I’m a great fan of the presentation blog run by Garr Reynolds called Presentation Zen: I like the idea that presentations should be clean and simple and should not so much “not get in the way of the presentation” but should actually be invisible, pretty much. I was therefore very interested in the post on 30th June, 2006 where a number of videoed presentations were offered.
Garr commented about the presentations - saying of ex-Vice President Al Gore’s offering “I like Al Gore and his presentation style, but It would be even better if….” and I’m with him on that, but I’m a bit more critical: I know it’s presumptious of me to tell someone like Al Gore how to make a presentation but what the heck, what’s the worst he can do to me?
The good news about the visuals is that the text on the slides as big. Great. That’s the only good thing about them: the font was wrong (though at that size it probably didn’t matter too much); he read them out verbatim; and the highlighting in red means that key words were harder to read (either that or the video recording was having problems with colour-balance).
(… and don’t get me started on whoever decided on that bloody awful transition between slides!)
Garr is right when he comments that Mr Gore turned to the back of the stage to look at his own slides too often. Doing it even once is too often! In many people’s case they do this because they can’t remember what’s coming next but I dont’ think that was Mr Gore’s issue.
He kept looking back because he identified with the issues so very, very strongly and was using what presenters call “First Position” (standing alongside you slides etc.) so that the audience identifies you and the presentation “as one”. Laudable though that is, it ignores the most important connection you should make as a presenter - not with your your material but with your audience.
Garr suggests a PowerBook at the front of the stage (not just a computer of some kind but a PowerBook) or a monitor. I disagree - doing that would have limited Mr Gore’s movements and, judging by how he tied himself to the screen, I’d be anxious about him tying himself to his monitor at the front, which could have been even worse.
One more not-so petty point! The conference this presentation was at limit speakers to 15-20 minutes. Mr Gore’s runs for barely over 16 min. Of that time, nearly the whole of the first half was taken up with humour and anecdote. Don’t get me wrong - both of these have their place in a good presentation but I have two problems with them here.
- The weren’t integrated into the presentation - it was a 50:50 split of fun then - bamn! - into the serious stuff with no humour at all
- The left the second half of the speach short of time - nothing could be followed through in the way it needed.
It’s a good presentation, no doubt about it, when compared to the standards I see sometimes, but nothing special. Certainly it’s nothing an “averagely-good” presenter couldn’t knock into a cocked hat with a little bit of training and thought…..
….and practice, of course!
But it works, overall. Why? Because he cares. Simple.
Post a Comment