flGeorg Wrede wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Everyone I talked to who was there didn't like it.
I think there's the *subconscious* notion of "not respecting the
audience by bothering to do a Proper Presentation". And they let it seep
through, instead of pausing to think about the upsides. (The more we
think we're Thinking Individuals, the less we're wary of such
seep-through. I see it all the time with professionals.)
The "presentation software format" is more restrictive than we usually
think. Everything has to be crunched to ridiculous screenfuls, mostly
containing a couple of bullet items. And if you want the audience to
follow the presentation "where you are" you have to do all kinds of
one-at-a-time appearing bullets. It's really pathetic. (And I, at least,
end up spending inordinate time figuring should they fly in from the
left or rignt, or should they "emerge", or whatever.) Instead of simply
scrolling them into view when needed.
Yes, PP &co make for an audience experience, but as the Columbia
disaster taught NASA, it's not really the way to go.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte)
PP is for M$ style sales pitches, not for disseminating serious content.
IMNSHO, of course. (And the less there's bread and butter, the more you
can decorate, having everybody exit, aahing and oohing all the way home.)
And how do you present conveniently a code snippet that exceeds a
screenful? Like, if it's two screens long, do you split it into three
screens, first half, middle part (showing latter half of first screen
and first half of last screen), and second half? Instead of conveniently
being able to scroll it as the discussion goes.
To prove my point, what if a lecturer 20 years ago had began by drawing
a square on the chalkboard, and then only writing bullet items there,
always erasing them before writing more. And leaving the rest of the
chalkboard unused. (The rest of the chalkboard here represents scrolling
back and forth the long document.)
If PP was the superior format, then all web pages would be just a few
bullets and a <goto next page> button at the bottom.
I don't agree. I think there is much more at work here. Slides are
limited in size and text content simply because there is so much
information a person can absorb simultaneously by hearing and seeing. So
the slide with text is simply an anchor, a high-level memento to rest
one's eyes on, while the speaker gives some detail pertaining to the
high-level points that the slide makes.
The slide is not meant to convey complex information with completeness.
There is, for example, no hope in putting complex proofs or formulae on
the slide. Instead, you give the conclusion and e.g. some top-level
formula and point to the paper or whatever for people interested in
details. The typical conference talk is 15-20 minutes regardless of the
fields' complexity. The only hope an author can make is not to explain
everything done, but instead to raise interest in reading the actual paper.
If a code snippet is larger than a screenful, then there is a problem
with the presentation. Most people will tune out if they have to sit
down and understand code while at the same time somebody is talking
their ear off. Good code slides focus on one small but
unusual/interesting/relevant code portion at a time, have the author
explain what's going on, and then move to another portion of the code.
I've been in Walter's HTML-based talks. Yes, my perception was indeed
that the talk was not properly prepared, although I knew it was. I have
no idea why that is, though I can speculate that the scrolling style
leads to looser presentations as the format does not force one to
present ideas crisply, one at a time.
Anyway (and unrelated), IMHO a much worse mistake a speaker might do is
to go over allocated time. I'm sure few mean it that way, but the
perceived message is that they assume what they have to say is important
and interesting enough to trump your and whatever events' schedule. My
slides are mediocre, but I make a point at landing to a tee when it
comes about time.
The second largest mistake (since you mention worrying about
bulletpoints flying, oh boy) is to use effects without reason. It's
distracting, devoid of any message, and so often completely distasteful,
it's a safe bet to avoid them altogether. There is precisely one place
where I saw good (actually great) presentation animation: in SIGGRAPH
presentations. And of course they never use text effects a la Powerpoint!
Andrei
