[IxDA Discuss] What Makes a Good Design Conference (was: DUX 2007?)

[Richard I. Anderson]

I think it wrong to dismiss short presentation times as viable 
options for a great program.  Indeed, the first DUX conference, about 
which so many speak so fondly, also featured such short presentation 
times, and other very good conferences have as well.

What was different about the sessions of the first DUX conference was 
that they were designed as a whole.  Presentations were not fully 
independent of each other.  Each emphasized carefully selected 
aspects of their work (i.e.. only a subset of what was described in 
each paper), which, combined with excellent session moderation and 
design, enabled attendees to focus on the important issues (and 
similarities and differences and...).

Note also that an "academic peer review process" was employed for 
that first conference, but the two program chairs used the peer 
reviews as input to their decision making process regarding what 
should be accepted to be a part of the program.  In other words, the 
reviews themselves did not dictate what was accepted and what was 
rejected.

I'm very proud of the first DUX conference program, having been one 
of those two program chairs who saw to it that the conference as a 
whole and each session was well-designed, and who played the role of 
interviewer for both the opening and closing plenaries to help two 
special twosomes (Bill Buxton & Mitch Kapor; Sara Little Turnbull & 
Stephanie Yost Cameron) tell and compare their stories and 
perspectives.  The standing ovation at the end of the conference was 
the only I've experienced at any conference.  Indeed, this conference 
was both "practical and inspirational."

Having also played a role -- a different role -- in the second DUX 
conference, I wrote about all this in my blog (see 
http://riander.blogspot.com/2005/12/importance-of-designing-conference.html), 
and I made sure the DUX 2007 Conference Chairs read and heard my 
views on all this early on.  I see all sorts of evidence to suggest 
they have taken lots of steps to ensure the conference as a whole and 
each session is very well designed.  Indeed, I'll be attending, and I 
hope to see a lot of you there as well.

Richard Anderson
http://www.riander.com/
http://riander.blogspot.com/

P.S. I should note that there were a lot of folks who attended DUX 
2005 who were very happy with the conference (see, for example, 
http://blog.acm.org/archives/dux2005/2006/01/conference_scor.html and 
http://uxmatters.com/MT/archives/000032.php).


At 8:09 AM -0700 9/17/07, Dan Saffer wrote:
>To raise this discussion up a notch, what makes a good design 
>conference? For me, it is three things:
>
>1. The quality of the content being presented.
>2. The quality of the speakers presenting the content.
>3. The format of the conference.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Having an academic peer review process does not yield the most 
>interesting speakers or content.
>2. An academic submissions process deters practitioners from 
>submitting, especially some of the busiest, most interesting 
>practitioners.
>3. A 5 minute presentation time doesn't give enough time to present 
>anything but the most superficial of findings. (I hope DUX isn't 
>replicating this format again.) 15 minutes (the length of TED talks) 
>is probably about the minimum you'd ever want.
>4. The best content is a mix of the practical and inspirational.
>5. Most good conferences take at least six months to plan and 
>prepare. Nine months is better.
>6. Social interaction between participants is almost as important as 
>the presented content.
>7. A mix of invited speakers and open submissions yields a great set 
>of topics and speakers.
>
>When we set up the IxDA's conference, these were some of the design 
>principles we used (and continue to use as we finish the details of 
>the conference.)
>
>Dan