On My Soapbox About the Better Poster

About four years ago, I saw this video by then-graduate-student Mike Morrison. It introduced his new concept for research poster design, The Better Poster.

I’m not exaggerating to say that I was blown away. Finally! Someone who thought really critically about how audiences behave and interact during poster sessions.

If you’re unfamiliar with the Better Poster, here’s the gist.

About two thirds of the poster real estate is devoted to a plain-English summary of the poster’s main message:

There’s a QR code that links to related documents, like a manuscript:

And then all of the text and data visualizations that usually go on a poster are placed in strips at either end, which the presenter can reference as needed:

Great concept, right?

But then, I started seeing photos of the Better Poster in the wild, and I was horrified.

Researchers were displaying 50-word, jargon-filled sentences in the center panel. And they had crammed a manuscript’s worth of content, in minuscule font, into the side panels.

And the heartbreaking part? The adjacent presenters were smiling proudly because their poster was “innovative” and so. much. Better.

Giving Credit Where It’s Due

First, I want to say that there are things that I still *love* about the Better Poster:

• It forces researchers to identify the most important takeaway from their project and then display that takeaway prominently.
• The QR code allows you to extend learning for the most interested audience members.
• There have been updates since the original template. I actually really like the “Presenter” option here…if people used this template as intended, they could have really great posters.
• SERIOUS props to Mike Morrison. I can’t think of another example of a single person, in a matter of MONTHS, having such an impact on the science communication landscape. (I was at a conference a couple of weeks ago, and I’d guess that about half of the posters I saw [including my favorite] were Better Posters.) Mike recognized a need for innovation, and he prompted a huge step in the right direction.

My Concerns

That being said, here are my issues with the Better Poster:

• The side panels waste real estate. Realistically, very few people are going to read the Better Poster side panels, just like very few people are going to read any poster that is crammed with small text and complicated figures. If the presenter needs to reference information during their session, they would be better served to have personal, off-poster notes.
• The center panel wastes real estate. Yes, posters should be legible at a viewing distance of at least 6 feet. Yes, contrast (like a dark, bold text box) draws attention. No, neither of these require two square yards of space. As shown below, it could be just as effective to include a smaller emphasized text box or, better yet, use an informative title. Some of the freed-up space could then be used for other content that would bolster the poster’s impact.

• The Better Poster can lure researchers into a false sense of communication quality. We’re all looking for the most efficient route to communication excellence. Then, along comes a template that requires someone to generate only a single sentence for display before plopping everything else along the edges. I suspect that many users assume, because they have used the Better Poster template, that their poster is automatically great. I’m also concerned that this approach perpetuates the assumption that good communication can happen quickly and with no dedicated training or skill. Quality research communication takes time to pull together, and researchers can often benefit from partnership with communications professionals.

What do you think about the Better Poster? Have you ever created one? Comment below!