Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: First impressions
Message-ID: <11753@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 5 Jul 89 15:02:08 GMT
References: <444@warlock.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 48

In article <444@warlock.UUCP>, gregb@dowjone.UUCP (Gregory S. Baber) writes:
> I was, however, somewhat disappointed with the quality
> of the paper presentations given on Wednesday.

The Program Committee -- of which I was a member -- was disappointed in
the quality of papers submitted.  The subject was raised at the open
Board meeting at Usenix; no consensus on what to do about it was reached.
Remember one thing -- we can't schedule papers that aren't submitted.
If people want more good papers, they should start submitting them.

> Maybe I caught a bad day, and I realize that the speakers had a very short
> time to present, but I though that most of the speakers were fair at best.

Giving a good talk is also a skill -- and the papers were selected for
their technical content, not for the speaker's ability.  Too many
technical people don't appreciate that, and have never studied it, or
even tried to rehearse their talks.

> The overhead slides were generally unreadable (I sat about halfway back)

Often, authors don't follow the guidelines they're sent on point size,
etc.  This time, the situation was exacerbated because most people used
the overhead projector, rather than more-legible 35mm slides.  And
in the Baltimore auditorium, only the main, direct-projection screen
was used.  At many other recent Usenix conferences, there were video
screens around the room with the slides shown on them; that helped
a lot.

While I'm at it, let me throw in a plug for art departments.  Most large
companies have them, and speakers from such companies should take
advantage of their services to get some *good* slides made.  Remember --
these folks are just as much professionals at their jobs as you are at
yours.  I realize that some people don't have access to such facilities,
or can't afford it if they do.  But there were many folks who could have
but didn't.

> and only a couple of the speakers had identifiable conclusion sections where
> they summarized the results of the work they had been doing. I've had to
> give a number of technical presentations at work, as well as conduct many
> week-long training classes, so I have a fairly good idea of how to put
> a technical presentation together.

Right.  You have experience giving talks; most folks don't.  There is
a complementary tutorial at Usenix on presentations; too few people have
taken it, I'd say.


		--Steve Bellovin