Here's an excerpt of the feedback we've received.
1) The attendees love Øredev!
And if you want to see some of the praise, just do a search on twittter:
We want to get better though, so we asked them:
2. "What did you NOT like about the sessions?"
Here are the scores, and a lot of comments below.
Choices were: Bad presenter, Live coding failure, Tech failure, Topic did not match description. Too high-level - not deep enough, Too low-level
- Almost all presenters have talks that they prepare for use at lots of conferences. These presentations are usually about an hour long. Some times it made the presentation feel rushed, when the presenter was forced to cut it down to 40 minutes.
- Was to few technical. Many soft, and many microservice. But none/few "code-oriented"
- Some presenters are both nervous and less skilled in english, makes it difficult to follow.
- I went to a few sessions that were the real life incarnation of a clickbait.
- Some sessions seemed more about plugging a product than sharing knowledge. Like the IBM Bluemix or that architecture documentation tool. Those talks were initially interesting, then took a dive towards, ""one way of looking at that problem is this. And if you do that, then my product is Awesome, let me show you"" Some presenters were not comfortable presenting in English and got stressed, but that's a learning experience. Maybe pairing them up with someone more experienced is a good idea?
- Sometimes 40 minutes is just not enough to go deep.
- One of the presenters was not good
- Some presenters have never been on stage before. That was my feeling. Why go to Öredev without practice?
- presenters was good. too crouded
- Too much political bullshit. Im not here to beome an activist, just a better developer.
- Too many sessions in the spirit of "use my tool/librarya, it's easy, look!"
- Some descriptions didn't match what was presented. It only affected me once but a number of acquaintances had to leave some sessions since they contained nothing of interest for them
- Most sessions where good. Some was not very well structured or didn't really have a focused area and goal with the presentation.
- There was very little resemblance between what was written in the descriptions and what the actually sessions was about, both concerning content and level. Some lectures claimed they would give out some concrete and practical tips but ended up just mutter fuzzy clichés for an hour. It was a very bad idea to have to almost similar sessions, like the ones about Firebase. We who attended both found that about 85% of the second was a repetition of the first. The lecturer realized this and tried to make a compromise between targeting new listeners and the ones who had attended the first. It ended up to be just stressed and bad. It's actually not a bad idea to have several sessions that build on each other. In that case, though, it should be very clear in the schedule.
- I had a single session that I found to be too high level.
- The Expressen speaker was good, but ended up talking more about testing than their migration to microservices.
- Very little new knowledge beyond the everyday basics. Title and description gave another impression. Just one session, though. Overall, high quality.
- Most sessions I attended was not deep enough or was too broad. I like more depth and sessions that get concrete and address specific problems. The talk "Back to Basics: Efficient Async and Await" was a good example of this. The quality of speakers was about fifty fifty in my opinion but I had higher expectations. Too many talks on micro services, and especially too many general talks on micro services without attacking specific areas.
- I expected the high-level talks to also go into relevant details on the topic, which many didn't, but some did. The one's that didn't are IMO better consumed as blog posts than as conference talks. Some of the presenters could maybe ask themselves "How do I make my talk contribute more than or different from a blog post? Why should my audience come listen to me instead of googling the topic?"
- Was only one presentation that I attended that didn't match description, elastic search
- Unfortunately the last key note did not give the boosting feeling I like when leaving a dev conference. Interesting topic though...
- Nothing to complain about. My sessions were good.
- The quality of both content and speaker was very different from session to session. A good speaker with good content could use the short time and still get a good session, but the sessions overall were very lacking in quality.
- For example, too many high-level sessions about microservices. One had been enough and then the rest could be more into details.
- It was a big difference between sessions with a native speaking english person to a non-native.Easier to understand their message.
- 40 minutes are a little bit too short to get into a subject. In the cases where there were a series of sessions like the ones by Mark Heckler I felt it was possible to dive deeper into the subject (microservices)
- Often too high level in the sessions. Is it a must to limit sessions to 40 min? Mix in longer sessions, or have a chain with 40 min sessions that interlinks with each other.
- There were really no "Bad presenters" but a couple seemed to have too little time and still tried to fit two hours into 40 minutes. Also some seemed to think that they had a full hour and not just the 40 minutes which caused people to either miss the end of the session or be late for the next one.
- Perhaps there should be a grading of the talks. Expert, intermediate, beginner.
- Some of the sessions could have been quicker to go deeper into the material
- And he wasn't out of time at all. Mostly the presenter's fault.
- Many were too technology specific. Many were also all theory and no practice.
- Most presenters were great
- Presentations dependent on wireless network connections will never work in a conference room with hundreds of wlan enabled phones etc.
- Next room speaker where disturbing
- Too much of: micro services, Kotlin
- I am not particularly interested in HTTP2 or CDNs but after attending sessions on these topics by Hooman Beheshti, I was genuinely intrigued. Because he was SO enthusiastic, knowledgable... simply great. So I suppose for me, it's much more about the presenter than the topic.
- Would have liked to have more deep dive sessions, maybe also longer than 40 mins
- I have to put something. Generally not a problem.
- I would like to see some sessions that are more advanced
- In general I think the topics were too low level. I would prefer less introductions and more in-depth presentations.
- I think that sometimes the descriptions are a bit vague. If it gave more information about what will be presented. Is it based on a book, what book, is it based on life experiences? Will it list good/bad about the technology? Will it also go through some solutions to the bad issues found? Will there be live coding?
- Generally higher quality of the sessions. Maybe 40 min is to short for a Deep-dive.
- I just started with IT security - and still the sessions still felt very "basic"
- I honestly did not attend one single bad session. A couple of presenters seemed a bit nervous, but they made it up with interesting topics and well prepared presentations.
- Most sessions were excellent. As always some time slots had many interesting subjects, while others had none.
- For me its important that the presenter gets me inspired about the topic. I want to feel ""I have to try this out as soon as i come to my room !!"" and not ""Ok, but why should i use this ??""
- I had a single presentation where the presenter was very nervous and completed his session within 20 minutes or so. The topic for the session was way too narrow to have lasted longer, so that was a bit disappointing
- The scedule was not good , no pause at lunchtime and a awkward pause around 15.00, the dinner was very late
- Unfortunately I found that several sessions didn't quite live up to my expectations. Would it somehow be possible to prohibit speakers from talking about themselves and other unrelated things? Make everyone get to the point asap, no fluff!
- Facilities: too weak sound isolation between rooms, and crazy bright light from the construction lamps above our heads! More ambient lighting next year please.
- A presenter I know can be good, but the style was ver much "I've done this presentation hundreds of times, so I will do it one more.
- Too much hype. Many sessions were very shallow introductions.
- I would like to see more demos. Ideas and thoughts are nice, but they should be shown when applied in practice. A radical idea for how to manage a team? Show how that was implemented and the results. Advice against a certain way of implementing something? show why that is bad, and how the improvement differs.
- This is just for one session, the other ones was great!
- Some presentations did not really match my expectation
- Some of the code-based talks were harder to gain from because the lack of context and overload of details made them difficult to appreciate.
- I know contradicting answers but it is important that I know from the description what level the session is. I think the descriptions can improve here. When I want to explore new areas I want them high-level of course. And when I participate in sessions on subjects I work with I want them deeper. But it needs to be clear in the description.
- First presenter never appeared. Very bad start. More coding/testing sessions.
- Unprepared (?) speaker with new material. Talked way too fast, and forgot the topic of the talk.
- I'll call it bad presenter - there are a couple of times when the person shows too much ""how to"" (which I can read up on myself later) and not enough ""what"" (i.e. why I should care about this code). Or just too much discussion of technical nuances without what benefit it would bring. I have to say I only saw maybe two such presenters this year - an improvement on earlier and other conferences.
- I went to 4 presentations where the talk was either a lot more high-level than I thought or where I had completely misinterpreted the talk description.
- Sometimes it was not possible to get to the sessions in time. Especially if you would like to have a lunch. Perhaps the bigger pause between the sessions (the one in the afternoon) should be moved to one of the time the lunch is served.
- Some sessions tried to cover too much in too little time, would be better to focus on one or two specific items and drill deeper, instead of trying to cover it all.
- Some session descriptions are formulated like clickbait, so people attend the session. However, it was difficult to actually understand what a few sessions were about.
- Some descriptions of the talks were funny but not informative. 50% of the talks were not suited for me :)
- Fancy/Funny descriptions in all its glory, but please add some actual info regarding the session to all descriptions. Could be as easy as tags (languages, areas, difficulty level).
- I liked most sessions I joined, but sometimes you really needed to read all the descrption to understand what tec that would be used, like UX was made in WIN10 or similar
- Some of the sessions were pretty interesting but some of them did not really meet my expectations. There was one where the description gave me the idea that it would go very deep into a specific topic, but then turned out to be a brag session where the presenter simply told us about his achievements and how much money he earned.
- More depth needed
- THere was a wide difference. And some topics was just to big to fit. others didnt go Deep enough.
- Quality of presentations was extremely scattershot. Some where excellent, others incredibly inexperienced or just plain dull
- An example of topic that did not match the title was Deep dive into diagnostics. The session was not really a deep dive which was expected hence the title.
- I didn't see any clear connection between the key notes and the other sessions. It didn't bother me but I think it could give an even better experience of the conference.
- Many similar courses at the same time, made it difficult to choose.
- Was really good over-all but there was some talks with the presenter not being very enthustiastic and/or simply reading from the same slides as we were shown
- Some of the sessions i was interested in were completly overcrowded so i had to skip them. Others felt like the title of the presentation did not match what the talk was about at all.
- To simple. More like tutorials:-(
- Not enough technical depth, glossy. Some had feel of marketing presentation instead. American election comments. If a presentation shows a negative pattern it would be nice to see an equivalent examplarale of solution instead of something that isn't covering the same bases as the discarded; examples being simplistic (because constraints) but doesn't cover same complexity as actual use cases in possible live environments.