This is the point, supported by the signaling of the PPT itself.
The remaining 95% are slides that the audience doesn't care about and/or doesn't understand anyway.
The best option is probably just an html doc — mix text (real text, not bullet points) with whatever media you want. Can be viewed on every device in the world.
But the cultural factor is you signalling “I want to PRESENT something to you”. It implies this is a pitch, and you’re only seeing the notes. It’s a way to say “come talk to me”.
The information density being so low is kind of a feature.
You clearly have not met my grad school classmates who used PPTs to lead seminars, but used slides as their full-sentence speaking notes.
Slideshow presentations work, but execution is key.
Man I wonder how humanity was able to function with concepts before the PPT format was born. Surely this resulted in an explosion of productivity?
I think this is a major part of the problem. Powerpoint is so commonplace now that we cannot even conceive of different ways of presenting information to groups. If you cannot figure out how to express an idea in the medium of Powerpoint or slideware in general, then that idea is difficult to express nowadays. That limits the kind of information you can share, especially complex information that is not so easily conveyed in bullet points or in sparse infographics. "The medium is the message", in other words.
Maybe I'm old, but I remember going over a lot of information in group settings without the use of Powerpoint. Here's a few examples of alternatives:
- overhead projectors (common when I was in elementary school)
- slide projectors
- lectures and speeches
- live demonstrations
- field and laboratory work (can be very hands-on learning)
- panel discussions and debates
- group discussions (after everyone reads a book or report)
- displaying a written report on a screen rather than distinct slides (I do this myself sometimes)
Some of these aren't going to work that well if you need to convey Q3 sales figures, for example, but my point is that there are other options out there even though Powerpoint has flooded the arena. Note that you can even combine these with Powerpoint or slideware and get the best of both worlds too for that matter. I'm not against Powerpoint as much as I dislike how it is conventionally used.
(I must also note that many people, myself included, hate the "slow crawl" of having information revealed progressively. It might work sparingly for dramatic effect but having been in so many meetings with bad speakers, it is far too easily abused and always makes me ask myself "When will the speaker get to the point?").
Of course, Tufte pointed out that this can kill people.
https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=...
https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/pi/2016_2017/phil/...
When the information density is high, or there is a just a lot of text, then the audience reads the slide instead of listening to the speaker (that is, they're reading the slide instead of listening to me).
When I gave a colleague this feedback, he just told me that the information density is a positive thing, and then showed me a 100 page PPT from a previous job that amounted to the spec for a contract.
So, different strokes? I guess if the PPT is meant to be standalone, to not accompany a speaker, then the high information density works. I still try to convey only one major idea per slide, and I leave specs to written documents.
A final comment: the only thing for me that is personally more distracting than a high density slide is looped animation in the slide. My ADHD brain just locks onto that visual cue, and it takes serious conscious effort to keep focused on the presenter.
[edited to correct a typo]
There are two kinds of slidedeck. One that's behind you when you're presenting, and one that's shared to be viewed without the presenter. Using either in the wrong situation results in people thinking it's a 'bad powerpoint' that has either too little information because the presenter isn't there to fill in the blanks, or too much because the presenter is just reading it out.
Sure, but not always in a good way
Where I work it seems that for the execs the PPT is the product
They get credit for the PPT/presentation and zero demerits for not actually following through and delivering
For dev groups reporting up, you get more credit for a good PPT putting a spin on a shitty project than for a project well done.
PDF is what I see used when the sender is aware that not all the recipients are using Windows
What I learned is that PPT are more than a presentation format in this culture, they are a signaling tool:
• something that is "just" an email, or "just" something somebody said in a meeting doesn't carry much weight in Corporates
• .. but if you put it in a PPT with some graphics, it signals you've thought about it, and probably had some lesser minions also think about it and prepare a PPT
• .. further, if you put it in a PPT, that means you're serious about your position --- it signals commitment
• .. and finally, a PPT shows that you know how to play the game, you're not some tech weirdo that thinks PPTs are irrelevant
PPTs are a cultural currency in Corporates.