会议海报制作技巧

Negative Points
Author information should be larger. Large image of manatee is low-resolution and heavily pixelated on full-size poster. Graph fonts are too small. Introduction could be improved by bulleting. Bullets are too far from text. This is a poor MicroSoft default - move them closer. Better name for Section 5 would be "Conclusions."
ContextThis poster was presented a the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of
America (2005).
Positive Points
The title asks an interesting question. The headings (white text on blue background) provide a a brief description of the poster. If you read only the headings, you can get a good idea of what this work is about. But see Negative Points. Methods are concise. The poster is quite visual - nice images. Results and conclusions are concise and relate back to objectives. Color scheme is very simple and pleasing. Font is generally large enough (too small in figures).
Negative Points
Some viewers have felt the poster appears crowded - there is not a lot of white space. Some viewers dislike the heading blocks because (1) they were not helpful in providing direction about what was in each section, (2) some - especially those in the middle column - are too long, and (3) they were not helpful in directing the viewer where to read for what information. The graphs - especially the four scatter plots - are too small and have fonts that are too small.
Positive Points
The title asks a provocative question, and the subtitle defines the focus of inquiry. Succinct introduction of issues, leading to clear objectives. Methods are concise. Graphs are interpreted by their short text boxes helps viewers move through poster more quickly. Results and conclusions are concise and relate back to objectives. Vertical lines and numbered headings make flow clear. Results are centerpiece of poster and heavily graphic. Main points in "Discussion" are bolded, obvious, and articulated clearly.
International Conferences and Paper Writing
Week 8 Session B
Good Morning and Welcome to Class!
November 13 and 14, 2014 ICAPW classes 3, 8, 12 and 16 Dr. Histand
Negative Points
Poster seems a bit text heavy and unbalanced (all figures in upper right). Hard to read text over the lion graphic - lack of contrast, changing contrast, confusing lines. Title is not very informative. Titles on graphics are not very informative ("Gene Effect 1", "Gene Effect 2" ...) -- could have named the effects and used them as titles. Lots of back-and-forth required between text and graphics -- could have spread out the graphics and put the pertinent text near each graph. In addition to the "Discussion," some kind of "Lessons Learned" section might help put the work in perspective -- especially for the uninitiated. It's not clear what the "spot art" in the lower right is supposed to represent. If it's gene flow, perhaps it would have worked better up with the title. Although author is identified fully (lower left), at least her name should have appeared more prominently under the title.
Positiv百度文库 Points
The title conveys the main message instantly. Context and objectives are made clear. Methods are concise. Graphs are interpreted by their titles. One can read the titles and trust the authors, or examine the graphs in more detail. Results and conclusions are concise and relate back to objectives. Color scheme is very simple and pleasing. Font is large enough everywhere, including figures.
ContextThis poster was presented as class project in the final poster session for Modeling
Biological Systems at NC State University.
Positive Points
Nice, attention-grabbing graphic (the lion). Large title. Font is easy to ready, even in figures. Headings everyone will understand - clear organization. Author identified with complete contact information (lower left corner).
http://www.ncsu.edu/project/posters/index.html
ContextThis poster was presented a the annual Zoology Department Symposium for graduate
students at North Carolina State University. It won the award for best poster presentation at the symposium.
http://www.utexas.edu/ugs/our/poster/samples
Strengths •Clear sections •Strategic use of color for section headers •Labeling and citation of images •Accessible to a broad audience •Clearly defined research question •Wide margins around poster edges Room for improvement •Slightly text-heavy •Data referenced (“Methodology”) but not discussed
Negative Points
Results and conclusions do not relate back to context (Introduction). It would be nice to see a statement of how the findings relate to aquaculture. Some viewers have noted that the title could me more direct: "Water Temperature Determines Sex of Southern Flounder" Title font is on the small side - could be larger. Some viewers have felt there is too much white space between the columns. It could be reduced somewhat, but not too much. Doing so would also allow fonts to be made a little larger.
ContextThis poster was created and first presented during a graduate biomathematics course at
North Carolina State University. It was thereafter presented at several other venues focused on biological conservation.