Carsonified

How viable would it be to do both? Set aside an area with permanent wi-fi (some people are bound to feel that they need to be available for IMs from the office or to check out the sites mentioned and flag them up as the event is going on) but, for the majority of the space (particularly front and centre, where the presenters will be able to get most eye contact) leave it off during the sessions.

What, no backchannel? Set up a public IRC channel for the attendees, and put a live feed of it on a secondary projector. That way you can see and react to the snark as required.

There *is* actually an argument to be had that an event for web peeps needs wi-fi. Although, as a conference organiser, I would lean towards providing it, I could argue the merits of not having it at all.

Both at FoWA in London earlier this year and at @media it was only a (vocal) minority of the audience that had laptops with them let alone used wi-fi. I expect it might be different in the USA.

From a conference *goers* perspective I think wi-fi at events is pretty crap - during presentations it’s distracting, and in between sessions it’s anti-social.

There’s as much to be said about switching it off in the breaks as there is about switching it off during the presentations (when it can be argued it’s more useful and although I’m with you on the live blogging thing, some would disagree - it’s not just about posting it whenever, it’s about providing real-time coverage - a live football match rather than a recorded one).

I have been at the first Future of Web Apps in London last year. I really liked the idea to take my notes on my “Writeboard” - which certainly needed an online connection to quickly save the notes inbetween. I think it is a good thing to have WIFI on during the sessions - but surely the crowd has to learn to use it wisely during presentations! After all if presentations are really good, the crowd will listen closely anyway.

Hi Ryan,

I’d say switch it off and I’ll tell you why - the most important part of a conference are the speakers. By having it off and removing distractions you are not only engaging the audience better, you are also respecting the speakers position and showing how much you value their speech.

This will make them feel happier about their presentation, make people think up better questions for Q&As and generally mean they are more willing to come back to speak again.

Just my opinion of course.

Turning off wi-fi during presentations may or may not work. Getting everyone’s attention is a great thing, but what about people who snuck out? There was one presentation at the first FoWA that was sending me to sleep (I forget which) so I went to the lobby and caught up on my e-mail (which I don’t like doing during presentations). There were at least 10 other people outside doing the same thing.

Also, I created an IRC backchannel at the first FoWA and it was pretty fun in the end. I’m not sure it’s entirely productive though. Some of the things that ‘happened’ during presentations were actually co-ordinated there. However, it’d be pretty easy for people to use Bonjour on their Macs and all talk to each other even without you providing the network, so…

In my heart I’m edging towards no wi-fi at these events.. but in my head, I say ‘yes’, because it was so useful, and it also helped me find other people in the crowd I was looking for(!) (there was plenty of “I’m in the 4th row from the back” going on)

It’s a real tough decision though, and I have every sympathy for it, given someone will moan one way or the other.

I like being able to visit sites that speakers refer to during their presentations, like when Kevin Rose was talking about Stamen’s work for Digg - his enthusiasm required that you check out the site immediately ;) Sure it can be disrespectful for people to surf and not listen, but who’s losing out for doing so in the end? Perhaps a verbal note at the beginning of the conference encouraging attendees to close their laptops is enough; only someone who truly needs to check up on something at that instant will do so. Or am I being too optimistic?

I say no WiFi during the slides. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Although I’ve never sat in on a conference such as that, I’m aware (from relative situations) that people will pre-occupy themselves and miss what they paid for. And it’s more than just losing money - it’s all that quality content gone. The enjoyment comes from seeing it first hand, and interacting with it directly.

I’m leaning towards switching it off, myself. Not to mention at Web Apps in San Fran, people became more pre-occupied (alright, obsessed) with checking their connection every five seconds than live-blogging the event.

I say turn it off. I find it distracting, as an attendee, when half the audience is doing busy work on their laptops. If someone is on emergency call, then they hopefully have SMS (on vibrate) and a wireless card (Sprint rocks!). And take it to the lobby! :)

I’d suggest leaving it on, for the very reason that if all 800 attendees logon at exactly the same time, only during the breaks, then no one will get any connectivity at all due to the connection crush.

There have been studies that say reading email while trying to do something else actually reduces your IQ. I think this would reduce an attendee’s ability to pay attention to the presentation.

http://www.ericmackonline.com/ica/blogs/emonline.nsf/dx/e-mail-is-bad-for-your-brain

Not only that, but if the person next to me is busily browsing, IM-ing and making a lot of noise typing, their actions will distract me and prevent me from hearing the complete presentation. Even if they don’t type loudly the flashing of their monitor will distract their neighbors.

I like Eric Meyer’s idea of moving people who demand to “blog/IM/type” to a different area of the room. The one change I’d make is that those who “are planning to blog/IM/type” not sit to the left, but sit in the back of the room. That way their computers are behind me and out of sight, though there still is the noise.

I can’t remember the last conference I went to that got WiFi right. That alone is a reason not to have WiFi at all, but I wonder if it’s really going to do much except annoy people.

Personally, I find it distracting as a speaker to watch people tapping away, but as an audience member it’s incredibly useful - especially when the day is a long one with lots of speakers, or you’re half-listening to a presentation that doesn’t do it for you (and in any multiday event there are going to be some of those). And there are going to be hundreds of paying audience members to one non-paying speaker.

One example of somebody who does it sort of successfully would be Apple, where at major announcements the general rule is that there is a press area with WiFi but the auditorium itself is a black hole without connectivity. If you need it desperately, you can go out and get it.

None of this, of course, will stop people from creating their own connections inside the auditorium. I tend to do my liveblogging over a 3G phone data connection, but then it’s part of my job and not everyone will want to pay for hours of access; and I noted at the iPhone announcement in January that Ryan Block had opened internet access via his machine for the Engadget crew.

However, if you’re running an event that lasts all day (not just an hour or so) I think not providing ANY kind of connectivity is a bit harsh and given that you’re talking to people in an industry focused on the internet, seems counter-intuitive.