The Question Time in a conference is always a time of tension on the one hand are the nerves and anxiety that you invade while doubts whether or not to raise their hands to put this question to you is that from the beginning by rumiando if interesting and if you know clearly expose around the front of the auditorium. On the other hand, there is the bad luck of the speaker and all the stalls when given the shift to a volunteer who sets a question (or several) of doubtful interest ‘to’ and that exhausts all the time available for questions.
But analyzing this issue, I realize something else and is the
approach completely outdated , in this boasted Web 2.0 world in which we live, which gives the papers to be a 99% unidirectional < >.
There are the round tables that are trying to solve this problem and question time but some turned into micro-unidirectional and also talks about the questions I have already explained my opinion.
My proposal seeks to provide a
bidirectionality rapporteur / public
to the talks and also a lot more agile moderation and democratic Question Time.
During a talk is always welcome to have some known side with whom to share any opinion or comment on the type chascarrillo “
” or “ this guy mola ” or “ I a. recalls .“. How much better would be able to share these thoughts directly and in real time both with the rest of listeners as the rapporteur himself.
The questions that emerge would be added at the same pull of the public ‘conversation’ and could
to be decided when the rapporteur power moderate ‘to’ and choose those it considers most appropriate answer .
What I propose is a kind of mini-digg
with a very limited life and a very specific context:
chat . Where everyone can expose, anonymous or not, their comments and perceptions of each portion of the conversation and suggest further questions that can be reviewed and voted by the rest of listeners.
It is not inventing anything new, the programs of the heart that have long ago implemented a very similar system where you can see the interview of ‘famous’ on duty, and below him, criticism or messages of support sent in real time listeners.
This system has serious problems of restraint, noise generator and a breeding ground for trolls, but the fun is guaranteed if we can see behind the rapporteur on a giant screen which is the state of mind and the opinion of the rest of the audience while Serve while respectfully to the oratory.
That a speaker can not agree with his talk was that this implant system, but if you really have an interest in your audience should thank
know at any moment the temperature of the stalls
, the style DJ .
The system of questions and comments could be removed and used one or the other but I think the two are complementary and everything should belong to the same ‘ discussion
If there is no possibility of offering the ‘ discussion
‘ on a giant screen does not matter, in talks often wifi access so we could be with our notebooks in response to the ‘
discussion ‘ at once we listen to speaker. What I mean is that there is no need for this system is formally offered by the organization of the event, he will always be those who want to participate in an unofficial way.
The historical commentary and questions could enrich the documentation of the paper for consultation in the future.
The business model is not at all clear, but who cares when an idea is useful and entertaining.
In this idea I will put to work as soon as it becomes a moment, if
some of these designer wants to participate
with the aesthetics will be welcome.
What do you think? You know something like that? Do you have any suggestions or criticism?