(Note: Suprisingly, I made it to every 10AM session this year. I credit the Hampton’s continental breakfast for serving as the subconscious trigger that was able to push me over the edge. Well, actually this night, it was the Sparks that had me getting up grumpy and wired at 7:30AM, but that’s a whole different story…)
Having read the recent Wired article adapted from his new book, I was initially still undecided whether this panel would be worthwhile. Almost immediately however, I was sure that I had made the right decision (and proceeded to text/rndvz friends), and I was enjoyed probably the most coherent and engaging presentation I attended this conference.
He started on the key to good Monday morning talks: brevity, levity, and repition, and then proceeded in that fashion. When answering questions he was both sharp and thoughtful. The article and the notes online should capture all the important points (which are both well made, and insightful), so instead of rehashing that I wanted to take some time to ruminate on panels and presentations, specifically the different between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ones.
Like many others I’m sure, I’ve sat through hundreds of presentations/panels/discussions over the past few years (besides conferences, being at an University really contributes in that area) including more than a couple about how to make better presentations (Conway’s Aikido and MJD’s Judo, Tufte among others).
A while back I realized that the topic of a discussion actually doesn’t really matter so much, or, perhaps to phrase it as Pink might, it is necessary but not sufficient. Put another way (post-structuralist?) it might be said that the content (at the very least, its use value) is a function of its context, a factor of its form. As McL–ok, I’ll stop now.
Actually, probably the easiest way to talk about it is in terms of story (as most human communication/understanding is wont to be). The discussion is a narrative, and bad panels are almost always so based on structural weaknesses. We’re talking about the basics of pacing, rhythm, arc, setup, etc. Anywho… That’s my hare-brained theory and I’m sticking to it. Moving on.
- Liz’s notes
- Pink gave away free copies of the book at the end of the panel (even being gracious enough to take cards if he ran out) [random aside: who’s read Caldini’s excellent book, Influence?]