Many months ago (in July) I wrote an article that was picked up by Digg.com and was subsequently viewed by 10,000 people within 24 hours. I suspect that the title played a significant part in the hype. Interestingly, after this post, I began to receive email requests from friends and readers alike, asking me to evaluate their presentation slides. So instead of replying to them directly, I have decided to post my evaluation on the blog. This way, you - The Revered Reader - can also benefit from the evaluation. Feel free to leave your opinions in the comments section (it has been opened for this post).

By the way, my evaluation is inspired by two geniuses - Film maker Quentin Tarantino and Politician Al Gore.

| View | Upload your own

Some background information before we get started on the evaluation. This is a highly technical presentation which is a no brainer really. Just look at the first slide! Patterned Gallium Nitride Nanowire? Field Emission Enhancement? The only word I could recognize is “from”. Fortunately, the target audience are researchers in the nanotechnology field so to them, this is daily bread.

Having said that, let’s look at what the presenter has done well and how she can improve.

What Was Done Well:

Good use of images. This is particularly appealing to non-techies like myself. For example, slide 6. The images clearly show the difference between nanotubes in regular patterned arrays of bundles vs thin films of nanotubes. Again, slide 9 and 10 offers visual anchor as the presenter describes the significance of her result findings.

Logical structure and easy to follow. Clearly, this is a presentation that reports her findings to an experiment she has conducted over the months. The objective as she has stated in Slide 3 is to “obtained ENHANCED field emission from patterned GaN nanowire films”. Even we have no idea what field emmission is or GaN nanowire films are, we know that she wants to get something. Some logical question that will proceed from there will be “Is she going to get it?” and “How is she going to get it?”

She moved on to explain WHY the enhanced field emission will be beneficial in slide 4 by listing the various applications. A more specific title could help in this case (for eg, Application of Field Emitters or even better “Why Is It Important To Have Enhanced Field Emission”) which will not only allow her to explain the applications but also justify the benefits and impact of her experiment.

The next few slides went on to illustrate the process and the results, which creates closure for her audience.

What Could Have Been Done Better:

Do a Quentin Tarantino. If you follow closely to his movies (for eg. Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction), you will notice how he likes to tease his audience by starting his movie with a scene that either happens in the past or the future.

Take Kill Bill for example. The movie started with an establishing shot of a violent massacre at an El Paso, Texas wedding chapel in black and white. You will then see The Bride (Thurman) in a blood splatteringly white gown surrounded by the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. And before you know it, she was shot dead. Or so the assasinators thought.

As a viewer, you will be wondering what she did that got her in the wrong books of the vipers. You will also be guessing who these vipers are and if she is related to them. Notice how these questions get you engaged into the movie as you try to find answers. Likewise in a presentation, you want to set it up with a big question, one that will create a gap in their knowledge. And since gap creates pain, your audience would gladly listen to the rest of your presentation to close up that gap.

In the case of this presentation, she can start by first explaining the importance of enhancing field emission so that her audience gets the impact and importance of her presentation. Next, she can remind her audience of the numerous failed attempts that were made to enhance field emission. It can come in the form of stories of what was done and why it failed. Three will be sufficient to build the suspense. She can then end off the first segment by revealing the results of her findings (field emission of 960% more). By then, her audience will be curious enough to sit through the rest of her presentation so that the itch can be scratched, the gap can be closed.

Notice that by adopting this approach, slide 2 - 4 are not necessary. If she wants, she can use pictures instead to anchor the various points she wants to make. For example, she can bring slide 11 in front, and remove “Without Patterning” and “With Patterning”.

Less is more. When you try to make more than three points, you end up making none. Likewise, when you try to deliver too many points on one single slide, you end up losing your audience. There are a few instances in this presentation. For example, slide 4, 5 and 6. To prevent yourself from cluttering every slide, ask yourself “What’s the purpose of THIS slide?”

In slide 4, the purpose is to illustrate the various applications of field emitters. However text is boring. So what she could have done is to give us daily examples of an ultrahigh speed device, perhaps a medical probe? A picture will be excellent here. And if we were to go with the Quentin Tarantino style pf presenting, instead of talking about the applications, she can go straight to explain the benefits of enhanced field emission by relating to a particular application.

Let’s take a look at slide 5. At first glance, we will only pay attention to GaN and GaN for Field Emission Applications. The three spot lights in the background (centre) makes it very glaring to look at anything else. Again, ask yourself - what’s the purpose of this slide? Is it to tell us what Gallium Nitrate is? If so, then focus on that. Put the rest “GaN for Field Emission Applications” on the next slide. Slides are free anyway right?

How about slide 6? Although she created animation to split the first segment (issue/solution) with the second (where the images are). It still looks cramped especially when she touches on the second segment. My suggestion is to split this slide into three. The first slide will focus on the issue. The second on the solution. And the third on the images. This way, she helps her audience focus on the most important information at any one point.

Be concrete (do an Al Gore!)

Refer back to slide 5. The features of GaN can be made more memorable by making them concrete. Telling us that it has wide bandgap doesn’t mean much. However telling us that electrical devices made from wide bandgap will result in higher power capacity is much more specific and tangible. The audience can relate better.

The same principle can be applied to slide 11 as well. Telling us that the increase is 960 times (in text) doesn’t quite do justice to the phenomenal results. The graphs did not helped much since they look similar visually. Pointing out that the graphs are at a different scale doesn’t create much impact.

A case in point is Al Gore’s presentation in The Inconvienent Truth. At one part of his presentation, he brought along a ladder as a prop. As he offers commentary to the rise in carbon dioxide, he added dramatic effects by climbing to the top (of about 2 storeys) to illustrate the insane levels of carbon dioxide in our world today. The act itself illustrates the gravity of the issue and no words can beat that!

Similarly for her speech, she could map the two graphs into one (using the former scale) to ILLUSTRATE the 960% jump. Having the audience see the jump will be much more effective and impressive than telling us about it. Now, that’s being concrete!

So to summarize,

Here’s what she has done well:

1. Good use of images
2. Logical flow, easy to follow (even though this is a technical presentation)

Here’s how the presentation can be enhanced:

1. Do a Quentin Tarantino - build suspense right from the start
2. Less is more - ask yourself “what’s the purpose of this slide?”
3. Do an Al Gore - be concrete

What about you - what are your opinions on her technical presentation?

Share This