It was also the first conference I've attended carrying the knowledge, inclination, and technology to live-tweet during the sessions themselves (mainly a line or so after each speaker). I enjoyed this aspect more than I thought I might. Partly an exercise in preserving the data for myself (so that I'd have names, topics, and institutions to look up later) and partly as a way to share my experience with friends and colleagues both in my field or adjoining it. Since starting on twitter I've realized that while many of my museum peers, and colleagues in history of science, have embraced tweeting, art historians (especially early modern scholars) seem to be either less inclined or less encouraged to join twitter and add to the conversation. There are many voices in contemporary art on twitter, whether artists, curators, scholars, or bloggers; but at the point where the Venn diagram of "art history," and "17th century" overlap, there seems to be a bit of a gap. (That said, please recommend accounts to me that I may have overlooked! I would be happy to be wrong on this point.)
Live-tweeting itself was fun, and prompted me to think about what aspects of each presentation I found most compelling and memorable. The positive feedback from fellow attendees was great, and it was something I was able to share with presenters after their talks. Many were surprised, then excited, to hear that even folks outside the room were eager to know more about their material. It's a great sign that there's hunger for more, not less, engagement, whether online or off. (In the same vein, I was also pleased to see a few CAA sessions shared via live webcast- a great idea for future panel proposals.) All told, I hope those conversations encouraged a few more early modern scholars to hop on and join their colleagues in the digital realm!