Most of my work thus far comprises two rather long and detailed papers that rely on a common underlying framework. (I know this is not great for a young academic, but it is what it is right now.) This framework is new and often misunderstood, so I find it is important to devote ample time to explaining it when I present my work. Unfortunately, with time slots at conferences being rather short (~20 minutes), I often don't have time to present what I think are the really cool results from this framework. I have been trying out various approaches and formats for presenting this work under time constraints and don't yet feel confident about it.
One thing I haven't tried is the following: glossing over the details of the framework and focusing on the cool results instead. My concern with this approach is that I may not be taken seriously; there seems to be an unspoken norm in my field that young academics ought to present painful details in order to prove how smart they are. However, I struggle myself to follow details, and if the main purpose of presenting my work is to entice people to read it on their own time, then I think that highlighting the cool stuff would be more effective in achieving this goal.
My question: is this approach (minimize time for details of framework; maximize time for cool results) worth trying out at my next conference, or would I risk hurting my budding reputation?
P.S. It may be helpful to know that my work, and the framework in particular, has a large mathematical component.