DeltaGraph, and Quark. Then, I send the individual parts to a graphic artist. The artist adds a bit of color here and there and lays it all out so it looks good. I then have it printed at a service bureau and have it laminated. The cost is $1,000 per poster (pretty high for many scientists), but it's great to bring home a poster after the meeting and display it in your office or lab."
A poster should contain highlights, so that passersby can easily discern whether the poster is something of interest to them. If they are interested, there will be plenty of time to ask questions about the details. Also, it is a good idea to prepare handouts containing more detailed information; they will be appreciated by colleagues with similar specialties.
A poster may actually be better than an oral presentation for showing the results of a complex experiment. In a poster, you can organize the highlights of the several threads well enough to give informed viewers the chance to recognize what is going on and then get the details if they so desire. The oral presentation, as stated in the preceding chapter, is better for getting across a single result or point.
The really nice thing about posters is the variety of illustrations that can be used. There is no bar (as there often is in journal publication) to the use of color. All kinds of photographs, graphs, drawings, paintings, X-rays, and even cartoons can be presented.
I have seen many excellent posters. Some scientists do indeed have considerable creative ability. It is obvious that these people are proud of the science they are doing and that they are pleased to put it all into a pretty picture.
I have also seen many terrible posters. A few were simply badly designed. The great majority of bad posters are bad because the author is trying to present too much. Huge blocks of typed material, especially if the type is small, will not be read. Crowds will gather around the simple, well-illustrated posters; the cluttered, wordy posters will be ignored.
