I have recently attended a number of information security presentations. I honestly admire a presenter’s willingness to state a position in a public construct, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the position or contents of the presentation. I will be honest… I have seen good presentations (watch Johnny Long’s Hackers for Charity Update at Derbycon for an example), and I have seen total train wrecks. At the end of each of them, the initial reaction is the same: applause from the audience. What does the applause signify in the mind of the presenter? Chances are, the gut response is that the presenter thought he or she did very well. But is that the right message we, as presenters, are really receiving? Applause is good, booing is bad. Is there a distortion, or cognitive dissonance between the intrinsic feelings and the extrinsic response?

Coming off of Hack3rcon II, a question was posed to a mailing list about the presentations at the conference. I found the wording of the question to be a little awkward, as the person stated that “all presentations are equal, but which ones are more equal?” I interpreted that wording as a socially awkward way of asking the question, “which ones are worth his time”, and implicitly, “which ones sucked out loud?” In my view, I clearly thought there was a distinction, and shared my opinion. I was not trying to throw anyone under the bus; at the same time, I did not want to tiptoe around the feelings. The feedback I gave was not based on emotion. Now, at what point does the presenter get to hear that candid feedback? What are the chances that somebody like Grecs would be reading my response, absorb my feedback, and make a conscious decision to gear his presentation more towards a technical, information security audience?

I am not suggesting that we should be booing people off of the stage or throwing tomatoes if the presentation misses the mark. What I am suggesting is that—as presenters—we should be seeking candid and honest feedback from the audience members. We spend countless hours searching for that perfect cat picture and constructing our presentations for maximum effect. Maybe the key to improving presentations at an individual and societal level is to open that feedback loop in a non-threatening or demeaning way.

I propose some simplistic steps to improve the quality of presentations:
• Conference Organizers should provide feedback mechanisms for attendees. A brief, yet useful survey during the transitions between presenters could provide a wealth of feedback. This could be as low-tech as index cards, or as simple as an online survey accessible by electronic gadgets.

• Presenters should stick around after the presentation and actively seek feedback. In all likelihood, if a presenter asks an attendee a closed question, such as “how did you like the presentation”, the answer will be skewed on politeness. However, if you ask open questions, such as what would the attendee change about the presentation, there is a far greater chance for useful feedback.

• Attendees need to vocalize their disappointment in a tactful manner. Like I said above, this is not the time to throw tomatoes. The presenter did the best he or she could; if constructive criticism is not provided, there is a very good chance that you may come across the exact same presentation at the next conference.

What do you think? Hit me up at @K0nsp1racy.