✪ Table of Contents
Explore the sample poster before and after revisions
Browse by topic
Created by Anneli Joplin & Rashad Baiyasi 2018
Consult this resource while you design, create, and revise your own literature review poster.
BEFORE
AFTER
OR
Click me!
Click here to return to this page at any time!
Unmarked version
Unmarked version
Layout
Background
Design
Literature findings
Discussion
Colors
Title
Introduction
References
Final overview
✪
Project details
Before
Original student poster. Click on the marked locations to read about issues in each section.
Though this poster does demonstrate that the author completed the literature review, it doesn’t effectively communicate their findings to the viewer.
This poster includes too many scientific details and too much text. Also, haphazard formatting is distracting �and makes the poster feel unprofessional.
Return to Table of Contents ⟶
✪
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Before
After
Return ⟶
✪
✪
After
Revised poster. Click on the marked locations to review the changes in each section.
The revised version of the poster focuses on the bigger picture, including figures to explain key concepts only.
The revised layout draws �the viewer’s attention to important sections using color and icons. The research story �is also reinforced throughout the poster via more informative section headings.
✪
After
Before
Return ⟶
✪
Title (before)
Ask yourself – What is the central focus of my literature review? How can I summarize the central research question?
The title on the original poster isn’t unacceptable, but it could be improved because the central discussion of the review actually focuses on decoherence (not coherence).
The title isn’t positioned exactly in the center and is printed in a different font than the rest of the poster.
Also, the Rice logo is quite large and visually overwhelms the title.
Return to ‘Before’
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Title (annotated)
Ask yourself – What is the central focus of my literature review? How can I summarize the central research question?
The title on the original poster isn’t unacceptable, but it could be improved because the central discussion of the review actually focuses on decoherence (not coherence).
The title isn’t positioned exactly in the center and is printed in a different font than the rest of the poster.
Also, the Rice logo is quite large and visually overwhelms the title.
Original Version
✪
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
Title (after)
Ask yourself – What is the central focus of my literature review? How can I summarize the central research question?
The revised title identifies the central topic of the review – decoherence. Repeating the main theme of the review in the title helps the viewer to understand the overall message from first glance.
Shrinking the Rice logo and the author text directs the viewer’s gaze to the title, which is the most important element in this section.
Return to ‘After’
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Layout (before)
Ask yourself – Do the sections in my poster follow a clear reading order? Also, does the layout assign the most space to the most important section(s)?
The original layout consists of three haphazard columns. �The reading order is clear, but the columns are misaligned and randomly sized.
Also, the original layout awkwardly separates the charge qubit section from the other qubit types. Ideally, these central ideas should be grouped together.
The section headings are too generic and do not communicate the main points of the review. They are also not consistently aligned.
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘Before’
Layout (annotated)
Ask yourself – Do the sections in my poster follow a clear reading order? Also, does the layout assign the most space to the most important section(s)?
The original layout consists of three haphazard columns. �The reading order is clear, but the columns are misaligned and randomly sized.
Also, the original layout awkwardly separates the charge qubit section from the other qubit types. Ideally, these central ideas should be grouped together.
The section headings are too generic and do not communicate the main points of the review. They are also not consistently aligned.
✪
Original Version
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
Layout (after)
Ask yourself – Do the sections in my poster follow a clear reading order? Also, does the layout assign the most space to the most important section(s)?
In the revised layout, the central column has been widened to accommodate all three qubit types.
The asymmetric layout moves the viewer through the poster and rectangles of background color highlight important sections.
Consistently formatted section-headings summarize pieces of the story throughout the poster.
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘After’
Design (before)
Ask yourself – Is my poster pleasant to look at? If not, what visual clutter can I remove? What visual elements other than journal article figures can I use to communicate my message?
The original poster exhibits many inconsistencies in font, text size, text spacing, and alignment.
Overall, the poster is too text heavy. Long bullet points are difficult to read during a poster session and usually do not invite or engage the viewer.
The poster also uses a Serif font (one with the little feet) which is more difficult to read on screen.
Small formatting details such as panel labels in the journal article figures have been neglected.
Theme colors ⟶
Bonus topic! Click me to learn more about theme colors
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘Before’
Design (annotated)
Ask yourself – Is my poster pleasant to look at? If not, what visual clutter can I remove? What visual elements other than journal article figures can I use to communicate my message?
The original poster exhibits many inconsistencies in font, text size, text spacing, and alignment.
Overall, the poster is too text heavy. Long bullet points are difficult to read during a poster session and usually do not invite or engage the viewer.
The poster also uses a Serif font (one with the little feet) which is more difficult to read on screen.
Small formatting details such as panel labels in the journal article figures have been neglected.
✪
Original Version
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
Design (after)
Ask yourself – Is my poster pleasant to look at? If not, what visual clutter can I remove? What visual elements other than journal article figures can I use to communicate my message?
In the revised poster, text blocks have been reduced and text spacing has been increased to make it more pleasant to read.
Font, text size, alignment, and spacing are all consistent in the revised version.
The revision also incorporates icons that help to establish a visual theme.
The revised poster utilizes a complementary color scheme with muted violet as the main color and peachy orange as the accent color.
Theme colors ⟶
Bonus topic! Click me to learn more about theme colors
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘After’
Introduction (before)
Ask yourself – Who is the audience? What background information will they need to understand my review? How can I summarize the big picture?
The original poster includes a short paragraph as the introduction, but the text is awkward and difficult to read.
The section-heading, “Summary,” is too vague and doesn’t communicate a specific message to the viewer.
This section is crowded by the section below it and lacking white space.
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘Before’
Introduction (annotated)
Ask yourself – Who is the audience? What background information will they need to understand my review? How can I summarize the big picture?
The original poster includes a short paragraph as the introduction, but the text is awkward and difficult to read.
The section-heading, “Summary,” is too vague and doesn’t communicate a specific message to the viewer.
This section is crowded by the section below it and lacking white space.
✪
Original Version
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
Introduction (after)
Ask yourself – Who is the audience? What background information will they need to understand my review? How can I summarize the big picture?
The revised introduction begins by explaining a potential motivation for this type of research.
Though a paragraph is still used, the text is spaced out and important words are highlighted so that the viewer can easily follow along.
An icon is used to represent the general idea of quantum computing, adding a much needed visual element.
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘After’
Background (before)
Ask yourself – What information does my audience need to know before they can understand the importance of these findings? Are there any terms I should define?
The background section begins with a discussion of Josephson junctions, but doesn’t explain why they are relevant to the review topic.
The text relies heavily on scientific jargon and fails to define basic terms.
Also, this is an obvious example of inconsistent panel labels. Ideally, these labels would be removed by cropping the images or covering them up with a white box.
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘Before’
Background (annotated)
Ask yourself – What information does my audience need to know before they can understand the importance of these findings? Are there any terms I should define?
The background section begins with a discussion of Josephson junctions, but doesn’t explain why they are relevant to the review topic.
The text relies heavily on scientific jargon and fails to define basic terms.
Also, this is an obvious example of inconsistent panel labels. Ideally, these labels would be removed by cropping the images or covering them up with a white box.
✪
Original Version
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
Background (after)
Ask yourself – What information does my audience need to know before they can understand the importance of these findings? Are there any terms I should define?
The revised poster introduces basic terms first and then briefly describes Josephson-Junctions.
The revision also introduces a simple visual icon to better explain the concept of decoherence.
More specific section-headings remind the viewer of the main message.
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘After’
Literature findings (before)
Ask yourself – What are the central topics of my literature review? Which references are necessary to the main message of my review?
The literature findings should be the central focus of the poster, but they are spread out over awkwardly two columns.
Rearranging the content so that the types of qubits are close to one another will help the viewer to group information.
There is no explanatory text telling the story. Right now these sections include formal figure captions, but captions aren’t required for this assignment and they occupy valuable space.
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘Before’
Literature findings (annotated)
Ask yourself – What are the central topics of my literature review? Which references are necessary to the main message of my review?
The literature findings should be the central focus of the poster, but they are spread out over awkwardly two columns.
Rearranging the content so that the types of qubits are close to one another will help the viewer to group information.
There is no explanatory text telling the story. Right now these sections include formal figure captions, but captions aren’t required for this assignment and they occupy valuable space.
✪
Original Version
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
Literature findings (after)
Ask yourself – What are the central topics of my literature review? Which references are necessary to the main message of my review?
In the revised arrangement, all three qubit types are discussed in the same section.
One important figure was selected for each qubit type, shifting the focus away from technical details.
Icons are used to represent each qubit type. These icons act as a visual shorthand that is repeated throughout the rest of the poster.
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘After’
Discussion (before)
Ask yourself – What themes appear in multiple articles? What scientific questions are being answered? What are the current challenges?
The heading is not informative and no subheadings are provided to guide the viewer.
Figures in this section seem random and aren’t aligned.
This experimental figure could probably be replaced with a simple visual that illustrates the same idea.
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘Before’
Discussion (annotated)
Ask yourself – What themes appear in multiple articles? What scientific questions are being answered? What are the current challenges?
The heading is not informative and no subheadings are provided to guide the viewer.
Figures in this section seem random and aren’t aligned.
This experimental figure could probably be replaced with a simple visual that illustrates the same idea.
✪
Original Version
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
Discussion (after)
Ask yourself – What themes appear in multiple articles? What scientific questions are being answered? What are the current challenges?
The revised poster expands the discussion of qubit types with an overview of decoherence and performance.
Icons are used to visually summarize each concept discussed.
Orange is used to draw attention to the figure of merit, which is the parameter most relevant to future applications in quantum computing.
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘After’
Final overview (before)
Ask yourself – What major themes emerged from the articles I read? How can I synthesize and summarize the overall conclusions from several key articles at once?
This section contains most of the needed content, but is very difficult to read because of poor formatting.
The table stands out awkwardly because the blue is very bright and the text is larger in the table than in the rest of the poster.
The bullet points are too long. They read like a paragraph instead of a skimmable list.
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘Before’
Final overview (annotated)
Ask yourself – What major themes emerged from the articles I read? How can I synthesize and summarize the overall conclusions from several key articles at once?
This section contains most of the needed content, but is very difficult to read because of poor formatting.
The table stands out awkwardly because the blue is very bright and the text is larger in the table than in the rest of the poster.
The bullet points are too long. They read like a paragraph instead of a skimmable list.
✪
Original Version
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
Final overview (after)
Ask yourself – What major themes emerged from the articles I read? How can I synthesize and summarize the overall conclusions from several key articles at once?
The revised version summarizes qubit performance with a visually appealing table.
The overall conclusions reconnect with the motivation by focusing on potential for future computing applications.
The revised version also includes a brief perspective about possible next steps without going into excessive experimental detail.
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘After’
References (before)
Ask yourself – What are the main articles I refer to on the poster? Where did I obtain images from? Do I need to cite anything else?
The original references section is obviously incomplete.
Format references compactly by limiting the number of papers discussed on the poster and by using a smaller font size (even 8 or 9 pt is fine).
If you don’t have room still, remove article titles and replace author names past the first author with “et al.”
Revised Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘Before’
References (annotated)
Ask yourself – What are the main articles I refer to on the poster? Where did I obtain images from? Do I need to cite anything else?
The original references section is obviously incomplete.
Format references compactly by limiting the number of papers discussed on the poster and by using a smaller font size (even 8 or 9 pt is fine).
If you don’t have room still, remove article titles and replace author names past the first author with “et al.”
✪
Original Version
Revised Version
Return to ‘Before’
References (after)
Ask yourself – What are the main articles I refer to on the poster? Where did I obtain images from? Do I need to cite anything else?
The revised poster includes references for three main articles – one for each type of qubit.
An expanded reference list would be included in the written report.
Starting components for icons on the revised poster were obtained from the Noun Project, so this website (www.thenounproject.com) is also included in the reference list.
Original Version
Annotated Version
✪
Return to ‘After’
Colors
The colors you use contribute to the overall feel �of your poster. Color can also be used strategically to visually emphasize key information.
Basics of color theory
How to combine colors
How to select pleasing colors
✪
Return to Design
Basics of color theory
Understanding color theory is the first step �to meaningful and effective color choices. �Here are some basic terms to remember.
Hue = the actual color
Tint = color + white
Shade = color + black
Saturation = color strength
Value = light to dark
✪
Return to Design
Return to Color
How to combine colors
The color wheel outlines standard color schemes. Use a standard color combination as a starting point for your color scheme.
Color wheel
Some examples of standard color schemes
Monochromatic
Analogous
Complementary
Tetradic
Triadic
Split complementary
✪
Return to Design
Return to Color
Next page →
How to combine colors
The color wheel outlines standard color schemes. Use a standard color combination as a starting point for your color scheme.
The revised poster uses a complementary color scheme.
Tints and shades of purple are used as the main colors.
Orange is used as an accent color that draws the viewer’s attention to key elements on the poster.
Purple
Orange
✪
Return to Design
Return to Color
← Previous page
Selecting pleasing colors
Anneli Joplin 2018
Use natural, muted, or neutral colors for most applications. Don’t use a bright color unless �you intend to attract the viewer’s attention.
Avoid bright colors except for emphasis.
Bright colors demand �the viewer’s attention, �so make sure to use them wisely. Overuse bright colors �and they lose their meaning.
Consider colors in nature for inspiration.
Natural colors are much more muted than pure hues and are more pleasing to the eye.
Yes
No
✪
Return to Design
Return to Color
Project details
Goal
Slide size
Recommended font sizes
This poster will be presented electronically so the suggested formatting is slightly different than your normal poster.
This poster should outline the main points in your literature review.
Don’t get bogged down in technical details, instead focus on general themes and how the articles relate to one another.
17 inches wide
11 inches tall
Title�28 - 40 pt
Section-headings�16 - 22 pt
Body text�12 - 16 pt
References�8 - 10 pt
Return to Table of Contents ⟶
✪