Hoping that universities finally allow these newer formats.
@phitchayabussaba785415 сағат бұрын
Ur presentation is extraordinary
@douglasbessette6722Күн бұрын
i've never had anybody articulate EXACTLY what i feel as both presenter and attendee of a poster session. THANK YOU!!!!
@MikeMorrisonPhDКүн бұрын
Of course! Bad design at scale will do that to you haha. Glad you enjoyed it!
@JacobSantosDevКүн бұрын
I had this argument with a previous boss. He would come at me like, "it is broke." I would ask, what is broke? Eventually, he broke me down enough and i told him, "you only have bugs when you have a spec." He didn't buy it. Guy had 20+ years of experience programming and i was confused how he didn't know how to communicate how something should work. What you mentioned resonated with me because without a spec, there isn't an alignment of what done means, what it is working or broken means, how long some thing should take, etc. I thought it was impressive that i was able to get it 80% how they wanted with just a sentence. However, when the expectation is that you read their minds, everyone is going to fall short.
@MikeMorrisonPhDКүн бұрын
"You only have bugs when you have a spec" is a great way to put it! I am also impressed you could get 80% there with one sentence haha. And "it's not working" was definitely my favorite pet peeve when I was a software dev.
@Hr1s7iКүн бұрын
Common sense changed your life? Damn, son. You might be onto something there.
@MikeMorrisonPhDКүн бұрын
How would you measure alignment?
@chrismarcum6 күн бұрын
Publishers will always resist change even when the innovation would be good for their bottom line.
@MikeMorrisonPhD5 күн бұрын
Yeah there was a quote from Elsevier's CEO after that PR scandal a few years back about them trying to suppress open access (or control messaging around it...I forget). Anyway the part that hit me was a quote where the CEO was just like "Hey look, we're just trying to survive." Kind of hit home for me. As a psychologist I know how differently (and short-sighted) people act in survival mode. But after working with several publishers now, I'm can report that there are a few happy exceptions to this. American Geophysical Union is huge and they've been an absolute champion of moving to computational articles and stuff.
@LaVolpePerduta7 күн бұрын
Why the AI monk? Nope, bye
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
Better or worse than no picture for that point?
@LaVolpePerduta6 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD worse, because [no picture] wouldn’t mislead users at all. It’s a matter of principle: we are starting an era of online existence where we need to presume that content is false (even if unintentionally) and actively engage to assess if more-than-zero-trust is a safe bet. We already shouldn’t take anything at face value, but it’s become exponentially easier to produce something either intentionally misleading or haphazardly corrupting the truth for entertainment. And it’s especially ironic that this is observed within the context of a video called “Future of scientific articles”.
@JoseLinaresTorres7 күн бұрын
You do know that this was the exact same reason that the world wide web was invented back in 1989, right?
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
Which reason? Go on!
@rojastegulu7 күн бұрын
It will get inundated with AI generated articles, nonsense charts and unusable code if it's not regulated soon
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
Just like the rest of scientific publishing probably. And don't know about you but I'm not super optimistic for regulations working. Any ideas for ensuring validity? Maybe better human author identification protocols? Plus the arms race of AI vs. AI detectors?
@vaisakhkm7837 күн бұрын
Is it an ad for a markdown format?
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
I didn't mean it to be! Just love this idea from Kevin Kelly's book and found it helpful in my own thinking. But now I can see why it'd come off as an ad. FWIW, Myst Markdown is fully open source. And I genuinely think it's the best chance we have of improving scientific articles right now. So, I shill for it unabashedly sometimes I guess.
@vaisakhkm7837 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD ok fair enough..
@MiScusi697 күн бұрын
Nah
@MikeMorrisonPhDКүн бұрын
Yah
@PaulMurrayCanberra7 күн бұрын
This is an ad, isn't it?
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
lol didn't mean for it to be. But, most of my videos on scientific articles do shill for Myst pretty hard. It's a free open source framework, and I contribute a little to it (so can you! come volunteer!), but it's also the best tech I've seen hit scientific articles in the 4 years I've been trying to improve them. For exactly the reason that it makes a perfect example for Kevin Kelly's theory.
@babacherif63937 күн бұрын
Great idea , how established of a field is this already ?
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
Good question, and the fact that I'm uncertain of the answer probably suggests "not very established." I think there are a lot of people who do UX roles in scientific companies, but I haven't seen much in the way of formalizing and consolidating the field. That's what I'm trying to help with! Will be launching scienceux.org soon, and have created the r/scienceUX reddit as a start!
@awakened97968 күн бұрын
Formulas for what quantifies "Real"
@MikeMorrisonPhDКүн бұрын
What do you mean?
@RandoPandaSmiles8 күн бұрын
I liked this video. Thanks.
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
You may like the book I stole this from then! Kevin Kelly's The Inevitable
@orangeqtym8 күн бұрын
Really neat points!
@MikeMorrisonPhD8 күн бұрын
Right? I stole them from Kevin Kelly's book (The Inevitable). Maybe it's confirmation bias, but years later I still see these stages play out in different areas of tech.
@juliexue37928 күн бұрын
I wish if there's a similar video teaching us how to more efficiently interact with posters/presenters in a poster session!
@MikeMorrisonPhD8 күн бұрын
Great idea. I really want to figure out how to have a middle ground between "ignore the presenter" and "talk for longer than you want". I've had some great conversations at posters, but my favorite was when a guy just walked by, read my betterposter-takeaway, asked me one drive-by question about something I hadn't considered to include in the study, and then walked away. Like a 1 minute interaction and it improved my research.
@juliexue37928 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Those are the greatest kinds of interactions!! Only if I could do that with most posters instead of accidentally being stuck in the first two...
@MikeMorrisonPhD8 күн бұрын
@@juliexue3792 - Any ideas for encouraging it? It's probably a combination of creating new social norm, but also the design of the poster could facilitate that (by giving people walking by more to respond to without having to stop)?
@juliexue37925 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Ooh, it really feels like the encouraging need to come from conference organizers (maybe another way in organizing posters/presentations).
@MikeMorrisonPhD5 күн бұрын
@@juliexue3792 - Working on it! Many conferences are open to this and want to help (and many encourage #betterposter already). What do you want to see them do as a presenter? Just push it from the poster guidelines page, or would you like to see something more?
@marielemounier945415 күн бұрын
Thanks!
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
Sure thing!
@brittneyvanderwerff588219 күн бұрын
I love it all. Thank you Mike!
@MikeMorrisonPhD8 күн бұрын
Hey, Brittney! Thank you for being such a big part of developing all this stuff over the years!!
@samg363720 күн бұрын
This is mind-blowing!
@MikeMorrisonPhD7 күн бұрын
Haha thank you! You may like the sequel! kzread.info/dash/bejne/hY2flJutntung9Y.htmlsi=pxOwQbpjmh_xchUr
@slenderforgood21 күн бұрын
Good stuff, Mike. LOL. Are you a fellow Spartan? Go Green, my dude. 💚
@MikeMorrisonPhD8 күн бұрын
Haha yes I am! Go white!
@slenderforgood22 күн бұрын
Good stuff, Mike. I'll even use the word brilliant. As I am preparing for my first poster presentation in quite some time, for APA convention, so I thank you for this.
@MikeMorrisonPhD21 күн бұрын
Thank you! Check out the generation 2 sequel cartoon too, and have fun at APA!
@slenderforgood21 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Will do. And I have recently learned about end screens, which you can easily add to your video and gives viewers a clickable link to go to the next video you recommend. Easy peasy and is definitely helping me expand my KZread channel.
@IainMNorman22 күн бұрын
Great stuff @MikeMorrisonPhD. At least once a week I hear the call, "But that's how we've always done it", I appreciate your battle against this thinking.
@MikeMorrisonPhD21 күн бұрын
Thanks Iain. At least once a day I think about the concept of informational conformity from my undergrad psych: "Everyone else is doing X, we've always done X, so X must be the best thing to do." While I'm sitting here looking at eye tracking data showing traditional poster content completely ignored. Creating improved designs has been by far the easiest part compared to adoption. But, having time and knowing people like you are in the fight too keeps me hopeful for the future!
@R-ok3cl23 күн бұрын
Another point to consider is that writing a wall of text as the review encourages reflection and reconsideration whereas the system you propose encourages impulsive comments and nitpicking. Given that reviewers donate their time, this increases the risk that reviewers just add 4-5 superficial comments here and there and call it a day rather than reflecting on the paper as a whole. So I see the danger that review quality would actually go down with this new system and it would be important to study if that’s the case or not.
@MikeMorrisonPhD21 күн бұрын
That's a great point on the nitpicking. I had actually figured on that effect happening for good: People will conform to the feedback that the tool encourages, so if the tools focus on concrete suggestions that could be good, but hadn't thought of the narrowing effect that could create.
@R-ok3cl23 күн бұрын
Hm, I think you have exaggerated the time it takes to process a review a lot in favor of your point to redesign the process. Never haver I seen me or my colleagues taking two month to organize their thoughts on the reviews. Typically we have a fair idea after the first read and a detailed understanding once we prepared the draft of the response letter the next day with the review broken up into pieces followed by answers. Also, in many important fields, peer review does not take 2 years. More like 2 months (+ whatever time you need for changes). Another point you have exaggerated is pointing to locations in papers. Line numbers that are automatically added to the PDF and page numbers work just fine. Many journals have already started using a system similar to what you suggested for the final proofreading. It’s nice to have but the time it saves is marginal compared to the time spend on reading. Similar arguments apply to the reviews: The majority of the time is spend on reading and understanding the paper and thinking about the science or the thoughts of the reviewers. While I am a big fan of your thoughts on posters, this one felt overblown.
@MikeMorrisonPhD21 күн бұрын
First, thanks for all this feedback. Building better peer review tools is a considerably more complex challenge than posters, and part of that is needing to hear from a LOT of reviewers, so your comments here will really help me develop version 2 of these concepts. In this case I based those delay times on an actual public peer review. But, only one. I've also waited months or even a year on paper feedback before. But to your point, that was the intake phase not actually once reviewers were assigned. With journal shopping and rejections, papers in my field at least can easily take 2 years to get published. Did you mean that papers in your field typically go from submission-to-publication in a few months?! If so that's great! Also, even though I didn't exaggerate in this case, I'm totally not above exaggeration so it was also a fair criticism haha. Also, what's your thoughts on receiving a todo-formatted review as an author, versus thinking as a reviewer?
@R-ok3cl20 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Thanks for considering my comment and for your feedback: Yeah, in my field, chemistry, 2 months (+whatever time you need to fix things) from submission to publication is on the faster end but quite common. I am just working on the minor revisions for one of these papers that we submitted May first and it will probably be published in late June. For another work, even after initial rejection in a high impact Journal, another rejection after peer review in another Journal, substantial additions and an appeal against this decision, the paper was out about 6-7 months after the first submission. Both your and my experience are anecdotal, but I am sure somebody has looked at this more rigorously. While it initially seems like a wall of text, most paragraphs can be easily broken down into simple todos. So this feature would be a nice-to-have convenience feature that would save me maybe 5 minutes per paper.
@MikeMorrisonPhD20 күн бұрын
@@R-ok3cl Yeah maybe a sensible next step for me is to go through one of those big datasets of peer reviews so I can rely less on anecdotal experience. And also, the PR system I’m working on is for computational articles written in Myst Markdown or Quarto, which are way easier to build reviewer tools for than word files, so it allows for improvements that couldn’t be made before. And for me, even saving 5 minutes per paper is a win. If I can save you a single click I’ll put weeks of effort into it. One last question: where do you think the biggest waste is in the peer review process, if you had to choose and even if it’s small?
@MikeMorrisonPhD25 күн бұрын
I know that algorithms can detect themes in the text surrounding a citation. But often, ambiguous writing/citation placement can inhibit both robots' and readers' ability to understand what a particular citation is supposed to show. Better human linking should improve AI-readability AND human UX. I think. But, CS people please tell me what I'm missing.
@crazyjewel128 күн бұрын
which software are you using to visualize that first network graph?
@konstantinnovozhilov171528 күн бұрын
Looks like connectedpapers, I don't what they use though
@MikeMorrisonPhD28 күн бұрын
yep connectedpapers!
@austinmajeski942729 күн бұрын
You don't. You get the AI to read the linked paper and determine the subject from there.
@MikeMorrisonPhD29 күн бұрын
Yeah the goal is to help AI do its job better. And we eventually want to go far beyond the overall subject. We need really really precise metadata about causal relationships, because every percentage in extra accuracy makes it more viable and worthwhile to invest the $ in testing potential new treatments that pop out. Any inaccuracy in the data does the opposite: It makes testing new treatments more risk and costly.
@theonlyjoe_28 күн бұрын
Sure but if the ai has a bit of text beforehand, it can then filter the ones that aren’t relevant much quicker
@MikeMorrisonPhD28 күн бұрын
@@theonlyjoe_ Exactly. The human author linking the meaningful text creates an optimization parameter that AI can both use and train on. Papers that have human-linked text help the AI understand papers that don’t.
@austinmajeski942728 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD This proposal will never work, and is unnecessary. You're discussing a computation problem, not a categorization problem*. The surrounding text before the citation will already give the context you're looking for. I personally feel, and this is a stretch, that this proposal is similar to a major problem of Object Oriented Programming and why people have moved away from it. People have discovered that it's better to just let "data be data" (let citations be citations), and to not overthink how you group related functions and how they relate to one another (which part of the sentence best describes the work in the citation so I may link it?). *Your solution is categorizing citations with presumably a snippet of text in the sentence/paragraph that best summarizes the reference material. There is no reason to suggest this will save money. That is wishful thinking.
@austinmajeski942728 күн бұрын
@@theonlyjoe_ What about the paragraph the citation is attached to already?
@joshuacarpeggiani728929 күн бұрын
This channel is amazing, I’ve been thinking about how annoying citations are recently and this is great
@MikeMorrisonPhD29 күн бұрын
Thanks, Josh! What's the most annoying part of citations to you?
@kabochaVA29 күн бұрын
How can a paper from 2024 cite a paper written 3 years into the future? 🤔
@MikeMorrisonPhD29 күн бұрын
Lol I was so afraid of making this exact mistake in my examples. I’m blaming it on having a newborn! Or maybe that paper invented time travel!
@kabochaVA29 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD The correct answer is: “This was a test to see if you were paying attention”. 😋
@MikeMorrisonPhD29 күн бұрын
@@kabochaVA - Oh that's a way better answer. Yes, you win! Thanks for watching so closely!
@DeathSugar29 күн бұрын
references always mentioned somewhere in the study itself, so you can find keywords and deduce which context it's referenced. there are bunch of algos who can measure relevance of the articles to some categories , so you manually work couple thousands and the rest will be referenced by the algorithm
@MikeMorrisonPhD29 күн бұрын
Yeah the goal here is to meet the algorithms half way to increase their accuracy, and account for lots of sentences where often its not clear why an author meant to include each reference at the end of a sentence. And the reverse of this is also true, right? If we link authors, we need complex NLP to find meaning. If we link semantically, we need only simple NLP to find authors (which are always consistently formatted).
@DeathSugar28 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD tried any simple text categorizer?
@MikeMorrisonPhD28 күн бұрын
@@DeathSugar - Yeah did a (very simple) NLP algorithm for my masters, but it's been a while. Got any current favorites you can link me to?
@DeathSugar28 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD has a dude who implemented some of it from bare bones. Some related videos. Stemming in Rust: kzread.info/dash/bejne/rIaOvJqiaLzOd7g.html Classificator for text in C: kzread.info/dash/bejne/q5mak8GcfanRnrA.html Both has timecodes and some references, so you might find some of it useful . Both from their own series, so you might find previous videos useful as well to build your own classification for studies.
@harmonic1012Ай бұрын
The names (or the numeric reference, as is more typical in the physical sciences) are what the reference is *hyper*linked to. But the sentence is what the reference is *semantically* linked to. Understanding that is a standard part of learning to read scientific papers. Furthermore, the way you link one concept to many papers is by... wait for it... listing all the references at the end of the concept. Just like the paper in this short already does. And while the extra click (references list --> other paper) slows down checking the citation a little, it also provides crucial context (when was this published? in what journal?) as part of the process of finding it. The bit about AI is, or should be, irrelevant.
@MikeMorrisonPhD29 күн бұрын
Before we get into more back-and-forth: Is your background mainly scientific, or do you have some tech/web development background? If no to the latter, this article expands on the issue more than I could do in a minute. Let me know if this doesn't help and we can keep arguing? www.linkedin.com/pulse/traditional-academic-citation-links-bad-science-barry-prendergast-ls4ef/?trackingId=1vkomCnGTOKU3fVvRtuUPA%3D%3D
@harmonic101228 күн бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD You got me-my training is in chemistry, although my work touches on research software engineering as well. My apologies, I came off too aggressive in my previous comment. The article is indeed helpful, although I don't know that its sources support the strength of its rhetoric. I'm still not entirely convinced that machine-readability should be at the top of academic writing's priority list, especially since papers are still printed on paper sometimes. (I should also mention here that I'm a fan of your work; I'm looking forward to presenting a #betterposter at a conference in a couple of weeks.)
@MikeMorrisonPhD27 күн бұрын
lol no problem. Thanks for explaining! And I agree! It's a good point: Scientists shouldn't have to think about machine-readability at all while writing. That should be optimized for you in the background by the writing and publishing systems. I've struggled to make the case for more machine-readability of papers, because I can only think of indirect, distal benefits to authors, despite it being so obviously crucial to developers. I'll keep trying and your comments will help me dig deeper and improve my understanding, I hope! Real quick on the print question: FWIW: Papers designed for machines first can be printed in any beautiful format you'd like instantly. But, the reverse isn't true: papers designed for printers are typically very opaque to machines. But, that's just abstract right now until we have better tools. Anyway, thanks for the discussion and have fun with your #betterposter! Remember that attention follows contrast. So the easiest way to get your poster noticed is to make it look very different from its neighbors. Get out your scissors! 😆
@PTPintcastАй бұрын
Drop down box? Instead of 1 link leading to another location, the link drops down and gives you a choose your own adventure type option?
@MikeMorrisonPhDАй бұрын
That would be a good feel! I'll try a prototype!
@serendipitousbear6337Ай бұрын
I have a solution to this, but I’m not willing to say it publicly so big tech can just take it lol
@awakenthechosenАй бұрын
It's probably not that good if you haven't patented it already lmfao
@MikeMorrisonPhDАй бұрын
If you're serious, I will help you mock it up and publish it under public domain so science can use it freely and nobody can steal it. DM me on Twitter (mikemorrison) or HMU on reddit (mikimus2), or since those are both big tech, tell me how to talk to you and I'll figure it out!
@serendipitousbear6337Ай бұрын
@@awakenthechosen you don’t patent stuff like that lol, ai is all about open source everything, and no one cares who comes up with anything, it’s about the information itself and what it actually does, please take your L take somewhere else
@RhodareАй бұрын
You had me until bringing up AI
@MikeMorrisonPhDАй бұрын
Haha like because it's an annoying buzzword, or a different reason? For clarity, I don't mean AI like chatGPT. If you imagine a huge network of all these links...ML/"AI" can predict missing links, and discover new treatments. But you need a link structure like this to make that work.
@mareikeprzysucha9815Ай бұрын
Hi there and thank you. Do you also have ideas for videos in portrait format? Thanks in advance.
@mareikeprzysucha9815Ай бұрын
okay, was partly / mainly answered in the text.
@MikeMorrisonPhDАй бұрын
Check out the Youth Science Canada bifold layout for portrait inspiration too! kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6yspqlxf6ifYso.html
@mareikeprzysucha9815Ай бұрын
Hi there. Do you also have any suggestions for posters in portrait format? Thank you.
@MikeMorrisonPhDАй бұрын
You got it! Portrait here: osf.io/g6xsm
@zdenekkral2761Ай бұрын
... scientists not thinking about the posters and takking into account new findings about attention and learning is an equivalent of ignoring some key findings in chemistry/physics/math. What I wanted to say, is thanks for a wonderful video.
@MikeMorrisonPhDАй бұрын
💯I've tried to make that point for years and never said it as clearly as you just did. EXACTLY. Especially, some people have been like "we can't exploit emotion in design we're scientists. Science is serious!" and I'm like "Um. Emotion is how you get people to actually remember things, according to science. So you're crippling the knowledge transfer of your presentation by ignoring half your audiences' brain just based your feeling of disgust. Sounds kind of unscientific to me?" And don't get me started on professors not allowing their students to experiment with their posters. Isn't experimenting and learning their whole job? Anyway sorry for rant but you made a very good point I've never gotten to talk about!
@snoopyguy21Ай бұрын
I don't care what you have to say. If it's too hard to read it's suddenly unimportant.
@MikeMorrisonPhDАй бұрын
Right? The interaction cost is so high that it has to be a REALLY relevant article for you to suffer through it.
@me_hanicsАй бұрын
But this layout only "feels important" because historically, this is how published articles looked like, and we feel this way only for these cultural reasons? I just feel like if you want to emphasize one key sentence in your article (such as "We need to stop the procedure X and do Y instead."), this format will less likely convey it, it just gets lost in all the information
@MikeMorrisonPhDАй бұрын
That's a great point. Part of that important feeling is pure cultural association. How the heck do you un-do something like that ingrained association?
@AngelaNorthnessАй бұрын
This is an important study that can be extrapolated to the general inaccessibility of scientific literature. In grad school, I studied technical communication, where accessibility and readability are paramount. I questioned why the tech comm literature was not written in plain language and didn't follow any of the best practices we were learning. My prof and program lead said it's difficult to get away from the old practices basically because you want to be received well by the scientific/academic community. Jargon demonstrates rigorousity and knowledge of your field, etc. It's terrible.
@rameyer32 ай бұрын
this is the most incredible thing i've seen in a long time. YES YES YES. Those epidemiologists need help, man. I've shared widely!
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
Thank you! We all need help lol. So much blocked science. And definitely check out the sequel!! kzread.info/dash/bejne/hY2flJutntung9Y.htmlsi=fC-40DT5HzIdyLNZ
@magwitch2 ай бұрын
Many thanks, these two videos gave me plenty of input to tackle my first poster. I love graphic design and writing music so I'm happy that your scientific research is proving value in art and how it crosses over into STEM.
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
Sure! If you study graphic design, then you know how to predict with good accuracy where people will look on your design, and the order that people will look in. In that way, art IS science at some point. Hope this helped! Would love to see what you come up with!
@pharkieB2 ай бұрын
OMG this is the video I needed, working on my first academic poster. Thank you.
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
Have fun! One final tip: Attention follows contrast. If you want people to look at your poster, make it look different from the other posters.
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
UPDATE: If you want to teach people about poster design, you can download all the slides for this talk on my Open Science Framework repo here: osf.io/taq2f Use these slides freely. You don't need to credit me. But would love to hear about your learnings and struggles! And let me know if anything else would be helpful! Idea inspired by @brian83011 🙏
@cosmobiologist2 ай бұрын
I can't believe I've only just now found out about your work in sharing your science and helping others find more impactful ways to share theirs. I've always hated poster sessions at conferences because the writ approach to poster design is such a bizarre and unhelpful way for learning and remembering the work others are doing. Just subscribed, and hoping I get a chance to meet you and chat scicomm approaches sometime in the future. I'm putting together a scicomm course for our interns and hope you'll be cool with me giving a nod to some of your work and linking them to your videos!
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
Great to meet you! "Bizzare and unhelpful" is the perfect way to describe the wall of text approach to posters lol. Also, use anything and everything! Go nuts! The betterposter template files are public domain, and feel free to download/screengrab/recut any video and use in slides and stuff. LMK if you need source graphics and I'll send them over! Also starting to consolidate resources on what will become a design-focused science journal: ScienceUX.org
@cosmobiologist2 ай бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD That's fantastical! Thanks so much. Love the idea of ScienceUX. Bookmarking now!
@MihaelaGruia-qj3wc2 ай бұрын
Super interesting, thanks for sharing!
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
Thanks for watching!
@planetside73462 ай бұрын
The majority of academic papers are not perused even a single time post-publication.
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
I know. And AI is going to make that number even smaller. I think what we publish will eventually diverge between 1) Feeding new findings to the AI in a structured way and 2) Enjoyable, reproducible computational articles that give the few people who DO read them the best possible experience (with the ability to reproduce/extend the article's analysis in a click). And maybe 3) collaborative simulations like Open Worm. How do you want science to solve the "zero readers" problem?
@anihristova77892 ай бұрын
not me watching this the night before a poster session 🙃 from a fellow spartan, thank you for the insights!
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
Go green! And snap a photo of the poster that moves your emotions the most!
@j161802 ай бұрын
I was just looking for a video about making pretty scientific posters. I didn't think I would find a whole research! The thing about computational articles with myst also sounds really cool. I'm excited to get my first paper ready to try the poster layout and the notebook.
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
Haha I have that kind of video too! But good on you for clicking the extra nerdy on haha: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hY2flJutntung9Y.htmlsi=sn34lxATgVd-7D1j
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
P.S. - Computations articles with Myst has been before/after for me personally. After I created one, they got easy and now it's the only kind of article I want to make!
@j161802 ай бұрын
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Yeah that is where I came from haha. I love that it has references, so that I have something to reply to anyone that objects to my poster not being a wall of text.
@brian830112 ай бұрын
Feels like we are so on the same page on this evidence led design, we have been trying to use heatmaps for over a year now and even getting traditional poster designers to take a look at it has been a struggle. I like your thought about how to make people care about improving the accepted norm by making them care more about the outcomes. I definitely find from everyone involved in creating posters currently that there is still a lot of work to convince people that having a large number of people understand some of your research is better for everyone than having a tiny number of people spend the time and effort to read an overly complex poster to understand all of your research (maybe). Love the evidence you are now generating, keep going!
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
Thanks Brian!! Yeah once I saw the eye tracking results I thought my job was done. I was like "Clearly, anybody who looks at these two heatmaps will get it." lol I should have known better. I still haven't found a reliable way to convince people that "putting it on your poster doesn't mean it goes into people's brains" and the whole thing about elements on a design competing with each other. My best win so far is showing people Terms of Service with a "I have read these terms" button and being like "Imagine a lawyer being afraid to remove a sentence from this because he thinks people need to read everything, when obviously nobody reads any of it. You're the lawyer." And then I show tosdr.org/. That kind of helps? What's your go-to strategy that helps convince people? Any successes?
@MikeMorrisonPhD2 ай бұрын
PS - added a link to download the slides above, inspired by your comment!
Пікірлер
Hoping that universities finally allow these newer formats.
Ur presentation is extraordinary
i've never had anybody articulate EXACTLY what i feel as both presenter and attendee of a poster session. THANK YOU!!!!
Of course! Bad design at scale will do that to you haha. Glad you enjoyed it!
I had this argument with a previous boss. He would come at me like, "it is broke." I would ask, what is broke? Eventually, he broke me down enough and i told him, "you only have bugs when you have a spec." He didn't buy it. Guy had 20+ years of experience programming and i was confused how he didn't know how to communicate how something should work. What you mentioned resonated with me because without a spec, there isn't an alignment of what done means, what it is working or broken means, how long some thing should take, etc. I thought it was impressive that i was able to get it 80% how they wanted with just a sentence. However, when the expectation is that you read their minds, everyone is going to fall short.
"You only have bugs when you have a spec" is a great way to put it! I am also impressed you could get 80% there with one sentence haha. And "it's not working" was definitely my favorite pet peeve when I was a software dev.
Common sense changed your life? Damn, son. You might be onto something there.
How would you measure alignment?
Publishers will always resist change even when the innovation would be good for their bottom line.
Yeah there was a quote from Elsevier's CEO after that PR scandal a few years back about them trying to suppress open access (or control messaging around it...I forget). Anyway the part that hit me was a quote where the CEO was just like "Hey look, we're just trying to survive." Kind of hit home for me. As a psychologist I know how differently (and short-sighted) people act in survival mode. But after working with several publishers now, I'm can report that there are a few happy exceptions to this. American Geophysical Union is huge and they've been an absolute champion of moving to computational articles and stuff.
Why the AI monk? Nope, bye
Better or worse than no picture for that point?
@@MikeMorrisonPhD worse, because [no picture] wouldn’t mislead users at all. It’s a matter of principle: we are starting an era of online existence where we need to presume that content is false (even if unintentionally) and actively engage to assess if more-than-zero-trust is a safe bet. We already shouldn’t take anything at face value, but it’s become exponentially easier to produce something either intentionally misleading or haphazardly corrupting the truth for entertainment. And it’s especially ironic that this is observed within the context of a video called “Future of scientific articles”.
You do know that this was the exact same reason that the world wide web was invented back in 1989, right?
Which reason? Go on!
It will get inundated with AI generated articles, nonsense charts and unusable code if it's not regulated soon
Just like the rest of scientific publishing probably. And don't know about you but I'm not super optimistic for regulations working. Any ideas for ensuring validity? Maybe better human author identification protocols? Plus the arms race of AI vs. AI detectors?
Is it an ad for a markdown format?
I didn't mean it to be! Just love this idea from Kevin Kelly's book and found it helpful in my own thinking. But now I can see why it'd come off as an ad. FWIW, Myst Markdown is fully open source. And I genuinely think it's the best chance we have of improving scientific articles right now. So, I shill for it unabashedly sometimes I guess.
@@MikeMorrisonPhD ok fair enough..
Nah
Yah
This is an ad, isn't it?
lol didn't mean for it to be. But, most of my videos on scientific articles do shill for Myst pretty hard. It's a free open source framework, and I contribute a little to it (so can you! come volunteer!), but it's also the best tech I've seen hit scientific articles in the 4 years I've been trying to improve them. For exactly the reason that it makes a perfect example for Kevin Kelly's theory.
Great idea , how established of a field is this already ?
Good question, and the fact that I'm uncertain of the answer probably suggests "not very established." I think there are a lot of people who do UX roles in scientific companies, but I haven't seen much in the way of formalizing and consolidating the field. That's what I'm trying to help with! Will be launching scienceux.org soon, and have created the r/scienceUX reddit as a start!
Formulas for what quantifies "Real"
What do you mean?
I liked this video. Thanks.
You may like the book I stole this from then! Kevin Kelly's The Inevitable
Really neat points!
Right? I stole them from Kevin Kelly's book (The Inevitable). Maybe it's confirmation bias, but years later I still see these stages play out in different areas of tech.
I wish if there's a similar video teaching us how to more efficiently interact with posters/presenters in a poster session!
Great idea. I really want to figure out how to have a middle ground between "ignore the presenter" and "talk for longer than you want". I've had some great conversations at posters, but my favorite was when a guy just walked by, read my betterposter-takeaway, asked me one drive-by question about something I hadn't considered to include in the study, and then walked away. Like a 1 minute interaction and it improved my research.
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Those are the greatest kinds of interactions!! Only if I could do that with most posters instead of accidentally being stuck in the first two...
@@juliexue3792 - Any ideas for encouraging it? It's probably a combination of creating new social norm, but also the design of the poster could facilitate that (by giving people walking by more to respond to without having to stop)?
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Ooh, it really feels like the encouraging need to come from conference organizers (maybe another way in organizing posters/presentations).
@@juliexue3792 - Working on it! Many conferences are open to this and want to help (and many encourage #betterposter already). What do you want to see them do as a presenter? Just push it from the poster guidelines page, or would you like to see something more?
Thanks!
Sure thing!
I love it all. Thank you Mike!
Hey, Brittney! Thank you for being such a big part of developing all this stuff over the years!!
This is mind-blowing!
Haha thank you! You may like the sequel! kzread.info/dash/bejne/hY2flJutntung9Y.htmlsi=pxOwQbpjmh_xchUr
Good stuff, Mike. LOL. Are you a fellow Spartan? Go Green, my dude. 💚
Haha yes I am! Go white!
Good stuff, Mike. I'll even use the word brilliant. As I am preparing for my first poster presentation in quite some time, for APA convention, so I thank you for this.
Thank you! Check out the generation 2 sequel cartoon too, and have fun at APA!
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Will do. And I have recently learned about end screens, which you can easily add to your video and gives viewers a clickable link to go to the next video you recommend. Easy peasy and is definitely helping me expand my KZread channel.
Great stuff @MikeMorrisonPhD. At least once a week I hear the call, "But that's how we've always done it", I appreciate your battle against this thinking.
Thanks Iain. At least once a day I think about the concept of informational conformity from my undergrad psych: "Everyone else is doing X, we've always done X, so X must be the best thing to do." While I'm sitting here looking at eye tracking data showing traditional poster content completely ignored. Creating improved designs has been by far the easiest part compared to adoption. But, having time and knowing people like you are in the fight too keeps me hopeful for the future!
Another point to consider is that writing a wall of text as the review encourages reflection and reconsideration whereas the system you propose encourages impulsive comments and nitpicking. Given that reviewers donate their time, this increases the risk that reviewers just add 4-5 superficial comments here and there and call it a day rather than reflecting on the paper as a whole. So I see the danger that review quality would actually go down with this new system and it would be important to study if that’s the case or not.
That's a great point on the nitpicking. I had actually figured on that effect happening for good: People will conform to the feedback that the tool encourages, so if the tools focus on concrete suggestions that could be good, but hadn't thought of the narrowing effect that could create.
Hm, I think you have exaggerated the time it takes to process a review a lot in favor of your point to redesign the process. Never haver I seen me or my colleagues taking two month to organize their thoughts on the reviews. Typically we have a fair idea after the first read and a detailed understanding once we prepared the draft of the response letter the next day with the review broken up into pieces followed by answers. Also, in many important fields, peer review does not take 2 years. More like 2 months (+ whatever time you need for changes). Another point you have exaggerated is pointing to locations in papers. Line numbers that are automatically added to the PDF and page numbers work just fine. Many journals have already started using a system similar to what you suggested for the final proofreading. It’s nice to have but the time it saves is marginal compared to the time spend on reading. Similar arguments apply to the reviews: The majority of the time is spend on reading and understanding the paper and thinking about the science or the thoughts of the reviewers. While I am a big fan of your thoughts on posters, this one felt overblown.
First, thanks for all this feedback. Building better peer review tools is a considerably more complex challenge than posters, and part of that is needing to hear from a LOT of reviewers, so your comments here will really help me develop version 2 of these concepts. In this case I based those delay times on an actual public peer review. But, only one. I've also waited months or even a year on paper feedback before. But to your point, that was the intake phase not actually once reviewers were assigned. With journal shopping and rejections, papers in my field at least can easily take 2 years to get published. Did you mean that papers in your field typically go from submission-to-publication in a few months?! If so that's great! Also, even though I didn't exaggerate in this case, I'm totally not above exaggeration so it was also a fair criticism haha. Also, what's your thoughts on receiving a todo-formatted review as an author, versus thinking as a reviewer?
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Thanks for considering my comment and for your feedback: Yeah, in my field, chemistry, 2 months (+whatever time you need to fix things) from submission to publication is on the faster end but quite common. I am just working on the minor revisions for one of these papers that we submitted May first and it will probably be published in late June. For another work, even after initial rejection in a high impact Journal, another rejection after peer review in another Journal, substantial additions and an appeal against this decision, the paper was out about 6-7 months after the first submission. Both your and my experience are anecdotal, but I am sure somebody has looked at this more rigorously. While it initially seems like a wall of text, most paragraphs can be easily broken down into simple todos. So this feature would be a nice-to-have convenience feature that would save me maybe 5 minutes per paper.
@@R-ok3cl Yeah maybe a sensible next step for me is to go through one of those big datasets of peer reviews so I can rely less on anecdotal experience. And also, the PR system I’m working on is for computational articles written in Myst Markdown or Quarto, which are way easier to build reviewer tools for than word files, so it allows for improvements that couldn’t be made before. And for me, even saving 5 minutes per paper is a win. If I can save you a single click I’ll put weeks of effort into it. One last question: where do you think the biggest waste is in the peer review process, if you had to choose and even if it’s small?
I know that algorithms can detect themes in the text surrounding a citation. But often, ambiguous writing/citation placement can inhibit both robots' and readers' ability to understand what a particular citation is supposed to show. Better human linking should improve AI-readability AND human UX. I think. But, CS people please tell me what I'm missing.
which software are you using to visualize that first network graph?
Looks like connectedpapers, I don't what they use though
yep connectedpapers!
You don't. You get the AI to read the linked paper and determine the subject from there.
Yeah the goal is to help AI do its job better. And we eventually want to go far beyond the overall subject. We need really really precise metadata about causal relationships, because every percentage in extra accuracy makes it more viable and worthwhile to invest the $ in testing potential new treatments that pop out. Any inaccuracy in the data does the opposite: It makes testing new treatments more risk and costly.
Sure but if the ai has a bit of text beforehand, it can then filter the ones that aren’t relevant much quicker
@@theonlyjoe_ Exactly. The human author linking the meaningful text creates an optimization parameter that AI can both use and train on. Papers that have human-linked text help the AI understand papers that don’t.
@@MikeMorrisonPhD This proposal will never work, and is unnecessary. You're discussing a computation problem, not a categorization problem*. The surrounding text before the citation will already give the context you're looking for. I personally feel, and this is a stretch, that this proposal is similar to a major problem of Object Oriented Programming and why people have moved away from it. People have discovered that it's better to just let "data be data" (let citations be citations), and to not overthink how you group related functions and how they relate to one another (which part of the sentence best describes the work in the citation so I may link it?). *Your solution is categorizing citations with presumably a snippet of text in the sentence/paragraph that best summarizes the reference material. There is no reason to suggest this will save money. That is wishful thinking.
@@theonlyjoe_ What about the paragraph the citation is attached to already?
This channel is amazing, I’ve been thinking about how annoying citations are recently and this is great
Thanks, Josh! What's the most annoying part of citations to you?
How can a paper from 2024 cite a paper written 3 years into the future? 🤔
Lol I was so afraid of making this exact mistake in my examples. I’m blaming it on having a newborn! Or maybe that paper invented time travel!
@@MikeMorrisonPhD The correct answer is: “This was a test to see if you were paying attention”. 😋
@@kabochaVA - Oh that's a way better answer. Yes, you win! Thanks for watching so closely!
references always mentioned somewhere in the study itself, so you can find keywords and deduce which context it's referenced. there are bunch of algos who can measure relevance of the articles to some categories , so you manually work couple thousands and the rest will be referenced by the algorithm
Yeah the goal here is to meet the algorithms half way to increase their accuracy, and account for lots of sentences where often its not clear why an author meant to include each reference at the end of a sentence. And the reverse of this is also true, right? If we link authors, we need complex NLP to find meaning. If we link semantically, we need only simple NLP to find authors (which are always consistently formatted).
@@MikeMorrisonPhD tried any simple text categorizer?
@@DeathSugar - Yeah did a (very simple) NLP algorithm for my masters, but it's been a while. Got any current favorites you can link me to?
@@MikeMorrisonPhD has a dude who implemented some of it from bare bones. Some related videos. Stemming in Rust: kzread.info/dash/bejne/rIaOvJqiaLzOd7g.html Classificator for text in C: kzread.info/dash/bejne/q5mak8GcfanRnrA.html Both has timecodes and some references, so you might find some of it useful . Both from their own series, so you might find previous videos useful as well to build your own classification for studies.
The names (or the numeric reference, as is more typical in the physical sciences) are what the reference is *hyper*linked to. But the sentence is what the reference is *semantically* linked to. Understanding that is a standard part of learning to read scientific papers. Furthermore, the way you link one concept to many papers is by... wait for it... listing all the references at the end of the concept. Just like the paper in this short already does. And while the extra click (references list --> other paper) slows down checking the citation a little, it also provides crucial context (when was this published? in what journal?) as part of the process of finding it. The bit about AI is, or should be, irrelevant.
Before we get into more back-and-forth: Is your background mainly scientific, or do you have some tech/web development background? If no to the latter, this article expands on the issue more than I could do in a minute. Let me know if this doesn't help and we can keep arguing? www.linkedin.com/pulse/traditional-academic-citation-links-bad-science-barry-prendergast-ls4ef/?trackingId=1vkomCnGTOKU3fVvRtuUPA%3D%3D
@@MikeMorrisonPhD You got me-my training is in chemistry, although my work touches on research software engineering as well. My apologies, I came off too aggressive in my previous comment. The article is indeed helpful, although I don't know that its sources support the strength of its rhetoric. I'm still not entirely convinced that machine-readability should be at the top of academic writing's priority list, especially since papers are still printed on paper sometimes. (I should also mention here that I'm a fan of your work; I'm looking forward to presenting a #betterposter at a conference in a couple of weeks.)
lol no problem. Thanks for explaining! And I agree! It's a good point: Scientists shouldn't have to think about machine-readability at all while writing. That should be optimized for you in the background by the writing and publishing systems. I've struggled to make the case for more machine-readability of papers, because I can only think of indirect, distal benefits to authors, despite it being so obviously crucial to developers. I'll keep trying and your comments will help me dig deeper and improve my understanding, I hope! Real quick on the print question: FWIW: Papers designed for machines first can be printed in any beautiful format you'd like instantly. But, the reverse isn't true: papers designed for printers are typically very opaque to machines. But, that's just abstract right now until we have better tools. Anyway, thanks for the discussion and have fun with your #betterposter! Remember that attention follows contrast. So the easiest way to get your poster noticed is to make it look very different from its neighbors. Get out your scissors! 😆
Drop down box? Instead of 1 link leading to another location, the link drops down and gives you a choose your own adventure type option?
That would be a good feel! I'll try a prototype!
I have a solution to this, but I’m not willing to say it publicly so big tech can just take it lol
It's probably not that good if you haven't patented it already lmfao
If you're serious, I will help you mock it up and publish it under public domain so science can use it freely and nobody can steal it. DM me on Twitter (mikemorrison) or HMU on reddit (mikimus2), or since those are both big tech, tell me how to talk to you and I'll figure it out!
@@awakenthechosen you don’t patent stuff like that lol, ai is all about open source everything, and no one cares who comes up with anything, it’s about the information itself and what it actually does, please take your L take somewhere else
You had me until bringing up AI
Haha like because it's an annoying buzzword, or a different reason? For clarity, I don't mean AI like chatGPT. If you imagine a huge network of all these links...ML/"AI" can predict missing links, and discover new treatments. But you need a link structure like this to make that work.
Hi there and thank you. Do you also have ideas for videos in portrait format? Thanks in advance.
okay, was partly / mainly answered in the text.
Check out the Youth Science Canada bifold layout for portrait inspiration too! kzread.info/dash/bejne/f6yspqlxf6ifYso.html
Hi there. Do you also have any suggestions for posters in portrait format? Thank you.
You got it! Portrait here: osf.io/g6xsm
... scientists not thinking about the posters and takking into account new findings about attention and learning is an equivalent of ignoring some key findings in chemistry/physics/math. What I wanted to say, is thanks for a wonderful video.
💯I've tried to make that point for years and never said it as clearly as you just did. EXACTLY. Especially, some people have been like "we can't exploit emotion in design we're scientists. Science is serious!" and I'm like "Um. Emotion is how you get people to actually remember things, according to science. So you're crippling the knowledge transfer of your presentation by ignoring half your audiences' brain just based your feeling of disgust. Sounds kind of unscientific to me?" And don't get me started on professors not allowing their students to experiment with their posters. Isn't experimenting and learning their whole job? Anyway sorry for rant but you made a very good point I've never gotten to talk about!
I don't care what you have to say. If it's too hard to read it's suddenly unimportant.
Right? The interaction cost is so high that it has to be a REALLY relevant article for you to suffer through it.
But this layout only "feels important" because historically, this is how published articles looked like, and we feel this way only for these cultural reasons? I just feel like if you want to emphasize one key sentence in your article (such as "We need to stop the procedure X and do Y instead."), this format will less likely convey it, it just gets lost in all the information
That's a great point. Part of that important feeling is pure cultural association. How the heck do you un-do something like that ingrained association?
This is an important study that can be extrapolated to the general inaccessibility of scientific literature. In grad school, I studied technical communication, where accessibility and readability are paramount. I questioned why the tech comm literature was not written in plain language and didn't follow any of the best practices we were learning. My prof and program lead said it's difficult to get away from the old practices basically because you want to be received well by the scientific/academic community. Jargon demonstrates rigorousity and knowledge of your field, etc. It's terrible.
this is the most incredible thing i've seen in a long time. YES YES YES. Those epidemiologists need help, man. I've shared widely!
Thank you! We all need help lol. So much blocked science. And definitely check out the sequel!! kzread.info/dash/bejne/hY2flJutntung9Y.htmlsi=fC-40DT5HzIdyLNZ
Many thanks, these two videos gave me plenty of input to tackle my first poster. I love graphic design and writing music so I'm happy that your scientific research is proving value in art and how it crosses over into STEM.
Sure! If you study graphic design, then you know how to predict with good accuracy where people will look on your design, and the order that people will look in. In that way, art IS science at some point. Hope this helped! Would love to see what you come up with!
OMG this is the video I needed, working on my first academic poster. Thank you.
Have fun! One final tip: Attention follows contrast. If you want people to look at your poster, make it look different from the other posters.
UPDATE: If you want to teach people about poster design, you can download all the slides for this talk on my Open Science Framework repo here: osf.io/taq2f Use these slides freely. You don't need to credit me. But would love to hear about your learnings and struggles! And let me know if anything else would be helpful! Idea inspired by @brian83011 🙏
I can't believe I've only just now found out about your work in sharing your science and helping others find more impactful ways to share theirs. I've always hated poster sessions at conferences because the writ approach to poster design is such a bizarre and unhelpful way for learning and remembering the work others are doing. Just subscribed, and hoping I get a chance to meet you and chat scicomm approaches sometime in the future. I'm putting together a scicomm course for our interns and hope you'll be cool with me giving a nod to some of your work and linking them to your videos!
Great to meet you! "Bizzare and unhelpful" is the perfect way to describe the wall of text approach to posters lol. Also, use anything and everything! Go nuts! The betterposter template files are public domain, and feel free to download/screengrab/recut any video and use in slides and stuff. LMK if you need source graphics and I'll send them over! Also starting to consolidate resources on what will become a design-focused science journal: ScienceUX.org
@@MikeMorrisonPhD That's fantastical! Thanks so much. Love the idea of ScienceUX. Bookmarking now!
Super interesting, thanks for sharing!
Thanks for watching!
The majority of academic papers are not perused even a single time post-publication.
I know. And AI is going to make that number even smaller. I think what we publish will eventually diverge between 1) Feeding new findings to the AI in a structured way and 2) Enjoyable, reproducible computational articles that give the few people who DO read them the best possible experience (with the ability to reproduce/extend the article's analysis in a click). And maybe 3) collaborative simulations like Open Worm. How do you want science to solve the "zero readers" problem?
not me watching this the night before a poster session 🙃 from a fellow spartan, thank you for the insights!
Go green! And snap a photo of the poster that moves your emotions the most!
I was just looking for a video about making pretty scientific posters. I didn't think I would find a whole research! The thing about computational articles with myst also sounds really cool. I'm excited to get my first paper ready to try the poster layout and the notebook.
Haha I have that kind of video too! But good on you for clicking the extra nerdy on haha: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hY2flJutntung9Y.htmlsi=sn34lxATgVd-7D1j
P.S. - Computations articles with Myst has been before/after for me personally. After I created one, they got easy and now it's the only kind of article I want to make!
@@MikeMorrisonPhD Yeah that is where I came from haha. I love that it has references, so that I have something to reply to anyone that objects to my poster not being a wall of text.
Feels like we are so on the same page on this evidence led design, we have been trying to use heatmaps for over a year now and even getting traditional poster designers to take a look at it has been a struggle. I like your thought about how to make people care about improving the accepted norm by making them care more about the outcomes. I definitely find from everyone involved in creating posters currently that there is still a lot of work to convince people that having a large number of people understand some of your research is better for everyone than having a tiny number of people spend the time and effort to read an overly complex poster to understand all of your research (maybe). Love the evidence you are now generating, keep going!
Thanks Brian!! Yeah once I saw the eye tracking results I thought my job was done. I was like "Clearly, anybody who looks at these two heatmaps will get it." lol I should have known better. I still haven't found a reliable way to convince people that "putting it on your poster doesn't mean it goes into people's brains" and the whole thing about elements on a design competing with each other. My best win so far is showing people Terms of Service with a "I have read these terms" button and being like "Imagine a lawyer being afraid to remove a sentence from this because he thinks people need to read everything, when obviously nobody reads any of it. You're the lawyer." And then I show tosdr.org/. That kind of helps? What's your go-to strategy that helps convince people? Any successes?
PS - added a link to download the slides above, inspired by your comment!