Comments on: The first-ever User Generated Presentation

By: Scott Jones

Scott Jones — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:45:53 +0000

Hi all, Scott from Vyew here. I just spoke to Maggie to bring her up to speed on all that’s new with Vyew, the “technology choice” for the user-generated presentation experiment discussed here. A quick synopsis from our call…

Since the first go at this in April, Vyew has evolved dramatically. Our latest version, 2.5 (June 07), features much better handling of asynchronous collaboration to support the type of usage scenario described. Users can now collaborate in an ‘Unsync’ mode within any given VyewBook, working on different pages with different content without hijacking page navigation, bumping out users, or losing work. Of course, the meeting organizer can force a ‘Sync’ to bring everyone together on any given page.

In addition to adding sync/unsync capabilities, we’ve completely overhauled our backend infrastructure for greater speed and reliability, improved usability, and added several customization options (custom color skinning of the UI, for example). As always, VyewBooks can be left ‘always-on’ for access to archived sessions and content, and VyewBooks can also now be printed for a paper-reference of any session.

Finally, VyewBooks can now be published outside Vyew and embedded for viewing within blogs, intranets, etc. The content from the session in April, for example, can be displayed within this blog in what we call a ‘Vyewlet’.

If you haven’t tried Vyew since this experiment, I encourage you to give it another try. Send an email to any of the email addresses on our Contact page to get a coupon code for 3 free months with all the bells and whistles.

Thanks, and happy collaborating!

Scott Jones
http://www.vyew.com

By: Maggie Fox

Maggie Fox — Fri, 11 May 2007 15:41:15 +0000

Hi Christopher – you make an excellent point. The idea of having some sort of record of the discussion that took place was definitely an objective (that’s where the technology came into play) so that individuals could continue their own exploration of the topics discussed. The only drawback I see to the notion of a handout is that we don’t know what will be discussed in advance, so creating that document becomes the challenge. But even a list of the top web 2.0 sites would probably be a great idea, and I appreciate the suggestion!

By: Christopher Richards

Christopher Richards — Fri, 11 May 2007 15:19:43 +0000

I know what I am about to say may sound heretical, but what about forget the technology and focus on the conversation. I agree with you about PowerPoint. I admit that I have been a PowerPoint victim too many times. I’m sure others have suffered through presentations where the presenter has read each slide out loud. Power corrupts but PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. I shall be glad to see it go.

In-person meetings are far more valuable than an information exchange because of their emotional and connective function. Information theory has got it wrong about human communication.

And it isn’t the volume of information that is exchanged is of value. It is the appropriateness of the information, and the timing. In other words, what is the least you need to know; and what is the least you need to know right now. A hand out with a list of URL’s or directions to an on-line discussion would be enough.

Maggie, you have got the right idea with asking questions and getting participation. But some of us are not good conversationalists. We simply state our position on a subject. I find this excruciatingly boring. It’s those follow up questions that are where the interest (for me) is. Why do you think that? Would you still advocate your position when circumstances change? What alternatives do you think could equally apply? In this way, the presentation is more like improvisational theater. It becomes interesting and lively. If the audience had a good time, they will remember that they did. They will remember their positive judgment of the event more than the information it contained. But they still will have their handout to follow up on the meaty details.

By: Stewart Mader

Stewart Mader — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:50:11 +0000

Maggie,
Concerning the looking-at-speaker vs. looking-at-screen question, one idea might be to scrap the screen altogether and have ppl in the audience look at the sites you’re discussing right on their laptops. They’re probably looking there anyway if they’re live-blogging or taking notes, and I think it’s becoming more and more natural to look at your laptop during a presentation so why not tak advantage of it?

Thanks for mentioning Wikipatterns! I appreciate that you’re helping spread the word!
Stewart Mader
Wiki Evangelist, Atlassian

By: Maggie Fox

Maggie Fox — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:52:48 +0000

Hmmm, I remember you mentioning that. Perhaps the answer then is to forget about the projection screen, or do what Peter did, which was bring up the sites we were discussing. There was a tremendous amount of positive feedback on that – people didn’t feel like they had to watch the screen the whole time, but if they did glance at it, it provided an extra layer of information.

I also had the thought of just having the wiki or other platform we used to record information available locally only – i.e. web-based & available on your laptop, because I do like the idea of collaboratively amassing what the group discussed (and felt was important) in a document or format that would be available afterwards.

By: Miranda Gray

Miranda Gray — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:43:18 +0000

Maggie, I think you missed one of the key points in doing this sort of presentation — people want to look at the person who is talking.

The room’s format was not ideal but even if the technology had been perfect, people still would have been conflicted about watching the screen vs watching the person talking. I don’t think the size of the group or the shape of the room supported the format of the presentation. A smaller group in a U shape would work even better.

By: Miranda Gray

Miranda Gray — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:39:27 +0000

As one of the participants, I can confirm that the tech level was all over the place. I thought the most telling comment about the bottom of the range was the need to configure a Windows 2000 laptop for the wireless connection. The people ranged from people who know they know little (i.e. “I know I need to know about Web2.0″) to people who leading the charge. My table’s group had someone who is trying to get corporate-wide support for using wikis for KM (instead of email) and a sysadmin who figures he’ll have to support this stuff Real Soon Now.

By: Maggie Fox

Maggie Fox — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:41:48 +0000

You know? I’d almost like the group to answer that question – my understanding was that there was a huge range. Some very savvy, some not so much, which really is very typical, and suits the format. Have a basic question? Have an advanced question? Ask away!

By: Tom Mandel

Tom Mandel — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:11:18 +0000

Maggie – this sounds terrific. The ‘what’s the right tech’ question is really interesting! Sounds like a product that needs to be developed. A sort of private twitter, perhaps?

By: David Tebbutt

David Tebbutt — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:39:17 +0000

Hi Maggie. Well done. Sounds like the sort of session that Euan Semple would be proud of. I would suggest his work at the BBC as a terrific pioneering example of using social media within a large (not as large as IBM, mind) organisation.