I wrote: > > I just see the intro as a > > quick > > glimpse at what is in the poster and why you would want to read it, > > which > > is why it overlaps with the abstract in my (warped) mind. Jeff wrote: > Actually, in my warped mind, abstract == quick overview, and intro == > background and motivation. You could just rename the intro to > abstract. I'll > let you decide. I see it like this for a paper, but not as much for a poster. Since a poster is about a lot less finished research than a paper (otherwise you'd be publishing it :-), a lot more time is spent on why you are doing something and where you are coming from. This is good because it is a lot more interesting and easier to get into then lots of lab details and also gives you a chance to get feedback about your motivation. However, it is bad since it makes a lot of your paper end up being the introduction (hell, half of the Piper poster is about motivation :-). So I think of the intro as taking on a different role for the poster. Plus, it makes my head hurt to read too many abstracts at poster sessions :-). Brad