An excellent question well worth asking! Here’s my list. * Live talks are more current than recorded ones (at least after a few days) * Live talks _feel_ different because speakers act differently in front of a live audience, even if they can’t see them. More authentic. 1/5
Lars Vogel @vogella
21 Aug 2020
I'm not sold on IT virtual conferences. Why are these better than watching selected Youtube videos about the topic?
1
6
* Speakers and audience can interact. The audience can ask questions. The speaker can ask for a show of hands, or even for opinions. * Speakers can refer to other talks that happened before theirs, or will happen after theirs. * Speakers can refer to other current events. 2/5
1
* Audience shares the experience of listening to a session. If the tooling supports it, they can talk to each other and share their thoughts * The audience can connect with the speaker because they’re actually (virtually) there * The audience can provide feedback to speakers 3/5
1
* The set of sessions will be part of a curated whole, hopefully set up by a program committee who knew what it was doing * The fact that it’s a live event means you’ll have to make time for it, and focus while it’s happening * Speakers *and* audience can interact 4/5
1
1
* Sessions can easily be recorded _in addition_ to being streamed live * Q&As can happen (or be supported by) chat * Other online interaction tools (like shared whiteboards) may be more usable than their physical counterparts 5/5

Aug 21, 2020 · 9:44 AM UTC

2
1
Replying to @stilkov
All online conferences should be Niconico or YT stream style with live comments in the feed. It'll make them worth watching!
Replying to @stilkov
Another pro reason I could think of is that someone would reserve the time to join a virtual conference. Negative is that I cannot increase the speed of the video if the speaker is to slow for my liking.
1