RESEARCH COMMUNICATION · PRACTICAL GUIDE
A poster is a research argument.
An academic poster makes a focused contribution visible, inspectable and discussable. Its purpose is to help someone understand your reasoning and have a useful conversation about it.
This editorial guide supports master’s and doctoral researchers, and practitioners sharing research. It is not a venue template or an assessment rubric. Follow your conference’s current instructions for format and submission.
Start with the contribution
Before opening a design tool, complete this sentence: “For [audience], our [study, synthesis or design investigation] contributes [specific insight], supported by [evidence], within [scope and limitations].” If the evidence cannot support that sentence, narrow the claim or make the unfinished status explicit.
A completed empirical study can report findings. A proposed study should state its research question, rationale, planned methods and expected contribution—not invented results. A design investigation should explain how making, documenting and analysing artefacts produces knowledge. A review should explain how sources were found, selected and interpreted.
1 · Question and context
What question matters, to whom, and what does relevant prior work leave unresolved?
2 · Approach
What did you do, with whom or what, and how did you analyse it? Justify the method and disclose the study’s status.
3 · Evidence
Show the finding or argument that supports your contribution. Choose a figure, annotated artefact or concise evidence extract that does real explanatory work.
4 · Contribution and limits
What can readers reasonably conclude? What remains uncertain, and what useful discussion or next investigation follows?
Keep the evidence traceable
Report the sample or material, setting, recruitment or selection, procedure and analysis at a level that lets readers judge the claim. For quantitative work, include denominators, units and relevant uncertainty. For qualitative work, explain the interpretive process and use contextualised, consented extracts; a striking quote alone does not establish a theme. Explain negative or contradictory evidence when it changes the interpretation.
Distinguish an observation from an inference and an implication. Avoid universal claims from a small, local or exploratory study. Cite the work you build on, credit images and collaborators, and remove identifying or confidential material that you do not have permission to share.
Design for three depths of reading
- A brief glance: a clear title, research topic and takeaway. A question-led title may be more accurate when results are preliminary.
- A short inspection: the main evidence, approach and limitation. Use descriptive headings and a clear reading sequence; let the most important visual carry part of the explanation.
- A conversation: enough methodological detail and references to interrogate the work. Keep extra material in an accessible companion, without hiding evidence essential to the claim.
Draft the argument in plain text, then reduce repetition. Use a restrained grid, generous spacing, aligned elements and consistent typography. Choose type sizes by testing the actual output at its intended reading distance; a universal font-size or word-count recipe cannot fit every format. Print a full-size excerpt before paying for a large print.
Use captions that explain why a figure matters. Label axes, units and categories directly where possible. Do not rely on colour alone; test contrast and use text, shapes or patterns as additional cues. Avoid turning the entire poster into an inaccessible image.
Make the digital version usable too
Use selectable text, meaningful headings, a logical reading order, figure descriptions, document language and title metadata. Check the exported PDF, not only the source file. Offer an accessible text or HTML companion with a readable short link as well as any QR code. A QR code should never be the only route to essential information.
A practical review for authors and mentors
Give a colleague the poster without explaining it. Ask them to point to the evidence for each answer below. This review framework is an editorial aid, not a validated scoring instrument.
| Question | What a strong poster makes visible |
|---|---|
| What is the contribution? | A specific, relevant insight situated in prior work. |
| Why trust the reasoning? | An appropriate method, traceable evidence and a proportionate claim. |
| Where does the claim stop? | Study status, scope, uncertainty and meaningful limitations. |
| Can I follow it independently? | A clear sequence, readable figures, concise writing and accessible alternatives. |
| What should we discuss? | A purposeful question or next step that invites useful feedback. |
Record feedback as an observation, consequence and revision: “I could not tell how participants were selected; I cannot judge whose experience the finding represents; add the recruitment setting and inclusion criteria.” This is more useful than “make it more academic”.
A first working session
- Write the contribution sentence and identify the strongest evidence you actually have.
- Draft the four argument blocks above. Highlight every claim that needs a citation, qualification or further evidence.
- Sketch one explanatory visual and write its caption before styling it.
- Ask a peer to reconstruct the argument. Revise the reasoning, then test the layout and export.
Prepare a short invitation to the work and a longer explanation of the methods. Ask visitors what connects to their interests, acknowledge uncertainty, and record useful feedback without collecting personal information unnecessarily. A poster can be an early step towards a paper, a collaboration or a clearer research direction; it is a worthwhile scholarly contribution in its own format.
Supporting sources and their limits
- Erren & Bourne (2007), Ten Simple Rules for a Good Poster Presentation (opens an external website). Open-access PLOS Computational Biology editorial; background guidance on purpose, audience and discussion. Full text reviewed. Expert advice, not a comparative experiment establishing one best layout.
- SIGCHI Accessibility Guide for Authors (opens an external website). Official guidance, updated 15 August 2024; relevant to semantic structure, figures and accessible document production. Check your venue and current software workflow.
- CHI 2027 poster call (opens an external website). A concrete example of a track requiring a written submission and visual poster, with its own review and participation rules. It is not a universal template. See the conference section for the page-limit inconsistency identified during checking.
Written for UX Observatory · Sources checked 16 October 2026 · Version 1. The practical exercises and review framework are editorial guidance, not empirical findings.