Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmckeon | Hacker News Reader

Pet peeve: During Q&A, the presenter should repeat the question. Even if the asker has a microphone, they are often not clearly audible. Repeating the question, or a brief version of it, lets the audiences, both present and via video, hear it clearly, and shows that the presenter heard and understood it before they answer it.

View on HN

Hard agree. The OP is full of good advice, but this is the single most actionable thing I could say about tech talks. Maybe 10% of presenters do this; everyone should.

Another advantage is that the speaker doesn't always get the question. Either can't hear it well, or the question itself is weird, complex, off-topic, or some variation on not-even-wrong. So they end up answering something else. If they repeat/summarize the question first, at least they're answering a question, and when this happens, the question which gets answered is often better than the one which was asked.

It's also useful if the person asking the question has a very thick accent or is not proficient speaking English.

It happened so many times that I had no clue what someone asked, and the presenter repeats the question with their own words, usually much more clearly communicating the question that was asked.

Hot Take: there should be no Q&A. Best-case scenario, the questioner uncovers some omission that the speaker tweets out later. Average-case is irrelevant questions or some super-specific case that makes the speaker question if they can bill consulting hours to the questioner. Worst-case is giving a self-aggrandizing questioner a microphone to attempt to upstage the speaker. None of these are a benefit to the audience except in the first (uncommon) case.

Just go find the speaker later and ask questions if you have them.

Or if you must, just don't broadcast the Q&A section.

Hard disagree, the point of the talk is the Q&A, otherwise I can just watch it on YouTube. I design my talks so the rehearsed content is only the preamble. The rest of the time is spent in discussion. For an allocated amount of time, I create a talk that is 1/3rd the time and then supplemental material that can fill another 1/2 if the crowd can’t be warmed up.

But there’s an art to Q&A that’s as hard as public speaking but practiced by 1/10th the people. A simple hand vote is the most basic tool. After a Q, I’ll summarize it and ask how many people face this problem? Etc. why get an audience of people in a room if you don’t use them?

My comment reflected the typical, unmanaged conference Q&A where every question has an equal platform, regardless of merit. If there is a way for the audience to upvote questions that are actually good (yes, bad questions exist) as you mention with your hand vote, then it becomes worthwhile again.

I don't expect anything from the conference organizers apart from what's typically given. My point is, I despise presentations that could have been a Youtube, if you're going to give a presentation, make the experience unique to the people in the room, view the prepared sections as just enough to kickstart your intended impromptu part. This is a skill in and of itself and you just need to practice it to get better but most people aren't aware/don't try and I view it as a massive missed opportunity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com