I mean, put a little gnome hat on him and I’d believe it…

When I gave the talk, I showed the slide before I talked about it. It’s normal to show the speaker notes below the slides in software like Keynote or Powerpoint.

That might be clearer if the header was just 'slides and notes from my talk', instead you actually claimed the opposite, that it's a 'blogified version', but it's not really - I tripped up on the same thing, and then got through several 'duplicate images', 'oh no very slightly different images', before it finally dawned on me that they were slides.

I can tell the talk would have been really enjoyable but I agree this format is just lazy for conveying that information.

I’ve clarified the introductory paragraph and added lines between each slide. Should be a bit easier to read now.

And when I shift a work to a new medium, I also shift over the conventions used to match that new medium -- and audience. It's an empathy thing.

You should be lucky someone produced free content for you to consume.

The sense of entitlement to accuse someone of lacking empathy because they didn't present it in your preferred format is literally crazy to me.

I don't feel entitled to anything, it was just a suggestion for how they can communicate better, which they ostensibly want. I constantly get lauded for good presentations, and see others do them with unforced errors, so I thought I'd do my part to level the playing field.

Ironically enough, aren't you doing the same thing now, berating me for giving free information the wrong way? How about just learning from the advice and moving on?

Sorry about that. I was more harsh then I intended. I might have misread your original reply as well. It appeared more of a complaint than advice, and I do agree it's good advice.

It's simply not intuitive in the way it was presented that the line of text was a footer for the picture. The text and pictures are mistakenly read as belonging to the same "layer", sequentially, which is not what the author intended. It's obvious what that intent was, but it's not structured correctly to be properly interpreted.

I was really bothered that on the website version, the NTP packet diagram is largely illegible. I hope that when they gave this talk on slides, you could read it.

TBH you aren’t supposed to read it, you either say to yourself, oh yes I recognise the NTP packet diagram; or, oh yes, that looks like a packet diagram; or, oh interesting maybe I should look at the NTP RFC. The slide was only up for a couple of seconds :-)

The thing about a good, simple network protocol is you can look at the packet diagram and start to understand how the protocol works. I think NTP fits the bill here.