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:

“…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.

Tags: philosophy, paul rand, design, inspiration

Garr Rynolds, over at Presentation Zen, has a couple of fantastic recent posts. Give them a look if you haven't read them already.

Presentation Zen: Deep or Wide? You Decide

"Make a choice about what's important, and let go of all the rest." Mr. Reynolds covers the topic of scope vs. depth in classrooms as well as in presentations.

The problem with many presentations is that people simply try to say too much in a short amount of time. Most people struggle with practicing restraint in the preparation stage—including myself—and have a hard time making the tough choices about inclusion and exclusion before the presentation. Often no time is given to the idea of exclusion and paring down. As a result, audiences all too often get more than they want, need, or can comprehend.

Presentation Zen: Inspiration Matters

The world needs more inspiration, not less. Speaking is not the only way to inspire—actions inspire too, often more—but leaders know how to inspire with both words and action.

Tags: garr reynolds, philosophy

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:

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?

Tags: conventions, philosophy, design

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.

Tags: philosophy, connections

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.

Tags: conventions, philosophy, connections

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:

"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.

Tags: philosophy, atmosphere

One of the things that frustrates me about my new cell phone is that it takes seven button presses to tell it to dial someone in my address book. (No, I have not set up my quick dial yet.) Seven presses – exactly the same numbers of buttons I would use to just dial the number. It's just too complicated. I get it. I'm a technophile, so I understand how it operates. It's just annoying.

Unfortunately, many slides trip down this same path. The audience gets it. They understand the meaning of the slides, but the slides are overcomplicated. Visually, they are as annoying as the cell phone's menus.

These Microsoft slides are favorites of mine. I honestly don't think I could design more visually complicated slides if I tried.

x
© Microsoft. How complicated can you get?

What ends up being the result? The speaker has to keep referencing the slide, pointing out various areas, and defining what the slide is explaining. It becomes tedious and exhausting. The slides do not support the talk. Rather, the talk is supporting the slides. This is the danger in overcomplicating your slides. You may accidentally let yourself become servant to the visuals.

In contrast, if you set simplicity as a standard in your design, clearer results happen. Many claim the iPod's runaway success is due, largely in part, to its simplicity of design. The same is true of the Nintendo DS. David Pogue spoke at length for TED 2006 about the "Cult of Simplicity." Simplicity sells – not just products but ideas as well. Keep your slides simple and clean, and your audience will be more likely to buy into your message because they are no longer distracted by trying to decipher complex visuals.

Here is one way to simplify the slides above:

x
Same message, different approach. (Windows screenshots from GUIdebook.)

It would be unfair to say that there is never a place for complex slides, but, more often than not, simplicity trumps the alternative. When preparing your presentation, have others look at your slides. Ask them if they easily understand the big ideas conveyed. How much reading is involved with your slides? Are they visually cluttered? Make simplicity a standard, and understanding will follow.

Tags: philosophy, examples, makeover, clutter, graphics, design

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.

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.

Tags: graphics, philosophy, al gore, examples, design

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.)

Tags: philosophy, impression