Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • she's spot on (Score:3, Insightful)

    short is more 'user friendly' since, if people wanted to sit in a class all day long they could pay a lot less and attend something locally.

    • by gnat (29) on 2002.03.25 15:07 (#6306) Journal
      My reading of Meg's article is that she wanted longer sessions: Last fall at the O'Reilly P2P & Web Services Conference I noticed that the short sessions (45 minutes) prevented every relevant point from being addressed and discussed..

      Vote for shorter sessions recorded. Everything in 2002 will be 45m because we had complaints that mixing 20m and 45m and 90m talks meant it was difficult to move around between talks. It's pointless us throwing our hands up and saying "but you're not supposed to be moving around!", people do what they want to. So we try to make them happy.

      Moral of the story: I should give up and go back to the good old days when the only goal was to build a conference that I'd want to see, and I didn't have to worry about attendee feedback, user profiles, session balancing, and all that other bullshit. :-)

      --Nat

      • Hmm..maybe I should reread it but I got the impression that she thought the short talks provided enough of a spark to get people to talk about points of interest after the talks and at the socials....which is true. Listening to people drone on for hours is far less interesting than having a more personal conversation over a beer in the evening. If 45mins isn't enough to present the nugget of information, 90mins isn't likely to either save for making it longer. That's what the hallways and parties are for :)