I think it would be great to have an indication on the schedule of what technical level the sessions are going to be, so we don't end up in sessions discussing things we already know, or are too complex for us.
Just a basic 'Non-technical', 'Easy', 'Moderate', 'Hard' would suffice as a general indication.
This makes sense on the surface, but is a general conference like Web Directions even the right place for a session that would be tagged as "Hard"?
What about labels more along the lines of "For Beginners" vs. "For Experienced Practitioners"?
Yeah, good point - it can't really be 'Hard' if it isn't hands-on, really. You get the general idea though.
I like this idea, and think that absolutely there should be "hard" or at least "conceptually advanced" sessions. I always look for sessions "above my head" at conferences - I don't want to hear stuff I already know.
The number of votes this topic is receiving shows that it's definitely something that we need to think about.
I've been reluctant in the past because it can in fact be very difficult to establish detailed information from speakers before the day.
I think this year I will be asking them for concrete feedback on who they think their presentation is for.
The larger problem that happens here though I think is that a lot of sessions are maybe being pitched at a little too introductory a level. This is again something I'll be discouraging at Web Directions this year. People *never* complain that something was too hard for them (especially if it was a well prepared and presented presentation) - if they're interested, instead they will go away and do a bit more work on the area. They *often* complain that something was pitched too low.
I agree that a better indicator of target audience is required. There's a quote from Zeldman (via Cameron Moll's recent blog post) that says "One of our little backstage maxims is: 'Attendees will apologize for not understanding a talk, but will want an apology for a talk that’s too basic.'" and I felt a little bit that way last year after a couple of sessions.
Nothing against the speakers, but I think that having been to WDS a few years now, more sessions on advanced techniques or about how to apply the knowledge we have in new, exciting ways wouldn't go astray.
A very broad labelling system would be good, even just two levels would probably do - normal/hard or light detail/heavy detail. Or even just "normal - no prior knowledge required; and detailed - prior knowledge expected".
I think we should get the speakers to "tag" their topics! (As we do on sites such as Flickr and Delicious). The speakers could include any relevant tags for example: technical, introductory, designers+developers, code, microformats, online-examples, documentation, practical-implementation.
Tags that indicate the not only the angle the topic is taking but also the level of expertise.
This year I will definitely be getting in touch with all the speakers and asking them for their opinion on who their presentation is for. I actually think it will be a question that will help people focus their mind on addressing this.
Additionally, as I have for the last couple of years, I'll be encouraging more high level rather than introductory sessions.
Revise
Vote Up
Vote Down
Close