25. Compare this Conference with the usual conference. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. I MUCH PREFER THIS TYPE OF CONFERENCE. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEXT ONE AND WILL REGISTER FOR IT. Much easier to take notes of what people are saying! Also, in general, easier to know who it is that is making a particular comment. There are doubtless advantages and disadvantages of this format compared to "the usual conference". Because everything is in print, I didn't miss out on any of the presentations or discussion. I was able to carry out most of my other duties/responsibilities while still participating in the conference and I won't have the usual deluge of mail, etc waiting for me when I "get back". The computer format also provided a strong incentive to learn more about the capabilities of the computer in my office and the mail hardware/software (also developed a better rapport with our VAX facility -- and we all know how *valuable* those connections are). I may be wrong here, but I feel that the inertia barrier to developing *and maintaining* new contacts is easier with the EMail format: you start up an EMail conversation because you want more information and the connection stays open. There are some disadvantages -- and I'll refrain from passing judgement here. There is something exciting about going to a new city or different part of the country (especially if it means a break from the current weather pattern). At the "usual conference" we talk with our college "face to face" and know a few other quirks (nothing to stop idle side-line "chit chat" over EMail). My overall feeling is that some of each is in order -- to whatever extent it is possible. The availability of the software and the extensive directions for obtaining this is an excellent aspect of the conference. Like others who participated in the trial session in January, I toyed with obtaining software from the sites listed; guess that if I was a well-seasoned INTERNET user, this might not have been as difficult. I liked the format used to make the papers, logs and other messages available to the conferees. ALLOWED MORE TIME FOR THOT & BETTER INTERACTION. DO IT EVERY SUMMER!!! I rarely attend actual conferences so it gave me a chance to read and respond. I think it was well done and enjoyed it. I enjoyed the great variety of respondents. CHEMCONF is more convenient, less costly, and more time efficient. I think the QUALITY of questioning and discussion is improved, along with the quantity. Questioning and discussion are little more than formalities at most formal conferences. CHEMCONF, with its emphasis on author-listener interaction, allows a deeper and more detailed examination of the work. It is more of an educational experience, with a kind of tutorial character. Later, the audience can digest and extend the topic with a much larger group of interested participants than would be physically possible. Disadvatages-no personal interaction (ie, face-to-face) Advantages-can "attend" all presentations at an e-mail conference. At the usual conference, it is often difficult to choose between simultaneous presentations. Also, at an e-mail conference, you automatically get a "copy" of all talks and discussion which you can save for subsequent perusal. Better. I dislike the disruption of travel. Also, this format made it easier to access participants' thoughts and ideas I learned more and contributed more. I didn't miss anything I wanted to see. I didn't eat as well, or see any interesting places (definitly no perq's). All and all I much prefer this type of conference. There is more time to get involved with discussions, and more time to "listen" to participants. I enjoyed the discussions more than the original papers. I miss the personal contact; knowing who these people are. MUCH CHEAPER AND YOU CAN GET ALL THE PAPERS. NOT JUST THE PAR- TICULAR ONE THAT IT IS ATTENDED IN A CONFERENCE. I liked having copies of the papers to read before the discussion. The econference is more convenient. Of course, there is less "personal" contact. Although there was more time to think about what was being discussed, it took more time to formulate and type out questions, etc., (compared to speaking out at usual conferences)! And you have to check your spelling first! I never quite got the activation energy up to do this. This was my first listserv-er and navigating through Gopher so maybe I will get the hang of it next time. A comparison is difficult. I relish the opportunity to conference without the absolute constraints placed by airfare, instructional commitments. The electronic conference in MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better than nothing. In many ways, it is superior to a usual conference, if for no other reason that one can have two (or) more days to formulate questions, comments, suggestions. I perceived a much larger than "normal" level of discussion among MANY people. Now that I am more familiar with accessing documents and figures, I feel that this type of conference has several advantages in terms of fitting into the busy schedules with which most of us are faced. I miss, however, the face-to-face contact with others and long discussions that might have resulted. Because we participated in a very personal way, I received a lot more than from just listening to 15 papers. Also, I would never have had the opportunity to spend so much time with the authors of papers at a regular convention. I also have a written record of the convention -- an added bonus! It was nice to participate from home when I could find the time. One thing that I really look forward to in a conference is making contacts with colleagues - perhaps just discussing a topic of mutual interest, or even collaborating. I did not expect to make many contacts through the conference, but was surprised that it was easy to do. Perhaps the best thing about a computer conference is that you don't have to worry that you're going to miss one great talk while you're sitting in another one. On the other hand, part of what makes a great talk is the presentation by the speaker, which is essentially lost in text format. Waste far less time! Great to do discussion at 2 am from home, but no time to share beer with colleagues I wonder what had happened if there had been more active participants in the discussion periods. The written discussion is more coherent than spoken - but also much more slow. No social, but many contacts that could develop into sabatical visits. THIS HAS BEEN THE ONLY WAY OF ATTENDING BECAUSE OF LONG DISTANCE (EUROPE) I believe both formats should continue, miss the socialization aspects of a regular conference and also at a usual conference, I am not doing as many other regular activities and sandwiching the conference into free moments as I have done this summer. I miss the personal interaction that occurs at the usual conference, but there's a permanent record of activities available in this format, and one can store the info and look at it at a later time. It's like comparing filet mignon with a hot dog. This was vastly superior, especially as a learning experience. I thought it was much better. I got a lot more out of this conference than the usual ones I attend at meetings. It is cheaper, excuse me I mean more inexpensive, than the usual conference. There are many more particpants than in the usual conference. While the discussion may not be more profound, it is certainly more in depth and more extended and gives the particpants more time to reflect on it. Terrific....you "heard" everything that was going on, not just a few peoples opinions as is usually the case at conferences... missed the social side though 8-). The author of a paper generally plays a less central role in the discussion. Discussion is more interesting and informative. There was more time for in-depth analysis and discussion of a topic. It was allot of hard work and it really let me sharpen my skills. The extended time period allowed for much more reflection than is true in the usual short meeting. Just as good, but different. Both have their place, but you can't beat this one for the price. This conference brought people together who would not otherwise have attented an international conference on Chemical Education. In some ways I do miss the personal interactions, and the use of inflections to convey meanings, relative importance of points, etc. But I think it is made up for by factors mentioned in Q. 22. Much more discussion than when there is limited time between talks at at a conference. Also, comments that I found of particular interest I could easily save for future reference. The face to face contact is lost, but for someone who is new to teaching it provided remarkable access to discussion. At a usual conference I would not have known who to introduce myself to and who's conversations to evesdrop on. I honestly believe that I got a lot more out of this conference than is possible at the usual conference, since I could select and save those comments that were most relevant. In some ways it is better in that I get the opinions of many more people. Not being face to face does make discussion a little labored. Better than most -- discussion worth more than the papers on the whole. The personnal interaction at a regular conference has its place and was missed. However, this format is a valuable new tool for learning and exchanging information. In one word "excellent". I just had more time to participate. The cost was very low. I missed the informal "networking" that takes place outside the conference sessions at other conferences, but it was a decent trade- off to be able to attend without having to kill a week in travel to another site. You can plan your own time. Even if your on vacation you can learn from the contributions. Costs (for someone from europe to go to USA). The best thing about this format is that you can be assured you don't miss an papers you want to "attend". Also, you can choose the time you want to attend. More dialog from more participants with more differing viewpoints than the usual conference In many ways it was better. There was a permanent record of suggestions and ideas. I could easily file useful information, like names and locations of programs that I could investigate later. I "met" some people, too. I sent personal messages to people that seemed to have similar interests or ideas to mine. I made some good professional connections during this meeting, which is one of the *main* reasons that I go to traditional conferences. I missed drinking a beer with my new friends, but it was a most efficient way to learn about other peoples' ideas. I was frustrated by viewing figures, so I guess I prefer an in-person conference when I will be learning from data presented visually. In this conference I learned from the discussion, not the papers. So viewing figures was not that critical for me. I wish I had more time to work that out. still get nonsensical chatter, but no travel expense The flexibility and ease of accessing papers, questions and comments was the conference's biggest asset. Because of my poor keyboarding, it was a little hard to communicate as naturally as speaking to a person; however I communicated in depth with a lot more people and made more contacts than I probably would at a conference. Positives - There is more time to digest the presented information at convenient times. A record of the entire discussion is immediately available. Considerably less expensive - in both money and travel time. Little interference with teaching schedule. Negatives - The opportunity for more personal interaction is missing. Body language and vocal intonations by presenters and participants in discussions are not observable.