[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
Dear all,
Since Nicolai's post brought up pre-recorded talks:I found it extremely
difficult to allocate enough time *prior* to the actual conference to
watch almost any of the talks I was interested in - and there were about
10 I really wanted to see. Attending live talks (whether in person or
online) during the conference days when the participation is the sole
focus is very different from having to watch the talks beforehand; the
latter essentially amounts to having a bunch of homework assigned.
In the weeks prior to LICS I was relocating between continents and did
not have time to watch any talks except one. This meant I was playing
catch-up the entire time and was not able to get anything meaningful out
of the conference itself. Hence I would most likely choose not to
participate in this format again, regardless of how much it cost (or
didn't). It is entirely possible however that I am in the minority and
most participants were much better prepared.
Best,
Kristina
On 8/24/2020 6:18 PM, Nicolai Kraus wrote:
[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:25 PM Henning Basold <h.bas...@liacs.leidenuniv.nl>
wrote:
All I objected to is that this investment has to come
in form of monetary contributions and that this was presented as
unavoidable reality. Instead, an investment can come, as you rightly
say, in the form of time or community ties.
If one watches all pre-recorded talks (assuming something like at LICS -
pre-recorded talks instead of live talks), one is more likely to
participate actively. But this just shifts the problem, so I'm not sure if
it helps in any way. At the same time, one can maybe from anonymous
questionnaires or even simple view counts predict how well-prepared
participants are and how seriously they will take the conference. I don't
know whether that information could be used to improve the conference.
Nicolai
