Backchannels have always existed — as Olivia Mitchell puts it, it used to be “whispers and hand-scribbled notes”. Backchannels came into proper being in IRC days, and UXMTL certainly wasn’t the first that decided to bring the backchannel to the front. UXMTL as a group is intent on experimenting with how we’re reaching and communicating with our audiences, and how we can facilitate interactive/active learning, so our plan was never to have one-way presentations — or in this case, a panel. Amongst ourselves, we had debated on the wisdom of projecting the backchannel, and decide to just try it and see if it would work for our crowd. Our panelists were forewarned, and they were equipped with a separate computer in front of the stage should their eyes wander, so they didn’t have to physically turn around. Unfortunately, spotty wi-fi at the venue meant the computer at the front wasn’t useful.

I would agree that projected backchannels can be very distracting during presentations, but in my several-year experience as a panelist and also a panel moderator — I’ve also played the role of Twitter/IRC watcher who brings questions from the backchannel to the panel itself — I have learned the backchannel can provide interesting meat for discussion in the case where the audience is engaged. In fact, the best part of any panel is traditionally the question/answer session. The few snark comments you have pointed to were the few distractive responses to UXMTL (and in truth, the opinions could have been better expressed), whereas there were also plenty of positive ones. For this particular UXMTL event, we were also using Twitter to document the panel discussion itself. The nature of panels as they are, panelists can sometimes become too caught up with talking to one another and forgetting that there’s an audience, and we wanted to find a way to involve the room in an open discussion. With a room of only a hundred people, we thought the more intimate context could lead to interesting conversation. While I think we were successful in engaging everyone that night, we perhaps didn’t choose the best way to manage the backchannel, and that will be something we continuously refine.

General thoughts: as a presenter myself, I’m very aware of the work that goes into a presentation — my average prep time for a talk is as long as two and a half months and I still refine my slides just before my presentation after seeing other sessions to make sure my talk remains relevant. However, there’s something that presenters forget. We sometimes fool ourselves to believing that we’ve got the stage because we have something wise/smart to say, or that we’re bringing something new to the audience, but this is not always true. My humble international speaking experience has taught me that individuals in my audience may have more experience than me, or their experience could be contradictory and just as interesting/valid. My role as a speaker then is to open a conversation to a topic, provide a thought-out angle and let the audience respond — whether in agreement or disagreement. The point is for us all to learn from one another, regardless of the who’s got the microphone. If as a speaker you’re too arrogant to understand that people will respond to your talk — sometimes unfavourable — perhaps you should assess if your talk is of real value, or if it only serves your ego. Backchannels put us as speakers back in our place. If we cannot win over our audience’s attention by what we have to say or allow them to engage with us in a different medium other than hearing our voice — we’ve got a real problem.

The thing to remember about a backchannel is that it becomes a different form of communication and engagement that we’re all still experimenting with it — there aren’t and shouldn’t be hard and fast rules as it’s very context dependent. One thing I do like about the projected backchannel is that now it forces everyone to be responsible for what they say. You know exactly who said what snarky remark, and you can leave it to the crowd’s wisdom to agree with them or think them an idiot. Having been part of backchannels often in the past myself, they do get a little nasty, and I think *that* is even more unfair to the presenter to talk behind their backs. Backchannels happen anyway. If you got something to say, be responsible for what you say. Projected channels, as they are, hold us all accountable.

We have a long way to go to figure out what works and what doesn’t, and I’m grateful that you wrote this post with some of your ideas.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by alexbfree: New Bitcurrent post: The perils of backchannels… Why Twitter should never take center stage http://bit.ly/6wJ0rx #uxmtl…

I could not agree with you more. I would venture to say that this kind of technology should NEVER be used during a live presentation. There’s no difference between having a backchannel behind the speakers vs. having a bunch of people in the audience chatting loudly during a presentation. Most speakers work very hard on putting together valuable presentations — what a waste of their time (and the audience) if their message is diluted because attention is focused elsewhere.

I came back from a conference last week that had a Twitter wall/screen set up in the main hallway. So during breaks and between breakout sessions, it was up for all to read. Everyone loved it. THAT was the perfect use of this technology.

Your words of wisdom: “Do not use backchannel technology just because you can.” Hear hear!

p.s. Thanks to Alistair who posted this on his Twitter.