In the past, the only ways we have gathered feedback from WordCamp attendees about a speaker session was to use a survey/poll or collect feedback at the event via paper forms.
There are a few problems with these approaches:
- Surveys are sent out after the event and therefore don’t usually have good response rates.
- The more time that has passed since an attendee has seen a session, the less detail they might remember, which makes the feedback less precise.
- The default survey does not collect very much detail about session content and presentation delivery.
- Feedback shared in hard copy isn’t easy to share with speakers (so they can grow their skills) or track (so the organizers can compare year to year).
This is a proposal that we build a special speaker-feedback tool to collect attendee feedback that solves those problems.
Goals of the tool:
- Collect feedback for individual sessions during the event.
- Provide easy access to feedback to the WordCamp organizers and speakers.
Where could it live?
- The feedback tool could be accessed at an easy-to-remember URL, like <year.cityname.wordcamp.org/feedback>
- The schedule page could have a ‘Feedback’ button on each displayed session.
Possible requirements worth some discussion:
- Because anonymous feedback is more likely to include abuse, should the feedback tool require users to be logged in?
- Should there be an automated way to report abuse to the Community Team?
- Would it be helpful for organizers to be able to edit the text-based feedback, so as to remove abuse, slang terms, confusing content, and/or to correct spellings before sharing with speakers?
- Should there be a way for the feedback to be made public, and if so, should it show up anywhere other than in the comments on each individual Session?
- Should there be a way to export the feedback, and should feedback be included in a requested privacy export?
Feedback Formats
Feedback could be given in a few different ways – either on their own or as a combination:
Emojis
- Pros: Simple, standardized way of showing how an attendee felt about a talk. Encourages positive feedback.
- Cons: Could come at the expense if useful critical feedback.
Ratings
- Pros: Can be provided quickly. Usually allows for more accurate sentiment toward speaker sessions.
- Cons: Can be easily skewed either way. Lower ratings without proper feedback are not very useful.
Free text
- Pros: Would encourage attendees to be more thoughtful. Should provide more actionable feedback for speakers.
- Cons: Some attendees will not be willing to provide more lengthy feedback, or they may take a longer time to submit it.
Mockups
Here are some very early speculative mockups thanks to @karmatosed
Version One
Version Two
Possible Future Additions
- Feedback content could be added as “testimonials” for sessions
- Allow speakers to add feedback to their WordPress.org profiles
- Add feedback to WordPress.tv sessions
- Recommend other talks to attend (or watch on WordPress.tv) after giving feedback
Questions and Feedback
- What formats of feedback should we provide (emojis, ratings, text, etc.)?
- Do we encourage only positive feedback?
- Should responders be logged into WordPress.org in order to leave feedback?