On 04/14/2011 04:59 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > I always wonder what the difference might be. For me the field > "Abstract" is clear. It should be mandatory. There might be some use > for "Submission notes" which can be filled with notes to clarify the > abstract or some other stuff but I usually leave it out. I agree with these interpretations of "Abstract" and "Notes". Notes in particular might be used for presentation logistical details like "i'll need an amplified sound system with an 1/8" stereo audio input jack" or "I explicitly do not want video-team coverage for this talk". > I never made any sense out of this Description field. So *if* it has > any sense it definitely needs some footnote or some explanation > somewhere else. Otherwise it should be removed (if it is not yet to > late because people filled in some content). Last year, i used "Description" as a long-form place to describe the talk in more detail. Other people appear to have done the same. So while "Abstract" is usually a one (or two, at most) paragraph description, Description might include an entire talk outline. Having the Abstract makes it possible to prepare a reasonably-sized printed schedule that includes more than the title for each work (though i don't know if anyone really needs such a schedule). Given that the full Description is probably not viewed by most people, the main advantage of it is that people can use it to give the talks team a clearer picture of the talk itself and the level of preparation of the submitter. This may or may not be useful enough to warrant keeping it around. I would be OK with hiding the description field, if no one has a strong argument for keeping it around. --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature