Timeline for In a math talk, is it better to display the number of slides left?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2016 at 23:51 | comment | added | Captain Emacs | The response gets a lot of downvotes. I suggested the response because it tallies with my own experience, taste & style and I regularly get very positive feedback on my talks in person - however, since the downvotes are quite massive, and clearly many people here on SE strongly disagree with my response, I am tempted to delete it. I do not want to let advice stand that people clearly believe to be destructive, as good experience I've had myself with it and as little as I like numbered slides myself. I'd like to know what's the general practice on SE in such situations? | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 17:33 | comment | added | user2390246 | I've created a new question inspired by this discussion, since I think it is an interesting one. academia.stackexchange.com/questions/76919/… | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 11:00 | comment | added | Captain Emacs | @O.R.Mapper Fair enough. It is important, of course, for such talks, to develop the "story" throughout towards the main message. It is not about misleading the audience. I find many (not all) structure-oriented talks quite pedantic, and find the style plodding through swathes of e.g. experimental results quite tiring - in the latter case, I would agree that mapping out what is going to be discussed can help, but, really, I think moving systematically through a matrix of all combinations of experimental conditions in a live talk is, even with map, only justifiable if it provides a big picture. | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 10:14 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @CaptainEmacs: I find presentations following that style quite unbearable. They usually make me wonder why the presenter does not simply tell the audience what they have found, and instead acts as if there were big secrets that are then suddenly revealed. I feel that each of these "surprising twists" kicks me out of my current thought flow and makes the mental model I had built until then crumble. On various occasions, such talks were a great encouragement to start the coffee break early. It is interesting to know some people actually seem to enjoy that presentation style, though. | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 9:36 | comment | added | Captain Emacs | Of course, talks are about conveying information. But the very best talks I have ever attended, the one that I never forgot, were of this make; they reached from mathematics to biology or philosophy (so, the field doesn't really matter), and given by top representatives of the field. I should think that this is an ideal to aspire to. Of course, a "bookkeeping" talk is also doable, but in my opinion, unless it is about specific new methods, in which technical details matter (I discuss elsewhere), a talk should just be a enticing showcase of your work, inviting them to read your work in detail. | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 7:37 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | 'Would you like, in an exciting movie, to have a counter at the bottom of the screen, saying: "50 out of 90 minutes"?' - no, because in a movie, a surprising twist that shifts the focus, turns things into a new direction, or unexpectedly opens up a new adventure is a positive thing. In a presentation that is meant to convey information, I would consider this to be very negative. | |
| Sep 15, 2016 at 7:32 | comment | added | user2390246 | "Build suspense"? I've always been given the advice that people don't want suspense in scientific presentations. "Tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you've told them." I'm curious to hear a different perspective. | |
| Sep 14, 2016 at 21:47 | history | answered | Captain Emacs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |