those faced by people who want to enhance their posters. Her tip? Don’t just put the code: tell people what they’ll get!

1 comment:

Carl Wonders said...

re: poster judging, I think while she says that the content should be the only criterion, I can't help but think that HOW that content is presented is going to have an influence as well (she admits as much in the next sentence).

Of course, how well a poster is designed (at least IMO) has more of an impact on the casual reader rather than a poster judge. Why? Because the judge is more likely to have the presenter there to talk through the data. Aside from the most abysmally designed poster, I can usually figure out what's going on if the author is there to present and answer questions ("wait...what's this graph showing again?" hints at poor design, but is usually something that can be explained).