Giving a Poster/Paper

Karen Allendoerfer ravena at
Thu Oct 23 14:02:51 EST 1997

In article <ABF4C555B6 at>,
Julia Frugoli <JFRUGOLI at BIO.TAMU.EDU> wrote:
>(snip  of a lot of good stuff)
>>However, if last year's Neurosciences meeting is any indication, this
>>request falls on completely deaf ears.  The current trend is white
>>lettering on navy blue or black backgrounds, and the room so dark you
>>can't see to take notes.
>The reason for this is probably because this is supposed to be the  
>easiest to read.  (Someone from Eastman Kodak told me once (8 years ago) 
>that they weren't allowed to use anything else but white on polar blue, 
>because Kodak decided this was easiest to read (and they made the polar 
>blue film!).

That's funny, I thought I read something close to the opposite, that
actually plain old black on white is the "most memorable."  Maybe I'm
misremembering, though, because I'm biased (as I went through in my
last posting).
I know the PI in the lab I'm visiting in insists that all 
>his grad students and postdocs use black backgrounds-I think they're 
>awful, but he thinks they're "slick", and it allows him to put their 
>slides  into his talk and have them all the same background.  Point 
>being-sometimes the presenter has no choice.  I'm not defending bad 
>slides, just some factors that go into decisions to use a given 

Sure, I understand students following PI's wishes.  My own biases come
from those of my thesis advisor, partly.  All her slides were on white
backgrounds, and she also insisted on using black and white film for
black and white data (instead of the color film used by most slide
labs), because the background from black and white film was even
whiter.  At first I grumbled to myself (when I had to redo my slides
*yet again*, and have the guy at the photo lab look at me funny when I
asked for black and white film), but now I notice, too.


More information about the Womenbio mailing list