Yes, I would have liked to have quizzed people in the audience on the Wall. I thought it was pretty well managed though – it wasn’t up all the time. Agree it is also distracting. Definitely not an integrated experience but I think that’s the shift – away from 100% attention on the speaker for some people, some of the time.

And yes, non-attendees get a very good sense of involvement from this format; completely agree and I think that’s a real strength of the format. I followed Sydney for most of the day online. The Wall works better when you can see the speaker and the stream concurrently, which you can do online too. It’s just a bit less demanding on the concentration when you’re there live.

Questions from the stream are often better than questions from the floor (as highlighted by Richard) but organisers recognise that attendees have paid money and feel entitled to their personal experience. That’s an interesting conflict.

‘Hi Mum’ is the perfect description.

The Twitter Wall is interesting – it does democratise the conference, giving tweeps as much of a say as the speakers, and yes, it was amusing at times to see Andrew Pascoe have his flappability tested — but just as it was distracting for the speakers, there were many in the audience who found themselves drawn to the wall instead of the speaker.

I feel they are two different experiences that are not yet properly integrated.

And when you say “price worth paying”, I think that as far as the benefit of the Wall, many people could have (and probably did) get a lot out of the conference without even being there.

Earlier in the day, I found it useful when they had favourited (?) specific questions from the #media140 stream, allowing the chair to direct enquiries appropriately. This was far less distracting than the tweep equivalent of jumping in front of the camera and saying ‘Hi Mum’.

On the other hand, @richardgiles’ heckling of the audience was gold.

Keep thinking and publishing…