Notes from Meeting at Central Saint Martins 18th October

Present: Janet, Rachael, Peter
Apologies: Fraser

1. Progress Since Last Meeting

We now have 39 people who have expressed an interest in participating after invitation, 28 of which have provided a statement of interest. Janet has received inquiries from 5 other research groups. As we have a limited number of slots (~25) at the workshop it is important to keep a balance of presentations, it was thought that some groups would fall by the wayside through the project so we do anticipate some space for new participants. It was decided to ask these research groups for more about their research areas and publications, with a final decision being made on inclusion at the end of November. Janet will manage this process. Peter produced a prototype of the DVD that will be sent out to participants, with a multi camera view as well as full screen capability. Both Peter and Rachael attended the Design Research Society AGM in which DTRS7 was referred to as one of the upcoming events. This was questioned at the meeting, and has now been removed from DRS events.

2. Data Collection

There has been no movement on the CIVIC project where progress cannot be made until a lease is signed. Rachael is keeping up with developments. Peter contacted a number of companies - IDEO, Total Alloy, and The Design Council. Only IDEO have written back, but were not interested in participating. An earlier contact, The Technology Partnership, have however expressed interest. Peter met with their product manager Rob Day on 11th October. Rob was enthusiastic about the project and detailed a number of projects that might be suitable. We agreed to film a new product development project on a digital pen. This has the advantage that a client is not involved as TTP are looking to license the product. Dates are now set for the first two meetings of the project on Friday 10th and Monday 13th November. Janet is to try and make contact with Arup one more time.

3. The Event

Janet circulated the current costings for the event. We are budgeting around £300 per person, which includes a copy of the published book and allows around £50 for the conference dinner. Some items were missing from the costings, and a comprehensive costing is needed for the next meeting.


4. The Website

The website is currently up to date regarding participants. Janet would like people not yet committed to the project to be removed. There are several items on the dowloads page that need adressing, particularly the contact with Mangold who have agreed to give a time limited version of their Interact software. The details of this have not yet been decided and Peter will contact Mangold to negotiate a final agreement. The idea of a discussion list related to the website was discussed. Peter suggested that a closed JISC mail list along the lines of the DRS lists might be a good idea. This would have the added advantage of sending out regular emails to all participants - a gentle reminder that the research process is underway. Peter will investigate the options here.

5. Timetable

We are basically on course with the timetable on the DTRS7 website, with data collection, transcription, and DVD production all due to take place before the end of the year. Of slight concern was the time it might take to transcribe and check through all material before it is sent out.

6. DVD Production

It was discussed how to segment the data into DVD 'chapters' for more convenient analysis. Janet thought that the word 'chapter' implied too much of a narrative, although whether this is configurable on a DVD is unknown. We agreed to basically have equal sections through the course of the DVD, without any thematic classification. So, for example, a new chapter every 15 minutes. It is also important to cross reference timings from the DVD to the transcription to allow quick and accurate location of material. A sample transcription, and consistent referencing scheme to refer to individual projects, meetings, and segments, should be produced at the next meeting. We also need to address any issues of censorship before sending out the DVD. It should in principle be possible to mute anything deemed as sensitive.

7. Publisher

Janet circulated the agreement from Taylor and Francis. This was read through and seemed reasonable to everyone. Janet will sign the final agreement.

8. AOB

Concern was expressed about Fraser's contribution to the project. Peter will phone him to discuss how he would like to proceed.

9. Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 23rd November, location yet to be determined but probably Central Saint Martins.

Actions Arising

Janet: Produce comprehensive costing for the event, with break even costs.

Janet: Contact Arup

Janet: Manage enquiries and ask groups enquiring about participating for track record.

Peter: Collect data at TTP.

Peter: Contact Mangold to negotiate details of software deal.

Peter: Investigate the options for a JISC mail discussion list and/or password protected area of the website.

Peter or Fraser?: Produce sample transcription along referenced to DVD and check for items to be censored.

Rachael: Keep contact with CIVIC

Notes from Meeting at Central Saint Martins 1st September

Present: Janet, Rachael, Peter
Apologies: Fraser

1. Progress Since Last Meeting

The list of actions outstanding from the last meeting was reviewed. All had been completed apart from Peter following up organisations to participate through the RSA. Fraser had made a valliant attempt to collaborate with Spinnaker International but this had not been successful for reasons of confidentiality. Peter had not heard back from the product design organisation he had contacted. Rachael has arranged data collection with CIVIC, while Peter had collected data from the second meeting for the Milton Keynes Crematorium project. Janet had distributed the Taylor-Francis book contract but only Nigel had responded with any comments. Peter has invited around 12 people to participate with very positive responses so far.

2. Data Collection

Peter has collected data from a further meeting in the design of the MK Crematorium and commented on the consent approval process. He had asked for signed consent at the start of the meeting, to which all participants had agreed. Rachael said that data collection at CIVIC looks extremely promising, looking at the re-development of the old Arsenal football ground. A week for a meeting that we can film has been set. Rachael will keep contact and ensure that there is someone there to film it.

It looks increasingly unlikely that we will be able to get an engineering company to participate, the overall feeling was that this would not necessarily be a bad thing, as it might lead to too much data being produced and invitees referring to their own data for comparisons along discipline lines might prove more beneficial. We will endeavour to try to film more design meetings, however, up to the deadline of December. Peter will contact the Design Council to see if any possibilities lie in that direction.

3. The Event
Peter and Janet had met a week previously to look at the Central Saint Martins venue for the event. Janet has booked the main room for the four days during and surrounding the event. The room looks highly suitable, with a 'workshoppy' feel to it, AV equipment, and flexible space. There is also a clear line of movement to what will be the different spaces at the workshop (entrance, reception, eating, presentation). Janet had followed up the possibility of the workshop dinner being at the British Library Reading Room which is close by to the workshop (walking distance). Janet had produced a likely breakdown of costs and it looks like the final conference fee will be around £300. This includes everything, refreshments, lunches, the workshop dinner, pre-prints, and a copy of the book when it is published. All agreed to put any profit back into the workshop. Janet will work out the break even point for the workshop based on these figures, and look into how we can use PayPal for registrations.

4. The Website (http://design.open.ac.uk/dtrs7/)
Peter has produced a website for the workshop which is now ready for launch. Peter and Janet had discussed final changes the week previously. The list of participants will slowly be updated as people say that they want to be involved. Two aspects to the site have yet to added. These are a discussion forum to talk about and possibly classify the data, and an online registration and payment system. These will be up and running by the time data is distributed to participants at the end of December / beginning of next year.

5. Timetable
The timetable has been slightly revised and is now on the website. There is also a description of what the individual phases leading to the workshop will require in terms of inputs and outputs. All in all the timetable seems relatively straightforward.

6. Date of Next Meeting
18th October 10.30am at Reading University

Actions Arising

Janet: Follow up the possibility of publishing with Afterall

Rachael, Janet, Fraser: Contact remaining people to invite them to participate

Peter: Forward email inviting people to participate to Janet, Fraser, and Rachael

Peter: Contact the Design Council to explore possible projects to film

Janet: Work out the break even costs of the event

Rachael: Get DRS to take DTRS7 off their list of sponsored events

Peter: Look at DVD distribution issues

Notes from Meeting at Reading University 16th June

Present: Peter, Janet, Rachael, Fraser

Peter announced that following a positive review the AHRC have funded the project as a network grant (£24,000)

1. Filming Designers

Rachael, Janet, and Fraser had met with the architectural firm Civic to discuss possible projects to film. Overall Civic were enthusiastic about being involved. There are at present three options: 1) Development for the old Arsenal ground at Highbury, an urban renewal project. 2) A community facility in Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire. 3) A £12million civic centre in Wiltshire. The option to film a participatory design exercise with children had also been discussed but this was thought not to be suitable. It was pointed out to Civic that the project filmed does not have to go to completion. The timing for filming is really dependent on when approval is given for any of the three projects to go ahead. Rachael will take the lead in keeping in contact with Civic.

2. Contacting Organisations

Janet has contacted Arup via their inhouse intranet and received several positive responses. A novel technology project involving a media interface for a powerstation has been discussed. Janet has also had contact with an Arup bridge designer called Angus Lowe, who is interested in our research ideas. There is nothing concrete as yet, but there is hope.

Peter has drafted a generic letter to send to organisations inviting them to participate. He will circulate electronic copies to the others. Fraser mentioned that Phil Culverhouse at Plymouth might have some useful Engineering contacts. He will explore this further. Peter mentioned some companies he has worked with previously and also that contacting peope via the RSA might prove fruitful. He will explore both these options.

Janet also mentioned that CSM are re-locating to the Kings Cross area and that AMA Space Consultants are involved in the master plan for the project. Rachael has some knowledge of AMA. Janet will follow up the lead.

3. The Book

Janet has received a new contract from Taylor-Francis which now includes everyone. We are obliged to buy 100 copies of the book at a discount price of £32.50. We will receive 8 free books. This is based on a book of around 250 pages. There will be a 5% royalty fee for future copies sold. Publication is expected in October 2008. The possibility of including a DVD containing all or some of the data was discussed although this might prove problematic from a copyright and data protection point of view. Taylor Francis require a camera-ready copy of the book. The positive of this is that we retain full creative control, the negative is that it will be hard work. Janet will circulate the contract for final approval by all.

4. The AHRC Proposal

Peter circulated copies of the letter and reviews received from the AHRC. It was noted that they require an annual letter to report progress. Rachael mentioned it would be worth looking at other funded network grants to see if there were any useful contacts to be made.

5. Timeplan

Although the original timeplan has slipped a bit over the past few months we are still on course. It is important now to get a website up and running. Fraser mentioned that his son had useful experience that could be used in this respect. Peter will think out a website strategy and follow up. A letter inviting participation to the conference also needs to be sent out to interested researchers. This should detail roughtly what will be involved and the amount of effort required.

We again discussed the reviewing procedure agreeing that, having received the data, research groups would have a short period of time (2-4 weeks) to respond in the form of an abstract detailing what they planned to do. This abstract would be reviewed. We would then allow 3 months for further research and submission. The final paper would not be reviewed. It is also important to point out that presentation at the conference will not necessarily result in inclusion in the book.

The abstract should contain: An outline of the intended research, a rough idea about what sections of the data would be used (cross referencing the data was discussed in terms of meeting number and hour number, so 2.1 would be the first hour of meeting 2), a track record of publications indicating how past research would be carried on with the data.

An up-to-date list of invitees who have expressed an interest in participating will be kept on the website to allow others to see who will be involved.

6. The Event

The event will be self-funded and include the price of the book. Preprints will be produced as cheaply as possible to provide a working document for the conference. The event will take place at Central St Martins in London who will not charge for the space used. The exact venue is yet to be determined. All expresssed a desire to keep the conference organisation as simple as possible. A list of hotels will be provided and the conference dinner will be at a London restaurant. Peter pointed out that payment can be done simply using the PayPal system.

7. Data Collection

Peter has almost completed the transcription of the pilot data which currently stands at 60 pages for a two and a half hour meeting. Given that one of the stated objectives of the project is to produce 9 meetings worth of data this could lead to a huge amount of data which might defeat the overall point of the conference to focus on common data. The review process discussed in item 5 would alleviate this somewhat, and would allow some direction from the conference organisers, but producing too much data does remain a concern. The possibilty of selecting only one meeting from the three filmed in each company might be an option to reduce data.

The idea that the main output of the project is a book, and that the conference is really a staging post on the way to producing the book, was also talked about. In this sense the conference is an opportunity to discuss, criticise, and find commonalities with other conference papers before submitting a final piece for the book. The conference, then, is a means to an end, not an end in itself.


Actions Arising

Rachael: Keep in contact with Civic

Peter: Circulate electronic copies of Invitation to Participate, Information Sheet about the Project, Consent Form, and filming set-up.

Fraser: Talk to Phil Culverhouse regarding contacting an engineering design organisation.

Janet: Follow up on CSM Kings Cross development

Janet: Circulate the Taylor Francis contract

Peter: Contact organisations via the RSA

Peter: Work out a website strategy

Peter: Maintain contact with MK architects

Janet: Circulate list of invitees

Peter: Re-confirm with Mangold their input into the project

Notes from Meeting at Reading University 24th March

Present: Peter, Rachael, Janet
Apologies: Fraser

Ethical Consent and Grant Application

Peter received ethical consent forms from Rachael and also had to go through Open University ethical clearance for human participants in submitting the DTRS grant proposal to the AHRC. The grant application has now been submitted for a start date of 3rd July. Letters of recommendation from the project partners were overlooked and now need to be submitted. Janet and Rachael both gave a letter, Fraser's is yet to materialise.

Plan B

Peter suggested that we might think of a plan B in case of not being able to secure a dataset for distribution - possibly in the form of a mini-symposium before the conference.

Milton Keynes Data

Following the previous meeting Peter had filmed a further meeting with the Milton Keynes architects which focussed on the design of a new crematorium. Peter had transcribed and distributed this data on DVD for discussion. Janet and Rachael were positive about the usefulness of the data and looked forward to further data from the project. Peter will meet with MK architects to discuss how this might take place. Janet and Rachael cautioned against interfering with the process too much (for example carrying out interviews before meetings).

In the afternoon we had an extended discussion about the film and transcription. There were many interesting angles to follow (as expected. Rachael commented that the transcription, although reasonably accurate, had not gone as far as transcribing overlapping words so missing things like the affirmation ('yes', 'yes') that went on when someone was talking about an idea.

Other Sources of Data

At the previous meeting Peter had suggested having a list of all possible companies to approach but all agreed that this would probably be too time consuming. Peter commented that, in the light of the MK data, that there was a real possibility of providing too much data, leading to an unfocussed symposium discussion. All agreed to follow up obvious contacts.

Book

Janet has been in touch with Taylor and Francis and has an outline agreement to produce 100 hardback copies of 300 pages at a price of £35. Subsequent copies will sell for £55. Any sales after the first 100 will receive a royalty of 5%. Janet showed a copy of a recent book by Taylor and Francis imprint the Sponpress titled 'Architecture and Participation' which seemed to be pretty close to the idea we had about the book. The nice thing was a soft cover and this is entirely due to the volume the publisher expect to sell. The two column layout, with references at the side of the text was also thought useful for the DTRS book. Janet will liase further.

Pre-prints

Janet showed a hardbound conference proceedings produced cheaply by Greenwich University and suggested something similar for DTRS. Peter commented that he liked 'rough and ready' proceedings - formatted but loosely bound A4 - that gave the impression of a work in progress.

Website

Peter thought that it might be good to start on the website with outline details of the symposium. He will think of some concepts for the next meeting.

Date of Next Meeting

Depending on Fraser's preference 19 / 20 / 21 June.


Actions Arising:

Fraser: write and send letter of recommendation

Peter: follow up MK crematorium project

All: follow up obvious contacts for design organisations

Janet: negotiate a soft cover!

Peter: Start on the website design

Notes from Meeting at Reading University 13th January

Present: Peter, Janet, Rachael, Fraser

Reviewing Video of the Pilot Study

The meeting started by looking the film that Peter had collected the day before. The general feeling was that this was very good quality film, and the four cameras gave a very good sense of what was going on. The audio quality wad disappointing and it was agreed that a separate audio tape would need to be collected in order to transcribe the discussion. With a transcription it was felt that audio quality wasn't quite such a key issue (although that does depend on the transcription being relatively complete).

The issue of permission, ethics, and confidentiality was discussed. This project is unique in that the data will be distributed widely and so there can be no promise of it never being shown externally. Participants need to be aware of how the data will be used, and should sign a release form indicating both that they understand the nature of the research project and that they give permission to be filmed. There are a number of clearances that need to be obtained. Clearance from the respective university ethics committees, clearance from the collaborating organisation / project, and clearance from the individuals concerned. Rachael has already encountered these problems to some extent and will forward information and sample material. Rachael also reminded us to re-read the opening chapter of the original Delft Protocols workshop to get a feel for the type of decisions that were made for selecting data.

Response to the Book Proposal

Janet had received a positive reaction from Taylor Francis about the publication of the book. T&F sent the figures that would make the book economically viable for them. They would require us to purchase 100 copies of any book. The cost of a 300 page book with a two colour hard cover would work out at £35. All agreed that this was a good price. Peter remarked that T&F seemed to be treating the book as a conference proceedings - basically charging us to produce the book. He would like to see more commitment from the publisher (possibly in the form of royalties) and to explain to them that this book, though based on a conference, will definitely *not* be a conference proceedings. Janet will liase further with the Taylor & Francis.

Project Proposal

After the protracted process of obtaining full economic costs Peter has still not sent the proposal to the AHRB. It is now near its final form and a draft was circulated for final comments which were given. The timetable has been squeezed a bit, but still looks realistic. The costs will not stretch to cover an administrative assistant, so activities like web development, DVD production, and transcription have been allocated to 'Other Costs'.

Administrative Assistant

Peter has spoken to Judith Jansch who was recommended by Petra Badke-Shaub and is currently completing a PhD in behavioural science at Darmstadt University. Having read about the project she is interested in coming over to London for a few months this Spring/Summer to help out with the conference organisation. There was a brief discussion about what she could do but All agreed this was a good idea. Peter will contact Judith again and ask her to come over to London to discuss possibilities.

Letters

The next few months are crucial to the project with various parties needing to be approached (prospective participants in the research and prospective participants for the conference). To help this proposal it will be helpful to have the outline text of letters to send. Draft texts of letters will be discussed at the next meeting in March.

Date of Next Meeting

24th March at Reading University


Actions arising:

Rachael: Forward confidentiality and permission forms to all

Janet: Liase with Taylor and Francis about the book

Peter: Complete project proposal and send in to AHRB

Peter: Contact Judith Jansch re: coming to London this Spring / Summer

All: Make a list of contacts and organizations for potential collaboration and send to Peter. Peter will maintain a central list.

All: Search for participants.

?: Outline text of a letter for potential collaborating organisations

?: Outline text of a letter for potential collaborating researchers

First Filming of Architects

12th January. After following the Hazely school project over the course of a few meetings I was finally allowed to film a meeting in progress. The cameras we had ordered had arrived 10 days before, hard disk recording JVC Everio cameras, so this was the first opportunity to test the cameras in situ.

The meeting was to discuss how the Phase 2 development of the school could get a 'good' assessment by fulfilling a certain number of criteria laid down by BREEAM (not too sure what the acronym means). This involved basically going through a checklist to work out what was already included in the plan, what could be included relatively easily, and what wasn't included. The consultant with the checklist, guidelines and spreadsheet was a guy called Daniel Lash from Exeter University. With the two architects, the external consultant, mechanical services representative, electrical services representative, and accounting person the meeting was larger than I'd expected with six people, but proved useful all the same.

The room was a purpose-designed meeting room about 10 metres by 4 metres. It was largely wood panelled but had plenty of glass around to position the cameras with suckers. I basically put a camera high in each corner of the room and zoomed one camera so we had a view of what was on the table. It took me about 20 minutes to set everything up and get the cameras recording. The Cameras ended up being quite a long way away from the table - good for the lack of intrusion, but not so good for audio quality.

With the cameras recording, the meeting basically went ahead as normal. There were some comments about people giving permission for being filmed, but no major protest. Initially I think people were aware of the cameras, but after a while most seemed to relax. After I'd stopped the cameras the general feeling was that they hadn't really noticed after the first 10 minutes.

These were the thoughts that occurred to me as I was sitting observing the meeting (at the end of the table, slightly removed from the 'action').
• All meeting participants should sign a permission form before the meeting takes place (for ethical reasons, for possible legal reasons, and for good research practice).
• Get people to take their shoes off to make them feel more comfortable?
• Cushions to protect the cameras in case they come unstuck (one did, but luckily survived the tumble)
• Show the tape counter on screen for playback and synchronisation purposes
• Get still images or copies of all documents discussed or present. This might be difficult as people have personal notebooks, and there was a computer with documents on. How important is it to get every peice of documentation as opposed to having a general feeling for where the focus of attention is at any one point.
• Should I be in the room or not? It seemed to me that I was a constant reminder of the filming taking place. So even if people had forgotten about the cameras, one look at me meant that they were suddenly reminded. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean people are keeping a check on what they are saying. If I wasn't there 'forgetting' the cameras might mean that the discussion might be a bit freer, but by the same token are we taking advantage of people's 'forgetting'?

Back at the office I transferred the film onto my computer which took about 10 minutes per camera. (At the highest quality setting the camera uses about 4GB per hour of filming.) The basic quality was good. It is possible to make out the drawings, and see roughly what is being attended to. The four separate camera angles also give a very complete picture of the meeting.

In terms of the meeting content, it wasn't as boring as I'd expected. Without a transcription it is difficult to say but there was plenty of interest for analysis.

Pilot number 1: The First Design Meeting

Today I attended a design meeting with Milton Keynes Design and Development at a place called Hazely School. This is a new school in Milton Keynes. Phase 1 is completed, with the teachers and kids moving in from Septemberr, but Phase 2 and phase 3 are yet to be built. So although the school feels brand new, it also feels unfinished. Some bits open, some bits closed off. Anyway it's a nice modern, spacious school, with a great view of the city from the roof.

The meeting was to decide, given the the experiences of phase 1, how best to go forward with phases 2 and 3. There were 11 people at the meeting, five from the council architect offices, three from the school (including the head and deputy head) and three from the local education authority. It took place in a small temporary music classroom around an oval table.

The architects had arrived at a number of options in a morning meeting, but didn't want to discuss these as they were all too expensive. Instead the focus of the meeting was on "priority setting". There were familiar discussions. The school felt the corridors had too many nooks and cranies for the kids to hide in. 'Policing' was mentioned quite often. CCTV was mentioned, but the school didn't want it to "feel like a prison". The narrow corridors had caused circulation problems so the corridors needed to be wider in the phase 2 development. This in turn would be more space, which would be more cost, which would have to be taken off elsewhere. A quick calculation of the extra width was £350,000. Another problem was the lack of space for the children to go when it was raining and it was thought an 'atrium' solution for the new corridor would be useful, the corridor opening up into a 'funnel' shape. Another solution proposed were outside 'tensile structures' which were cheap. Locker space was also an issue, on the one hand almost every student should have a locker, but at the same time the lockers shouldn't encrouch on existing space.

So the meeting lasted about an hour and a half discussing these kinds of mainly practical things. I was struck by the different languages being spoken. The langauge of the here and now, of practical problems and niggly issues. And the langauge of phase 2 and phase 3, of how the future could fit in with the present. And lurking in the background are the cost implications, the 'spending profiles' of the education authority.

After the meeting the architects showed me around the school, and in many ways the meeting continued. The architects didn't like the colours that the deputy head had chosen (a pale 'hospital' green). The contractors for phase 1 had not done a good job and would not be doing phases 2 and 3.

I wondered how much there was to analyse in the meeting itself, but now I'm writing these notes, I realise there was quite a bit. There were also absences, there was not much reference to other buildings or other schools. And there wasn't much uncritical consideration of possibilities. I thought that words like 'funnel' or 'atrium' might be explored a bit but they weren't. There was very much an if..then structure to the discussion; 'if you do that, then this will happen'. But schools are a good topic for the layresearcher. There wasn't too much jargon, and the issues discussed, being mainly practical, were done so in a very straightforward language.

The room would have been difficult to film in. We walked into the room with half the people already there, so there would have been no setting up time. There was hardly any space around the backs of chairs, and the ceiling was quite low. So mounting cameras might have been difficult. But four cameras would have captured a fair proportion of the meeting. And without a lot of questioning I came away with a pretty good understanding of the individuals involved. There was generally one person speaking at a time, and only a couple of times did a simultaneous conversations break out, but I had the feeling that the formality of 11 people meant that the discussion didn't flow as easily as it could have. 11 people was really too many. Our agreed limit of 7 would have been fine.

Most people had their own notebooks with them, with no computers in sight. The architects had drawings rolled up, and distributed a rough sketch of an outline solution. Everyone stayed seated throughout. And there was lovely carrot cake!

Sponsorship

For those that don't know, Mangold Interact is a powerful video analysis package that allows you to code and analyse your data (for an overview see http://www.mangold.de/english/). It is ideally suited to looking at Design protocols. For this reason I asked the head of the company - Pascal Mangold - whether he'd be interested in sponsoring DTRS7 and I got an extremely enthusiastic reply:

"This sounds wonderful!!

"Especially because yesterday we had a big meeting about our own conference which is about "Methods in behavioral research". I came up with this idea 2 years ago because we - as vendor of systems for behavioral research - see lots of people "re-inventing the wheel" again and again because they don't know that others already have worked out good methods for this and that. The idea of this conference is mainly to provide 'interdisciplinary knowledge about methods in behavioral research'.

"If I understood your intention correctly, your conference fits ideally (in a certain angle) into our ideas.

"That's why I would be happy to sponsor the technical basis for this contest! Thus everyone would be able to start at the same level and the data would be easily comparable. This is highly exciting... and I'm very curious about the outcome!"

I asked if he'd give a discount or a free trial period for participants to DTRS7 who don't (yet) have the software, and also if he'd like to give a talk or workshop on using the software / analysing the data at the symposium itself. I didn't get a concrete reply here but will follow this up.

I think by giving the option of using similar software for analysis the discussion could be even more focussed at the event.