how not to encourage web participation at a conference

i spent a chunk of today "participating online" in the 'web 2.0 summit' hosted by the City of Toronto, subtitled "Moving towards Government 2.0" [see the Agenda]. i hadn't heard anything about it until a tweet from Kevin Von Appen of the Ontario Science Centre mentioned he was speaking. the event offered 'on-line participation' and since i didn't have a time to head downtown i figured i'd check it out.

what i got was a lesson in how not to run an on-line event. rather than use the opportunity to model the kinds of changes in communications patterns that 'web 2.0' tech enables, the event was a one-way, an opportunity to watch 'guys in the know' talk to each other. video went out from the meeting, complete with horrible music when there was a break in the audio feed. "questions" could be submitted through an 'ask a question' form, but they turned out to be highly moderated.  [there was no mention of moderation anywhere in the prep materials.] there was a link to 'view the moderators board', but from my experience a lot of what was asked never made it there. at one point it disappeared completely for me. there was also a form to enter 'comments'. where they went was anyone's guess. i couldn't find any trace of what i  submitted, anywhere [though tech support did tell me the went 'into the same database as everything else'. how reassuring.]

what was missing:

• a link between on-line space and the event's space: there was only one conduit – the panel moderator. if he chose to put a question to the panel that had made it past the other moderator online.
• a link between people participating online. there was no registrants' list, no chat space, no discussion space, no way to find out who else was watching, who else was interested.
• a link between people participating online and people participating in person; there was no attempt to facilitate cross-over discussion.

the event was saved by twittersearch: it enabled the formation of an ad hoc backchannel, and a few people in the room were able to answer questions from those online. there was a bit of conversation, and a few people [including me] made some new connections. 

but what a waste! this was a chance to get some creative input from a broad range of people about ways to get the city out to where the people are. instead, of embracing a participatory ethos and learning what people care about by listening to what they say, the city modelled the worst of the conference experience online.

i'm thinking about this in the context of Museums and the Web. we're often asked why we don't "webcast" MW, and my answer is that video feeds from conferences are usually horrible -- my experience today proved that. it's not about the quality of the video, it's about the rest of the 'meeting experience'. Remember, i'm the one who recommended from the podium at an opening plenary that if you have to make a choice between an interesting conversation with a new person and a paper you want to hear, choose the conversation! conferences are about interactions. the papers are all on-line.

if we were to take M2009 itself online – and it's something we're thinking about with travel budgets shrinking as we watch – it would have to be in a context that enabled a truly hybrid space to evolve, where people could connect with each other whether they were on-site or on-line and where ideas and conversation could flow from one space to the other.

And that's a whole new meeting to run! i haven't seen an environment that really works. have you?

/jt

p.s. don't restrict attendance to invitation only and then show all kinds of empty seats in your video feed

and pps. there are more women in the city who know lots about this stuff! take a look at the male/female ratio on the speakers list and be embarassed.