Rhyme & Reason
Design Like You Care
December 23, 2008
Being a closet design junkie, I happen to think good
design is an essential part of creating anything – a
website, a resumé, wedding invitations, birthday
cakes, presentation slides, etc. The point is that
design matters in visual communication, whether that
communication be iconic, pictorial, typographic, or
any combination of these. Thinking like a designer
helps you be a better communicator in the long run.
Design, however, is not simply taking something
and making it pretty. Good design is not about good
looks. Good looks may result from good design, but
this is not always the case.
Case in point: The Drudge Report is an example of good design that is not pretty. It's a site that is easy to use. It's visually distinctive, and it quickly communicates various messages through an organized clutter. Do I subjectively like the site? No, but I can't deny the design work behind it. Jason at 37signals has a great post about his belief that the Drudge Report is one of the best designed websites around.
Design is about communication. It's about uniqueness. It's about combining form with content. It's about changing how others think, and it's about connecting with others. Most of all, I believe, design is about caring. You care about the content for which you are designing, it shows.
It may be the snowman.
The difference is more visible when you visit a product page. For Dell, the product page is where they sell you stuff. For Apple, it's where they inform you. In fact, Apple's storefront is a separate part of the site.
Dell's product pages are cluttered with text, ads, and tiny product images. An Apple product page, in contrast, is full of large pictures of the product with small blurbs of text that will take you to more information. Dell's site says, "We care about you buying stuff." Apple's site says, "We care about our products." Of course, Apple wants you to buy their products, but their site allows you to get to know the piece of hardware or software you are buying first. This approach demonstrates a care that makes Apple's site stand out.
As if baiting the Mac/PC feud with the last comparison isn't bad enough, now let's look at the campaign pages for Barack Obama and John McCain. (I know I've been blogging about Obama a lot here lately, and I promise I'm almost done.) The Obama campaign site exudes attention to detail, and that same level of attention has been applied to Change.gov.
The team designing the Obama site pays careful attention to color use and font use. The layout is uncluttered, and the design team pulls off the difficult task of utilizing red, white, and blue without seeming patronizingly patriotic. The McCain site follows many of the same principles as the Obama site, but his site never seems to feel a unified whole. Cartoonish icons combined with a dark color scheme with obvious instance of stock photos. To misuse the Arizona senator's own words, it looks like someone phoned this one in.
Elections are about issues in my book, and the Obama team did a great job making it easy to quickly grasp and investigate the candidate's stances. Each issue page starts with a quick overview of Obama's plan in that area, followed by a table-of-contents and a comparison chat between candidates, followed by an extensive overview of Obama's plan, followed by a synopsis of his career record in that area. On the other hand, McCain's issues are presented as plain blocks of text. There's nothing wrong with this, but the care and work that obviously went into Obama's site makes it stand out.
Case in point: The Drudge Report is an example of good design that is not pretty. It's a site that is easy to use. It's visually distinctive, and it quickly communicates various messages through an organized clutter. Do I subjectively like the site? No, but I can't deny the design work behind it. Jason at 37signals has a great post about his belief that the Drudge Report is one of the best designed websites around.
Design is about communication. It's about uniqueness. It's about combining form with content. It's about changing how others think, and it's about connecting with others. Most of all, I believe, design is about caring. You care about the content for which you are designing, it shows.
A Couple Website Comparisons
Compare Apple's website to Dell's. On first glance, the layouts of their main pages are nearly identical. For me, it's hard to quantify exactly what makes Apple's page better. Is it the typeface? Is it the use of simple product categories rather than usage categories? Is it the absence of stock imagery? From my novice background in design, it's hard for me to say, but the Dell site feels more clinical.
It may be the snowman.
The difference is more visible when you visit a product page. For Dell, the product page is where they sell you stuff. For Apple, it's where they inform you. In fact, Apple's storefront is a separate part of the site.
Dell's product pages are cluttered with text, ads, and tiny product images. An Apple product page, in contrast, is full of large pictures of the product with small blurbs of text that will take you to more information. Dell's site says, "We care about you buying stuff." Apple's site says, "We care about our products." Of course, Apple wants you to buy their products, but their site allows you to get to know the piece of hardware or software you are buying first. This approach demonstrates a care that makes Apple's site stand out.
As if baiting the Mac/PC feud with the last comparison isn't bad enough, now let's look at the campaign pages for Barack Obama and John McCain. (I know I've been blogging about Obama a lot here lately, and I promise I'm almost done.) The Obama campaign site exudes attention to detail, and that same level of attention has been applied to Change.gov.
The team designing the Obama site pays careful attention to color use and font use. The layout is uncluttered, and the design team pulls off the difficult task of utilizing red, white, and blue without seeming patronizingly patriotic. The McCain site follows many of the same principles as the Obama site, but his site never seems to feel a unified whole. Cartoonish icons combined with a dark color scheme with obvious instance of stock photos. To misuse the Arizona senator's own words, it looks like someone phoned this one in.
Elections are about issues in my book, and the Obama team did a great job making it easy to quickly grasp and investigate the candidate's stances. Each issue page starts with a quick overview of Obama's plan in that area, followed by a table-of-contents and a comparison chat between candidates, followed by an extensive overview of Obama's plan, followed by a synopsis of his career record in that area. On the other hand, McCain's issues are presented as plain blocks of text. There's nothing wrong with this, but the care and work that obviously went into Obama's site makes it stand out.
The Lesson
I've been rambling about site design for the past several paragraphs, and you might be wondering what this has to do with presentations. Simply put, if you create your presentations around tired templates and merely plug in the requisite facts, you fail to differentiate yourself from the crowd. Adding care is a vital ingredient to standing out from the crowd. If you are speaking in public, talk about your topic like it matters. Design your slides like they matter. Good design is about caring. Caring is about something that matters, and if your talks mean something to you, they'll mean something to your audience.Related Links
What Is Aesthetics?
October 26, 2008
I haven’t forgotten about this site. The problem is
just one of time. Even for the shortest of posts on
Simply Presentation, I put far more thought and
research into my writing here than I do my general
blog (outside a couple of stray political posts of
which I want to make sure my ducks are in a
proverbial row). Lame excuses aside, let’s jump back
in! Last I checked in with all of you, I left you
with this neat video narrated by Paul Rand via Monoscope:
A marriage of form and content. Both slides by Chris Wilson at slideshare from 1. Rapid Change in Design, and 2. The Brand Gap.
Stand on others’ shoulders in your development as a public speaker, and then add something unique and different to the mix. We learn to talk through imitation. Our individual cultures are forms of collective imitation. Don’t be ashamed to imitate as you try to improve or grow as a speaker.
Similar yet unique. Slide 1 by Clint Edmonson from Organizational Politics - A Survival Guide. Slide 2 by Andy Budd from Architecting Human Behaviour 2.0.
“…Done for some ulterior motive…”
About a minute into the video, Mr. Rand discusses a designer’s motivation. Why does he or she do the work? Is it for the money, or is it for the love of the art? Like Philippe Starck discussed, Paul Rand asserts motivation makes a difference. The same is true for our presentations. If we’re preparing slides merely because we think slides should be a given, they won’t be as good as if those slides come from a vision of how to best illustrate our points. The same is true of topics. We will present better when we present that which we are passionate about. Watch some of the videos at TED, for example. You’ll see some truly awkward public speakers deliver some fantastic presentations. The reason comes down to motive.“A work of art is realized when form and content are indistinguishable.”
Mr. Rand speaks of all visual mediums as being forms of art. “It’s all art,” as he puts it. When we are designing slides for a presentations, we have the opportunity to be artists of form and content. A presentation is truly effective when the slides and talk compliment one another naturally, neither overshadowing the other. Without content, good slides are nothing but pretty pictures. (However, you do not necessarily need words to have content.) Without form, slides become bland and repetitive. The marriage of form and content make for the best presentations.
A marriage of form and content. Both slides by Chris Wilson at slideshare from 1. Rapid Change in Design, and 2. The Brand Gap.
“Everybody has a definition which doesn’t correspond to yours.”
Paul Rand acknowledges that we all see different things when it comes to art and design. What speaks to me may not speak to you and vice versa. This point is abundantly clear when my wife and I go to our local art museum. There are exhibits there that I could look at all day while she wants to move onto other things, and the same is true in reverse. This principle applies to presentation format and design. What works for me as a presenter may not work for you. I’ve encountered numerous presentation methods, and not all work for me. Find what works for you, and run with it.“Don’t try to be original. Just try to be good.”
Paul Rands encourages us to borrow from others in our pursuit of quality, and this is how he defines aesthetics – doing things with quality. I noted that I’ve encountered many different approaches to presenting: the Godin Method, the 10-20-30 Rule, Presentation Zen, the Lessig Method, the Jobs Method, etc. Also, I’ve borrowed from all of these techniques at different times, often combining philosophies. What you read on my blog here is not completely original to me. I merely gather information that I judge is good, useful, and/or inspirational, and I pass it on to you. T.S. Eliot says:Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
Stand on others’ shoulders in your development as a public speaker, and then add something unique and different to the mix. We learn to talk through imitation. Our individual cultures are forms of collective imitation. Don’t be ashamed to imitate as you try to improve or grow as a speaker.
Similar yet unique. Slide 1 by Clint Edmonson from Organizational Politics - A Survival Guide. Slide 2 by Andy Budd from Architecting Human Behaviour 2.0.
Wrapping Up
These are only a few of the takeaway points from this short video, and I recommend you watch it at least a couple of times to pick up on the things you may have missed the first time around. In future posts, I plan on revisiting the elements of design Paul Rand discusses and how we can apply these to our slides. Until then, allow some of your childhood creativity to find an outlet, and really try to design your next set of slides.The Culture To Our Clutter
July 16, 2008
While revising my Simply Presentation material for a
week-long workshop, I began investigating PowerPoint culture a little
deeper to discover the psychology behind
typical, cluttered slide design. In doing so, it
was hard to avoid the sheer amount of media and
marketing that involves clutter, as if white
space is wasted space. It's more than just
templates and poor examples that lead to
cluttered slides. An entire culture of clutter
informs our design decisions.
We are bombarded with visual information wherever we look. Billboards, television programs (especially news programs), product packaging, websites, newspapers – all of these cram every available inch with information and distractions. The shot of New York City above shows numerous advertisements screaming for attention, but these do not so much gain that attention as they strengthen our mental filters. We tune this kind of clutter out.
Instead of approaching things from a different angle, however, marketing designers have instead upped the ante. The signs get brighter, more colorful, more animated, flashier. Likewise, product packaging gets more bullet points, more bright colors, and more stickers to help it stand out. On his Presentation Zen blog, Garr Reynolds has a few examples of how this practice has gotten out of control where he lives in Japan. (This post on Cabel's blog has some great pictures from Japan as well, and other posts of his show off some truly loud packaging for the States.)
When it comes to packaging, which of these two boxes do you find most striking? Which one would grab your attention as you walked past it in CompUSA of BestBuy?
photos by goodrob13 and hyku respectively
Based on my experience, the MacBook Air's box is an attention-grabber. It's incredibly small, and it stands in contrast to more visually cluttered boxes sitting nearby. Its packaging is visibly different from the brightly colored boxes in other parts of the store. System specifications fill one spine, and the rest of the package draws attention solely to the product inside. The box is minimal, simple, and elegant. That simplicity more easily breaks past the noise filters in your mind.
Who can forget this classic parody video about Microsoft repackaging the Apple iPod? As it turns out, the video was commissioned by Microsoft's packaging team, demonstrating their own awareness of the clutter culture that had invaded their package design.
Here's your challenge: Watch a segment on MSNBC, Fox News, or CNN and read the news ticker for the entire duration of the segment. Read every word. Then, at the end of the segment, explain in detail what the anchor was talking about to someone else.
alas, I did not make these up
We leave our audience squinting, trying to read our slides while we are talking, diverting their attention from our material so they can comprehend the clutter on our slides. On the other hand, the audience's noise filters might kick in, instructing them to ignore the slides. Instead, we might want to try a simpler approach.
simplifying, while staying true to the originals
A less cluttered approach allows your slides to act as a reinforcement rather than a distraction. It gives them purpose. Instead of the slides focusing on every little detail, they highlight the most important snippets to impress these points on the audience. If your audience has to divert concentration to understand your slides, you are losing out as the speaker.
Quoting Leonardo da Vinci (once again), "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Avoid the pitfalls of our clutter culture when preparing your slides. Leave the fine details for your handout. Keep the slides simple and clear, and they will help you stand out as a speaker.
The Clutter Culture
We are bombarded with visual information wherever we look. Billboards, television programs (especially news programs), product packaging, websites, newspapers – all of these cram every available inch with information and distractions. The shot of New York City above shows numerous advertisements screaming for attention, but these do not so much gain that attention as they strengthen our mental filters. We tune this kind of clutter out.
Instead of approaching things from a different angle, however, marketing designers have instead upped the ante. The signs get brighter, more colorful, more animated, flashier. Likewise, product packaging gets more bullet points, more bright colors, and more stickers to help it stand out. On his Presentation Zen blog, Garr Reynolds has a few examples of how this practice has gotten out of control where he lives in Japan. (This post on Cabel's blog has some great pictures from Japan as well, and other posts of his show off some truly loud packaging for the States.)
When it comes to packaging, which of these two boxes do you find most striking? Which one would grab your attention as you walked past it in CompUSA of BestBuy?
photos by goodrob13 and hyku respectively
Based on my experience, the MacBook Air's box is an attention-grabber. It's incredibly small, and it stands in contrast to more visually cluttered boxes sitting nearby. Its packaging is visibly different from the brightly colored boxes in other parts of the store. System specifications fill one spine, and the rest of the package draws attention solely to the product inside. The box is minimal, simple, and elegant. That simplicity more easily breaks past the noise filters in your mind.
Who can forget this classic parody video about Microsoft repackaging the Apple iPod? As it turns out, the video was commissioned by Microsoft's packaging team, demonstrating their own awareness of the clutter culture that had invaded their package design.
Try Some Cable News
On the subject of YouTube, you should also check out this interview with Lewis Black where he criticizes the ever-present news ticker that crawls along the bottom of the screen while people are talking.Here's your challenge: Watch a segment on MSNBC, Fox News, or CNN and read the news ticker for the entire duration of the segment. Read every word. Then, at the end of the segment, explain in detail what the anchor was talking about to someone else.
The Ticker and Slides
What has happened is that we have begun to equate clutter with the concept of professionalism. We see sources like CNN, CNET, USA Today, Sony, and others using visual clutter to communicate, and we try to emulate the professionals. Unfortunately, the results end up looking something like this.
alas, I did not make these up
We leave our audience squinting, trying to read our slides while we are talking, diverting their attention from our material so they can comprehend the clutter on our slides. On the other hand, the audience's noise filters might kick in, instructing them to ignore the slides. Instead, we might want to try a simpler approach.
simplifying, while staying true to the originals
A less cluttered approach allows your slides to act as a reinforcement rather than a distraction. It gives them purpose. Instead of the slides focusing on every little detail, they highlight the most important snippets to impress these points on the audience. If your audience has to divert concentration to understand your slides, you are losing out as the speaker.
Quoting Leonardo da Vinci (once again), "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Avoid the pitfalls of our clutter culture when preparing your slides. Leave the fine details for your handout. Keep the slides simple and clear, and they will help you stand out as a speaker.
Lessons From a Movie Trailer
June 23, 2008
A good presentation
tells a story. You are conveying a message to your
audience in such a way that you hook them in and keep
them interested in your given topic – be it reasons
to use your product or service over someone else's or
the techniques Egyptians used to mummify their dead.
A presenters job is to relay that information in a
way that leaves the audience not only informed, but
longing to know more.
One of the more interesting mediums of storytelling/marketing in our culture is the movie trailer. It is a one-to-two minute vignette intended to give you an idea of what a movie is about while providing incentive to see the entire film. Some trailers go too far and basically spoon-feed the entire storyline to the audience (Free Willy, for example) while others just fail to convey anything attractive about the movie (like The Love Guru). There are a few, though, that capture the feel and tone of their source material perfectly and create a compelling package. One such trailer is the most recent for The Dark Knight.
"I see now what I have to become to stop men like him."
"Here's my card," and "You look tense."
The first point is simply that the Joker is in charge. The trailer makes it clear that he is the one calling the shots, and Gotham City is at his mercy. Secondly, the Joker makes his vendetta against order personal when he approaches the District Attorney's love interest, and finally we see that Joker's ultimate aim is to take down the Batman or become a martyr to the criminal element in the process. The preview hints at other plot points, but it only deeply explores the Joker and his anarchy.
The trailer stays clearly on message, and our presentations should do likewise. People leaving our sessions should have a clear picture in their minds of what we were covering. I've walked out of too many presentations where the speaker felt the need to cover as much as possible related to his/her topic in the given time. The result is always the same – a series of shallow, often disjointed points, with deeper information glossed over or rushed through. Decide: what three or four big ideas do you want your audience to walk away with? Focus on these.
A good presentation does the same. Hundreds of talks have been given on global climate change over the past couple of decades. Why does Al Gore's illicit such strong responses? Why do thousands download videos of Steve Jobs' keynote speeches who would otherwise avoid business/technical presentations? Why does Richard Dawkins polarize audiences so much more than many others presenting similar material? Quite simply, these speakers demand reaction.
My wife (who loves visual arts) often tells me that a work of art is successful when it creates a response. It doesn't matter if you subjectively like the piece. What matters is that it garners reactions. Then the artist is successful. Likewise, you know your presentation is successful when you illicit reactions from the audience.
"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Small bits of info heavily infer that this film will not feature one prominent villain from the Batman universe, but two. How will this fall from grace unfold? Will his alter-ego be a pivotal character, or will this movie merely introduce him? What will he look like as Two-Face? None of the trailers really answer these questions about Harvey Dent, but they don't have to. Just letting the audience know that there is more to be revealed is enough.
Don't feel you have to cover every last detail about the topic you are presenting. Stay focused. Inform the audience, but give them room to discover things on their own. Make them want to know more.
A good movie trailer makes you want to see the movie, plain and simple. It leaves the audience with a desire to discover "the rest of the story." Think of your presentations as trailers for larger concepts and opportunities for discovery. Tell a story that will illicit a response from your audience and make them interested in knowing even more. If your presentation was a movie trailer, would your audience be excited for the movie?
One of the more interesting mediums of storytelling/marketing in our culture is the movie trailer. It is a one-to-two minute vignette intended to give you an idea of what a movie is about while providing incentive to see the entire film. Some trailers go too far and basically spoon-feed the entire storyline to the audience (Free Willy, for example) while others just fail to convey anything attractive about the movie (like The Love Guru). There are a few, though, that capture the feel and tone of their source material perfectly and create a compelling package. One such trailer is the most recent for The Dark Knight.
"I see now what I have to become to stop men like him."
Stay On Message
This third trailer for The Dark Knight centers primarily around the character of the Joker, and it makes three main statements about him. (Alternately, my propensity for three point outlines perhaps biases me toward seeing this format!)
"Here's my card," and "You look tense."
The first point is simply that the Joker is in charge. The trailer makes it clear that he is the one calling the shots, and Gotham City is at his mercy. Secondly, the Joker makes his vendetta against order personal when he approaches the District Attorney's love interest, and finally we see that Joker's ultimate aim is to take down the Batman or become a martyr to the criminal element in the process. The preview hints at other plot points, but it only deeply explores the Joker and his anarchy.
The trailer stays clearly on message, and our presentations should do likewise. People leaving our sessions should have a clear picture in their minds of what we were covering. I've walked out of too many presentations where the speaker felt the need to cover as much as possible related to his/her topic in the given time. The result is always the same – a series of shallow, often disjointed points, with deeper information glossed over or rushed through. Decide: what three or four big ideas do you want your audience to walk away with? Focus on these.
Illicit a Reaction
My wife when she saw The Dark Knight's trailer: "I don't like that. Joker's just a terrorist. He's too evil." My response was one of goosebumps and fevered anticipation for the theatrical release. A good friend: "That was awesome." Every person I know who has seen one of the trailers for this movie has had a strong reaction. The trailer demands you react to it. The portrayals of Batman, the Joker, the nature of the crimes and conflicts – all of these force the audience to respond.A good presentation does the same. Hundreds of talks have been given on global climate change over the past couple of decades. Why does Al Gore's illicit such strong responses? Why do thousands download videos of Steve Jobs' keynote speeches who would otherwise avoid business/technical presentations? Why does Richard Dawkins polarize audiences so much more than many others presenting similar material? Quite simply, these speakers demand reaction.
My wife (who loves visual arts) often tells me that a work of art is successful when it creates a response. It doesn't matter if you subjectively like the piece. What matters is that it garners reactions. Then the artist is successful. Likewise, you know your presentation is successful when you illicit reactions from the audience.
Leave Open Ends
Your presentation shouldn't only be informative, it should encourage your audience to want to go discover more for themselves. In the trailer for The Dark Knight, several hints are dropped regarding the character of Harvey Dent that should whet the appetite of any Batman fan.
"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Small bits of info heavily infer that this film will not feature one prominent villain from the Batman universe, but two. How will this fall from grace unfold? Will his alter-ego be a pivotal character, or will this movie merely introduce him? What will he look like as Two-Face? None of the trailers really answer these questions about Harvey Dent, but they don't have to. Just letting the audience know that there is more to be revealed is enough.
Don't feel you have to cover every last detail about the topic you are presenting. Stay focused. Inform the audience, but give them room to discover things on their own. Make them want to know more.
A good movie trailer makes you want to see the movie, plain and simple. It leaves the audience with a desire to discover "the rest of the story." Think of your presentations as trailers for larger concepts and opportunities for discovery. Tell a story that will illicit a response from your audience and make them interested in knowing even more. If your presentation was a movie trailer, would your audience be excited for the movie?
Thinking About the Toothbrush
December 15, 2007
A March 2007 talk by designer Philippe Starck recently appeared
on TED.com, and it got me thinking
again about why I design slides the way I do and
how to continue refining the approach. Here's
the talk in its entirety, and you can read a
transcript right here. (While accents don't
usually throw me, I have to admit I found the
transcript very useful in this case.)
While not one of my favorite talks on TED, some of the quotes resonated as applicable even beyond his direct context (as many good talks do). In his presentation, done without the use of slides at all, Mr. Starck talks about three basic philosophies of design. Cynical design, narcissistic design, and humble design.
On cynical design:
I think many of us have seen slide presentations that are visually stunning but do little to add to the presentation itself. It's as if the presenter is trying to win the audience over with his mad PowerPoint skills rather than any specific content. I know this is an easy trap to fall into with Keynote, and I can only imagine the temptations in PowerPoint 2007.
Oddly enough, I think some of Microsoft's own slides illustrate this approach:
images from Microsoft.com
In these examples, the slides are visually impressive, but the impressiveness is at the cost of readability and clarity. We can do the same with too many graphics, unnecessary clip art, and a plethora of animations and transitions. We treat the slides as a weapon to attract (or distract?) our audience rather than to augment the important points and concepts.
Then comes the narcissistic approach. In Mr. Starck's talk, he defines these designers as those who design for the appreciation of other designers. In slide design, I see this as designing the slides for my own benefit. These are the slides you look at while talking, reading bullet points to the audience.
I'm not too proud to admit these are mine
These slides are designed for one person alone: me. I may say they are for the audience's benefit, but they really exist so I can read my presentation off the slides. I may even spend significant time with my back turned to the audience in the process. While common practice, such slides are basically selfish. They are used as a crutch rather than a supplement.
Finally, Mr. Starck touches upon a more humble approach:
A toothbrush is about the most basic thing you have laying around the house, but think of how many horrible toothbrushes you have used that look really great (as far as a toothbrush can go). Aren't some of the best toothbrushes the epitome of simplicity? They do the job, and they remain unobtrusive in doing it.
The same principle can be applied to slides. Ask, "How does this slide affect my attention, my eyes, my comprehension, my concentration?" Does my audience have to concentrate too hard to comprehend what the slide is communicating? Does the slide supplant me? Is it basically distracting? In my own slides above, an audience member might have to really concentrate on the slide to read it, concentration that comes at the expense of me. In fact, I could throw those slides up on a screen and walk offstage. They really render me quite useless. In the case of the Microsoft slides, they are simply distracting – cluttered and complex, requiring too much effort to decode and digest.
same presentations as above, revised (and reflection-obsessed)
Our slides are meant to benefit our audience, to help them digest the most important facts and ideas. If we're going to create effective slides, the focus has to externalize and consider how the slides impact an audience's impression of the overall presentation. In this, I think a certain balance must be present between aesthetics and functionality. Looking nice is important – but not to the detriment of meaning.
Next time you're working on a deck of slides, take a moment and remember our friend Philippe Starck. If your presentation was a toothbrush, how would it feel?
While not one of my favorite talks on TED, some of the quotes resonated as applicable even beyond his direct context (as many good talks do). In his presentation, done without the use of slides at all, Mr. Starck talks about three basic philosophies of design. Cynical design, narcissistic design, and humble design.
On cynical design:
The one, we can call it the cynical design, that means the design invented by Raymond Loewy in the '50s, who said, what is ugly is a bad sale, La Laideur se vend mal, which is terrible. It means the design must be just a weapon for marketing...
I think many of us have seen slide presentations that are visually stunning but do little to add to the presentation itself. It's as if the presenter is trying to win the audience over with his mad PowerPoint skills rather than any specific content. I know this is an easy trap to fall into with Keynote, and I can only imagine the temptations in PowerPoint 2007.
Oddly enough, I think some of Microsoft's own slides illustrate this approach:
images from Microsoft.com
In these examples, the slides are visually impressive, but the impressiveness is at the cost of readability and clarity. We can do the same with too many graphics, unnecessary clip art, and a plethora of animations and transitions. We treat the slides as a weapon to attract (or distract?) our audience rather than to augment the important points and concepts.
Then comes the narcissistic approach. In Mr. Starck's talk, he defines these designers as those who design for the appreciation of other designers. In slide design, I see this as designing the slides for my own benefit. These are the slides you look at while talking, reading bullet points to the audience.
I'm not too proud to admit these are mine
These slides are designed for one person alone: me. I may say they are for the audience's benefit, but they really exist so I can read my presentation off the slides. I may even spend significant time with my back turned to the audience in the process. While common practice, such slides are basically selfish. They are used as a crutch rather than a supplement.
Finally, Mr. Starck touches upon a more humble approach:
I try to not make the object for the object but for the result, for the profit for the human being, the person who will use it. If we take the toothbrush -- I don't think about the toothbrush. I think, "What will be [finger in mouth] the effect of the brush in the mouth?"
A toothbrush is about the most basic thing you have laying around the house, but think of how many horrible toothbrushes you have used that look really great (as far as a toothbrush can go). Aren't some of the best toothbrushes the epitome of simplicity? They do the job, and they remain unobtrusive in doing it.
The same principle can be applied to slides. Ask, "How does this slide affect my attention, my eyes, my comprehension, my concentration?" Does my audience have to concentrate too hard to comprehend what the slide is communicating? Does the slide supplant me? Is it basically distracting? In my own slides above, an audience member might have to really concentrate on the slide to read it, concentration that comes at the expense of me. In fact, I could throw those slides up on a screen and walk offstage. They really render me quite useless. In the case of the Microsoft slides, they are simply distracting – cluttered and complex, requiring too much effort to decode and digest.
same presentations as above, revised (and reflection-obsessed)
Our slides are meant to benefit our audience, to help them digest the most important facts and ideas. If we're going to create effective slides, the focus has to externalize and consider how the slides impact an audience's impression of the overall presentation. In this, I think a certain balance must be present between aesthetics and functionality. Looking nice is important – but not to the detriment of meaning.
Next time you're working on a deck of slides, take a moment and remember our friend Philippe Starck. If your presentation was a toothbrush, how would it feel?
Who Is Your Presentation For?
October 01, 2007
In a recent post, I wrote that presentations slides
should primarily benefit
the audience rather than the speaker, and
the same is true of your talks in general.
Occasionally, you go see a speaker because of
something they've done or because of who they
are, and you want them to talk about themselves.
My wife and I seeing Jane Goodall a few years
ago is a good example of this, but, in most
situations where you or I might speak,
our identity is secondary to the presentation.
Because of this, our talk should be primarily about
and for the benefit of our audience.
In many education conferences I've gone to, a standard presentation might include some tips about managing a classroom or teaching a topic but contain very few real examples of how these methods result in tangible results. The talk is purely academic about some good ideas the speaker has, but I don't walk away feeling particularly inspired. On the other hand, other speakers talk about some really awesome things they might be doing in their classrooms, but little to no information is given as to how the audience members might replicate these successes. In these case, I might feel inspired, but I have nothing concrete to build upon.
In this setting and others, the goal of presenters should be helping their audience members kick tail. As a speaker, I should be focused on how awesome I can encourage you to be. Audiences go to these conferences to improve themselves, so the speakers' focuses should be squarely on those who attend these talks. It's not about the cool things I've done as an educator (for example). It's about the cool things I've done, and here's how you can do it too. In this, talking about how you can be awesome should be the majority of the discussion – not how great I think I am.
If our audiences walk away feeling inspired and empowered to improve as individuals in their respective niches, we have succeeded as speakers. We should be storytellers, weaving tales of their potential successes. To begin on this path, though, focus has to come off of self and fall squarely on those individuals who have sacrificed time out of their lives to hear us speak. We owe them nothing less.
In many education conferences I've gone to, a standard presentation might include some tips about managing a classroom or teaching a topic but contain very few real examples of how these methods result in tangible results. The talk is purely academic about some good ideas the speaker has, but I don't walk away feeling particularly inspired. On the other hand, other speakers talk about some really awesome things they might be doing in their classrooms, but little to no information is given as to how the audience members might replicate these successes. In these case, I might feel inspired, but I have nothing concrete to build upon.
In this setting and others, the goal of presenters should be helping their audience members kick tail. As a speaker, I should be focused on how awesome I can encourage you to be. Audiences go to these conferences to improve themselves, so the speakers' focuses should be squarely on those who attend these talks. It's not about the cool things I've done as an educator (for example). It's about the cool things I've done, and here's how you can do it too. In this, talking about how you can be awesome should be the majority of the discussion – not how great I think I am.
If our audiences walk away feeling inspired and empowered to improve as individuals in their respective niches, we have succeeded as speakers. We should be storytellers, weaving tales of their potential successes. To begin on this path, though, focus has to come off of self and fall squarely on those individuals who have sacrificed time out of their lives to hear us speak. We owe them nothing less.
Who Are Your Slides For?
August 24, 2007
I was recently doing a
quick makeover for some friends' PowerPoint
presentation, and they noticed I simply deleted
several slides rather than improving them. They were
slides that said things like, "Q & A,"
"Discussion (10 Minutes)," "Break (15 Minutes),"
"Lunch," etc. Some would
introduce the person speaking. Another was an agenda.
My friends questioned me about the removal of these
slides, and I responded that they were gone because
they aren't really relevant to the presentation.
To this, one replied, "Well, those are really there for us." This response got me thinking. Who do we prepare our slides for? How we answer this question will decide what we put on our slides.
If I prepare my slides for myself, then I will end up with walls of text that reduce the pressure to memorize my talk. I will use the slides to lay out the structure of my talk, so I remember where I am going. I will use bulleted lists to remind myself of my main points (often resulting in choppy non-conversational speech). In all this, I'm probably setting myself up to face away from the audience throughout my talk as I gaze at my own slides.
these slides are just for me, thankyouverymuch
In contrast, if we make our audiences the main priority, our slides will be far less cluttered. The information will be presented more clearly, and we'll use fewer words, larger fonts, and better imagery. If we focus on audience first, our presentation will have a much more natural feel and flow because we will be talking to the people in the room – not to a stoic set of slides.
these slides are more for you
Making a PowerPoint presentation has become such a rote practice in many fields, and I think we've lost the point. (No pun intended.) Visual aids are meant to help our audiences digest the information and make connections – they are not to be a speaker's crutch. Prepare slides if you must. I know I have an unhealthy addiction to Keynote. However, remember who you are preparing them for. When you are on stage, the audience is your world, and all of your preparations should go into enlightening and inspiring them with your presentation.
To this, one replied, "Well, those are really there for us." This response got me thinking. Who do we prepare our slides for? How we answer this question will decide what we put on our slides.
If I prepare my slides for myself, then I will end up with walls of text that reduce the pressure to memorize my talk. I will use the slides to lay out the structure of my talk, so I remember where I am going. I will use bulleted lists to remind myself of my main points (often resulting in choppy non-conversational speech). In all this, I'm probably setting myself up to face away from the audience throughout my talk as I gaze at my own slides.
these slides are just for me, thankyouverymuch
In contrast, if we make our audiences the main priority, our slides will be far less cluttered. The information will be presented more clearly, and we'll use fewer words, larger fonts, and better imagery. If we focus on audience first, our presentation will have a much more natural feel and flow because we will be talking to the people in the room – not to a stoic set of slides.
these slides are more for you
Making a PowerPoint presentation has become such a rote practice in many fields, and I think we've lost the point. (No pun intended.) Visual aids are meant to help our audiences digest the information and make connections – they are not to be a speaker's crutch. Prepare slides if you must. I know I have an unhealthy addiction to Keynote. However, remember who you are preparing them for. When you are on stage, the audience is your world, and all of your preparations should go into enlightening and inspiring them with your presentation.
The Value of Silence
June 19, 2007
On his Presentation Zen blog, Garr
Reynolds takes some time to write about the
value of real dynamic range in music. In fact,
he titles his post "When there is no quiet, there can be
no loud," and he ends with a challenge to
take this principle and apply it to our
presentations.
He writes:
I remember seeing a preacher a few years ago who spoke loudly throughout his entire sermon. He frequently overloaded the speakers through which his voice boomed, and the audience was clearly uncomfortable with his volume. He defended his style by saying (something like), "If there's no fire in the preacher, you ought to fire the preacher." However, fieriness does not always equate to effectiveness, and perpetual loudness can cause your audience to tune you out.
A quiet statement can sometimes be more effective than a loud one. Other times, silence can be the most powerful element of all. For that matter, if we prepare slides, they should not be loud themselves. They should not be visually distracting or cluttered. Sometimes, points can be simply made with a single word, a single image, or even a completely blank slide. Lack of aural and visual stimulation can, by paradox, create greater impact. As the saying goes, silence is golden.
Contrast is important. Merely presenting differently than your peers may provide the contrast needed to get you noticed. Discarding conventions and focusing on creating a talk that is uniquely you will differentiate your presence from others who might be more easily tuned out. Sometimes you should be visually and orally bold, but other times subtlety and quiet assuredness will speak even louder.
He writes:
"When there is no quiet, there can be no loud. And where there is no nothing, there can be no something. In what ways, then, can we apply the spirit of “dynamic range” to all aspects of our live presentations?"
I remember seeing a preacher a few years ago who spoke loudly throughout his entire sermon. He frequently overloaded the speakers through which his voice boomed, and the audience was clearly uncomfortable with his volume. He defended his style by saying (something like), "If there's no fire in the preacher, you ought to fire the preacher." However, fieriness does not always equate to effectiveness, and perpetual loudness can cause your audience to tune you out.
A quiet statement can sometimes be more effective than a loud one. Other times, silence can be the most powerful element of all. For that matter, if we prepare slides, they should not be loud themselves. They should not be visually distracting or cluttered. Sometimes, points can be simply made with a single word, a single image, or even a completely blank slide. Lack of aural and visual stimulation can, by paradox, create greater impact. As the saying goes, silence is golden.
Contrast is important. Merely presenting differently than your peers may provide the contrast needed to get you noticed. Discarding conventions and focusing on creating a talk that is uniquely you will differentiate your presence from others who might be more easily tuned out. Sometimes you should be visually and orally bold, but other times subtlety and quiet assuredness will speak even louder.
The Simplicity of Steve
April 09, 2007
This picture has to be one of my all-time favorites
of Mr. Jobs:
While I understand and appreciate the character flaws in Steve Jobs, anyone who reads this blog regularly knows how much I admire his presenting skills. This picture really captures his stage presence in its simplicity and character. It is intriguing in that simplicity, and I think that quality is one of the main reasons Steve Jobs is such an effective presenter and marketer. His speech and his slides align in a clear and consistent message throughout his presentations that challenge the more conventional approaches most businesses take in public venues.
When Mr. Jobs introduces a new product, he does go through the obligatory slides that outline the features. (It is notable, though, that these slides are far less cluttered than one might expect.) However, it does not stop with the slides. More often then not, Mr. Jobs will physically show the product to the audience and demonstrate its functionality on the massive screen he always uses. The audience doesn't just see the specs. They also see the physical product, and they get to experience it in action. Regardless of the presentation topic, demonstration speaks louder than descriptions.
Here is one final picture of Steve in action. Again, he is visibly demonstrating a product (in this case, Microsoft Entourage for Mac). He seldom relies on screen captures, and he never uses his slides to explain how software works. He uses the software, and everyone is able to see the functionality on a screen that absolutely dwarfs the speaker – leaving nothing indistinct or unclear. (Don't you wish every venue had a screen like that?)
Whatever you think of him as an individual, Steve Jobs is a good presenter, and simplicity is at the core of his style. There are some exceptions to this, but it's hard to deny the way this simpler approach helps draw the audience in and enhance, rather than distract from, the overall presentation.
Good videos of his talks can be tricky to track down. Here are some places to look:
Note: These images and more come from All About Steve Jobs.
While I understand and appreciate the character flaws in Steve Jobs, anyone who reads this blog regularly knows how much I admire his presenting skills. This picture really captures his stage presence in its simplicity and character. It is intriguing in that simplicity, and I think that quality is one of the main reasons Steve Jobs is such an effective presenter and marketer. His speech and his slides align in a clear and consistent message throughout his presentations that challenge the more conventional approaches most businesses take in public venues.
When Mr. Jobs introduces a new product, he does go through the obligatory slides that outline the features. (It is notable, though, that these slides are far less cluttered than one might expect.) However, it does not stop with the slides. More often then not, Mr. Jobs will physically show the product to the audience and demonstrate its functionality on the massive screen he always uses. The audience doesn't just see the specs. They also see the physical product, and they get to experience it in action. Regardless of the presentation topic, demonstration speaks louder than descriptions.
Here is one final picture of Steve in action. Again, he is visibly demonstrating a product (in this case, Microsoft Entourage for Mac). He seldom relies on screen captures, and he never uses his slides to explain how software works. He uses the software, and everyone is able to see the functionality on a screen that absolutely dwarfs the speaker – leaving nothing indistinct or unclear. (Don't you wish every venue had a screen like that?)
Whatever you think of him as an individual, Steve Jobs is a good presenter, and simplicity is at the core of his style. There are some exceptions to this, but it's hard to deny the way this simpler approach helps draw the audience in and enhance, rather than distract from, the overall presentation.
Good videos of his talks can be tricky to track down. Here are some places to look:
- Apple – QuickTime – Macworld 2007 Keynote
- All About Steve: Steve Jobs Live
- Apple QuickTime Guide – Apple Events
Note: These images and more come from All About Steve Jobs.
It's All About the Visuals
December 03, 2006
We are very much influenced by our sense of sight. As
a rule, we are very visual beings, and imagery can
generate a large impact on people. Think of how often
you would rather someone show you how to do
something than tell you. Wouldn't you rather
see something fantastic than just hear it
being described? Why then do we create presentation
slides that merely reiterate our words and do not
visually reinforce our message?
In this case, I'm not talking about inserting Office Clip Art or "Screen Beans" (who deserve the same public flogging as Clippy). I'm talking about meaningful high-quality visuals your audience can connect with and be impacted by. Photographs and art can bring so much more to our talk than can simple sketches, bitmaps, and vector images. The right image can connect with people in ways words cannot, and that connection is an important part of your audience connecting with you.
x
What if Al Gore had used Clip Art? (Image from Apple Computer.)
Take Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth presentation as an example. What if Mr. Gore had taken a more "traditional" PowerPoint approach? What if he had used Clip Art and bullet points in place of photographs and satellite images? Would his presentation been as powerful? Would his message have gained as much momentum as it has? Even if the content were identical, I would say no. Part of the allure in Al Gore's material is the great use of images.
When we stick with bullet points and Clip Art on our slides, we are short-changing our own presentation. Slides are visual by nature. Your audience is visual. Use the slides to say things you can't, to make connections words alone are unable to. Go beyond what you are used to seeing, and use images in your slides that are meaningful to your content and create an impact on your audience.
In this case, I'm not talking about inserting Office Clip Art or "Screen Beans" (who deserve the same public flogging as Clippy). I'm talking about meaningful high-quality visuals your audience can connect with and be impacted by. Photographs and art can bring so much more to our talk than can simple sketches, bitmaps, and vector images. The right image can connect with people in ways words cannot, and that connection is an important part of your audience connecting with you.
x
What if Al Gore had used Clip Art? (Image from Apple Computer.)
Take Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth presentation as an example. What if Mr. Gore had taken a more "traditional" PowerPoint approach? What if he had used Clip Art and bullet points in place of photographs and satellite images? Would his presentation been as powerful? Would his message have gained as much momentum as it has? Even if the content were identical, I would say no. Part of the allure in Al Gore's material is the great use of images.
When we stick with bullet points and Clip Art on our slides, we are short-changing our own presentation. Slides are visual by nature. Your audience is visual. Use the slides to say things you can't, to make connections words alone are unable to. Go beyond what you are used to seeing, and use images in your slides that are meaningful to your content and create an impact on your audience.
Some Image Resources
- iStockPhoto - this is a great, inexpensive source for stock photography.
- stock.xchng - all images here are free, but pay attention to attribution if requested.
- morgueFile - loads of free images. Quality varies.
- yotophoto - free image search engine.
Al Gore Links (for the curious)
- An Inconvenient Truth - official movie website.
- Changing the Climate - an Entertainment Weekly story about Gore's documentary.
- Presentation Zen: Al Gore: Another Presenter Extraordinaire? - Garr on Gore.
- Duarte Design: New Model Science Teacher - the people behind Al Gore's visuals talk about the process.
Slide Design: What Does It Matter?
August 09, 2006
Seeing the growing
number of posts in the Presentation Tips section
leads to an excellent question: What's the point?
What does it matter whether your slides are
aesthetically pleasing or not? The
status
quo works
fine, why try changing?
I think the answer is simple: anything that fails to enhance your overall presentation will only detract from it. For example, I was just recently in the audience for an excellent presentation geared toward helping teachers improve the methods they use to teach. Outside of a few unnecessary buzzwords, the material was fantastic. However, the presenter's slides did nothing to reinforce the message, and I found myself silently wishing she would just give up on PowerPoint entirely. Her overall package was fantastic, but the stoic and bullet-laden slides did nothing but detract from the times she was presenting engaging material.
If you are taking the time to put together a "PowerPoint" for a talk you are going to give, then it is worth the time to do a good job at those slides – not because you are going to use your slides in place of notes, (we'll talk about that in another post) but because you want your slides to impact your audience and strengthen the message you have.
Below, I have two slides geared toward environmental activism – dealing with rainforest conversation. I've prepared them following very conservative guidelines, and no one would be surprised by what they see.
x
These slides are perfectly nice, and they do a fine job printing out exactly what I'm saying. The problem is that they do nothing to add to my message. All they do is restate the information.
x
To maximize the impact of our presentations (excuse me for bordering on buzz-wordiness), we want slides that somehow add depth and substance to our talks. Our slides should not be mere subtitles to our speaking. What if I talked about the exact same material presented on the above images, but slides like the ones below were playing while I was talking?
x
Which slides catch your attention better? Which will have a stronger emotional impression on the audience? (After all, a presentation like this would be trying to stir people to some kind of action. Therefore the emotional factor is very important.) Instead of simply reiterating my points, the slides are now reinforcing those points. They are making the information tangible and real.
Very quickly, consider one more approach. What if my slides consisted only of high-resolution images that scrolled by while I was talking – no titles, bullets, or any text at all. How would that affect my speech? What if the running images lined up with the topic I was on (animals, plants, water, medicine...)? The possibilities are staggering.
Slides are often viewed as mundane, and audiences either pay attention to the speaker and tune the redundant slides out, or they focus on the slides and tune the narration out. The challenge is compose your slides in such a way that they help you captivate your audience and make them enthusiastic toward and involved with the message you are attempting to deliver. That is why good slide design is important for presentations that work.
(For those interested, my quick research on rainforests was done on these two sites: Rainforests: Wikipedia & Nature.org.)
I think the answer is simple: anything that fails to enhance your overall presentation will only detract from it. For example, I was just recently in the audience for an excellent presentation geared toward helping teachers improve the methods they use to teach. Outside of a few unnecessary buzzwords, the material was fantastic. However, the presenter's slides did nothing to reinforce the message, and I found myself silently wishing she would just give up on PowerPoint entirely. Her overall package was fantastic, but the stoic and bullet-laden slides did nothing but detract from the times she was presenting engaging material.
If you are taking the time to put together a "PowerPoint" for a talk you are going to give, then it is worth the time to do a good job at those slides – not because you are going to use your slides in place of notes, (we'll talk about that in another post) but because you want your slides to impact your audience and strengthen the message you have.
Below, I have two slides geared toward environmental activism – dealing with rainforest conversation. I've prepared them following very conservative guidelines, and no one would be surprised by what they see.
xThese slides are perfectly nice, and they do a fine job printing out exactly what I'm saying. The problem is that they do nothing to add to my message. All they do is restate the information.
x
To maximize the impact of our presentations (excuse me for bordering on buzz-wordiness), we want slides that somehow add depth and substance to our talks. Our slides should not be mere subtitles to our speaking. What if I talked about the exact same material presented on the above images, but slides like the ones below were playing while I was talking?
xWhich slides catch your attention better? Which will have a stronger emotional impression on the audience? (After all, a presentation like this would be trying to stir people to some kind of action. Therefore the emotional factor is very important.) Instead of simply reiterating my points, the slides are now reinforcing those points. They are making the information tangible and real.
Very quickly, consider one more approach. What if my slides consisted only of high-resolution images that scrolled by while I was talking – no titles, bullets, or any text at all. How would that affect my speech? What if the running images lined up with the topic I was on (animals, plants, water, medicine...)? The possibilities are staggering.
Slides are often viewed as mundane, and audiences either pay attention to the speaker and tune the redundant slides out, or they focus on the slides and tune the narration out. The challenge is compose your slides in such a way that they help you captivate your audience and make them enthusiastic toward and involved with the message you are attempting to deliver. That is why good slide design is important for presentations that work.
(For those interested, my quick research on rainforests was done on these two sites: Rainforests: Wikipedia & Nature.org.)
Why Keynote?
July 20, 2006
On the Macintosh platform, there are two major
choices for creating slide presentations: Microsoft PowerPoint and Apple Keynote. There are other
alternatives, but many of these are basically
identical to PowerPoint in interface and
features.
Just like choosing an operating system, a digital music player, or even a pair of shoes, many objective and subjective reasons can affect the software you use to create a presentation. My personal preference is to compose my presentations in Keynote, and I thought I'd take a moment to write about why I prefer Apple's relatively young slide-ware application.
x
Keynote + PowerPoint
Quite simply, Keynote is much easier on the eyes than the Mac version of PowerPoint (which, incidentally, is nicer looking than the current Windows version). Keynote is a very elegant looking application that looks right at home on Mac OS X. It's interface is clean and uncluttered, doing little to distract from the main workspace. PowerPoint, on the other hand, can become a mess of toolbars and pallets. There is a lot of visual distraction going on here.
I also like how the slides are visually arranged along the side of Keynote's window. In PowerPoint, all I get is a bunch of text or slide numbers. To visually navigate my slides in PowerPoint, I have to change to Slide Sorter view. (Incidentally, you can view your slides this way in Keynote as well by choosing Light Table from the View menu. I didn't know that until recently.)
Another big bonus in Keynote is the ability to mask images with various shapes rather than just cropping them. I have noticed, though, that you can "cut out" rectangles and circles in PowerPoint, but the tool is still no where near as flexible as Keynote's "Mask with Shape" ability.
x
masking and aligning
When resizing a photograph or other imported image, Keynote maintains its dimensions by default – the entire image resizes proportionally, not just the side you are dragging, and Keynote shows alignment guides that help you see how your images and text line up.
Finally, Keynote works like a Mac application should. It talks to the other iApps seamlessly – the photos in the screenshot above ("Masking with a shape.") are all in my iPhoto library, and I can choose music from iTunes or iMovie projects I have saved. Furthermore, Mac-standard keyboard commands for aligning and formatting text, managing windows and documents, and opening up Apple's color picker all function properly. These commands can be hit-or-miss when using PowerPoint.
If you have access to a Mac (like at a local Apple Store), I suggest you take Keynote for a whirl. You might be surprised what you can do with it.
Just like choosing an operating system, a digital music player, or even a pair of shoes, many objective and subjective reasons can affect the software you use to create a presentation. My personal preference is to compose my presentations in Keynote, and I thought I'd take a moment to write about why I prefer Apple's relatively young slide-ware application.
The Interface
x
Keynote + PowerPoint
Quite simply, Keynote is much easier on the eyes than the Mac version of PowerPoint (which, incidentally, is nicer looking than the current Windows version). Keynote is a very elegant looking application that looks right at home on Mac OS X. It's interface is clean and uncluttered, doing little to distract from the main workspace. PowerPoint, on the other hand, can become a mess of toolbars and pallets. There is a lot of visual distraction going on here.
I also like how the slides are visually arranged along the side of Keynote's window. In PowerPoint, all I get is a bunch of text or slide numbers. To visually navigate my slides in PowerPoint, I have to change to Slide Sorter view. (Incidentally, you can view your slides this way in Keynote as well by choosing Light Table from the View menu. I didn't know that until recently.)
The Little Touches
Keynote produces nice looking results far more easily than PowerPoint. In the screenshots above, you can see a reflective effect under the image. No Photoshop was involved, nor did I have to invoke any tricky image reversal with alpha-masking techniques. How is this done? By checking a box that says "Reflection." Additionally, shadows are handled much more smoothly; transparency is fully supported, and there is a greater variety of 3D transitions available for Keynote.Another big bonus in Keynote is the ability to mask images with various shapes rather than just cropping them. I have noticed, though, that you can "cut out" rectangles and circles in PowerPoint, but the tool is still no where near as flexible as Keynote's "Mask with Shape" ability.
x
masking and aligning
When resizing a photograph or other imported image, Keynote maintains its dimensions by default – the entire image resizes proportionally, not just the side you are dragging, and Keynote shows alignment guides that help you see how your images and text line up.
Other Bonuses
Keynote offers many ways of sharing your presentation besides its native format. Flash, QuickTime, PPT, and PDF are among the options when exporting Keynote slides. Someone doesn't necessarily have to have Keynote to view my presentations. (In fact, Keynote is a good place to start if you want to make an iMovie project that contains a bunch of still images.)Finally, Keynote works like a Mac application should. It talks to the other iApps seamlessly – the photos in the screenshot above ("Masking with a shape.") are all in my iPhoto library, and I can choose music from iTunes or iMovie projects I have saved. Furthermore, Mac-standard keyboard commands for aligning and formatting text, managing windows and documents, and opening up Apple's color picker all function properly. These commands can be hit-or-miss when using PowerPoint.
Conclusion
These are some of the reasons Keynote has become my presentation software of choice. It was quite a transition when I switched from PowerPoint, but it was definitely worth the effort. Keynote certainly lagged behind Powerpoint in terms of features for a couple of years, but, after only three versions, Apple's presentation program has matured into a great alternative to PowerPoint, raising the bar for what is expected of slide-ware applications on the Macintosh platform.If you have access to a Mac (like at a local Apple Store), I suggest you take Keynote for a whirl. You might be surprised what you can do with it.