Instructions for Presentations
General considerations
This year all GGL members will present short talks you will have 5 minutes to convey your research project and 3 minutes are reserved for questions.
When preparing your presentation, please keep in mind that you will be presenting to an audience that comes from many different disciplines and might not be aware of the conventions within your own field of research. Therefore, you might need to take some time to introduce your topic and explain the most important basic principles.
All talks should contain the GGL logo. You'll find a transparent version of the logo here.
Talks
| File format: |
Your file should be compatibel to be shared via Cisico Webex during your presentation. Please use the test sessions that GGL will offer prior to the conference. |
| Deadline: | You will be in charge of your own talk and may change it at the last minute. |
| Schedule: |
Alle presenters of a session should check in 15 minutes before the start of the session. Keep to your time limit of 5 minutes talk plus 3 minutes discussion. There will be a cut-off after that time. |
Awards for talks
1. Place: 150€; 2. Place: 100€; 3. Place: 50€.
The talks will be evaluated via online voting by the complete audience via online voting.
The main criteria will be: Content, Presentation, Intelligibility.
Explanation of criteria:
- Content: How informative was the presentation? Did the speaker present interesting results as well as all other information needed to understand the outcome of his or her research? Was the amount of information just right, too much or too little?
- Presentation: How well designed was the presentation? Were animations used to emphasize the results or to divert attention. How well did he or she present the talk orally? Did he or she speak loud enough and at an appropriate speed? Did he or she grab your attention or bore you? Did the speaker make an effort to interact with the audience?
- Intelligibility: Did he/she make an effort to explain important terms? Was there a story that you could follow throughout the talk? Did he or she explain what his/her results mean and why they are important? Where tables, graphs and images sufficiently labelled and explained and were they large enough to understand them quickly?