49

In the comments on this question, there were a two opposing opinions (anti, pro) on the technique of revealing slides bit-by-bit, rather than all at once. The argument against doing so was that revealing slides bit-by-bit is "micromanaging" viewers' attention and that some people prefer to have access to all of the information on the slide before starting to process it. The argument in favor was that revealing a whole slide at once gives too much information, making the talk difficult to follow.

What are the pros and cons of these two approaches? How should I choose which one to use? Are there recommendations from authoritative sources and/or supported by reliable evidence? I'm mainly interested in technical presentations in science or mathematics, including both lectures to students and research talks to peers. There may also be diversity issues (dyslexia, ASD, etc.) that are relevant.

I think this question may be closely linked with the issue of how much information to put on each slide. If you have a slide that just consists of a few short bullet points, then I agree that there's not much point in revealing them one by one. But for technical presentations, one often has slides that have more information than one can reasonably take in at once.


This was one of several questions asked here but none of the answers there seems to address this particular question.

4
  • It's common in slides from math-text-publishers to have Q&A slides where there's a question to consider, and then an answer that appears on a click when the presenter feels the time is right. Hopefully answers here at least consider that use-case. May 22 at 20:32
  • I use \pause in Beamer. I try to break slides up where natural breaks in thought are or before something potentially confusing or abstract to give the reader a momentary break to collect their thoughts. Here's an example of a talk I gave a couple years ago: fields.utoronto.ca/talk-media/1/25/93/slides.pdf . This was a short talk, so it's a bit more jumpy than the way I do classroom notes, but it's not too far off. May 23 at 17:10
  • 2
    Please don't just read what your slides say aloud. As a fast reader this is most likely one of the easiest way to lose interest. May 24 at 20:25
  • Have you not yourself attended many slide presentations, that the that the gaffes of other lecturers don't stand out to be avoided. There are broadly three approaches… Bit-by-bit; all-at-once; in batches. If I had your Question I'd look up what lectures were upcoming in my institution then either just go along to a dozen or so, or perhaps whittle the numbers down by first asking the authors about their approach, and weeding out the people whose explanations don't suit you… May 29 at 16:07

14 Answers 14

45

You have to compromise between the three following aspects:

  • Every change/transition on your slides demands some of the viewers’ attention. Mind that this is purely about the change, not the content that is eventually revealed or there from the beginning. It is easy to underestimate this as the presenter, since changes you have control over are much less demanding and you do not need to follow your own speech in parallel. This is particularly bad for people with attention disorders who may be severely distracted by every visual change.

  • Whenever you reveal a new slide, it takes some time for the viewer to process the content to the extent that they can orient themselves on the slide and can follow your talk again. The time and mental strain of this process increases superlinearly with the amount of content on the slide.

    Keep in mind that humans can only have a handful of things on the top of their brain at once and half of that is already occupied by things other than your slides. When somebody sees a new slide, they first have to break everything down into processable chunks. When the number of things they visually distinguish exceeds the number of free processing slots, processing of your slides becomes considerably more difficult.

    Greying out some content (as suggested by another answer) only mildly ameliorates this: While greying something out is a visual cue that it can be ignored for a while, the viewer still has to process that cue and the greyed-out content is present and thus distracting all the time.

  • Managing the reveals distracts you from speaking and otherwise affects your talk, usually in a negative manner, e.g., by making you read your slides and dropping gestures and similar. In particular, while I have seen quite a few talks with quick bullet-point-wise reveals, I have not seen a single one where the speaker did not stumble over this, i.e., mistime a reveal or lost their flow of talking.

My general rules of thumb are therefore this:

  1. Only split slides if revealing the entire slide at once is visually overwhelming and splitting considerably ameliorates this.

  2. However, first consider whether there is any need to have the information you present on the same slide to begin with.

  3. Do not split a slide if you do not spend at least twenty seconds on either side of the split.

A good example of this if you have two plots with a shared axis where you first explain the first plot (spending twenty seconds before the split), then the second plot (spending twenty seconds after the split), and then explain how the two plots relate to each other (thus having a reason to have both plots on the same slide).

If Points 1 and 3 of the above are in conflict with each other, you are almost certainly doing something else wrong, e.g., not properly explaining a plot or having useless stuff on your slides.

8
  • 6
    I upvoted since I think there's a lot of good advice in this answer, but I'm not sure I understand the first bullet point: if you give a blackboard talk, the content of the blackboard changes all the time. According to your first point, wouldn't this imply that a blackboard talk extremely distracts the audience? May 23 at 19:46
  • 15
    @JochenGlueck: During a blackboard presentation, there is only one point of visual events: the speaker. There, everything happens extremely synchronised: The blackboard only changes where the speaker moves and the speaker talks exactly about what they are writing (hopefully). On top, the area where something changes is always covered by the speaker. By contrast, a slide transition is either sudden (for a viewer focussing on the slides) or happening out of focus but drawing attention (for a viewer focussing on the speaker).
    – Wrzlprmft
    May 23 at 20:13
  • 1
    "Whenever you reveal a new slide, it takes some time for the viewer to process the content to the extent that they can orient themselves on the slide and can follow your talk again" - key point: they often don't listen (or don't listen well) during that time. So either you awkwardly stand there in silence for a few seconds while most people take in what's on the slide, or you keep the presentation going and have quite a few people only register half of what you say.
    – NotThatGuy
    May 24 at 8:57
  • 1
    @NotThatGuy: It cuts both ways. If you show too much at once, people will be reading your slides (instead of listening to the presentation). Ideally the slides and spoken presentation match closely when a slide is initially revealed so that it doesn't matter where the audience is focused.
    – Brian
    May 24 at 15:46
  • 1
    @Graham: My experience seems to be opposite to yours. I perceive both research talks and lectures based on slides to be considerably less effective than blackboard talks (for a number of reasons - but one of them is that it's much easier to follow things that are developed in real time in front of you rather than just presented as one complete big piece). May 24 at 16:53
25

I like to use beamer with \setbeamercovered{transparent}, as in this talk for example. Then the bits of the slide that I haven't got to are visible but greyed out. I think that this has the advantages of both the options mentioned in the question.

In more detail: the linked talk was prepared using LaTeX with the beamer package. The preamble starts like this:

\documentclass[9pt,xcolor={usenames,dvipsnames}]{beamer}
\usepackage{beamerthemesplit}
\usetheme[headheight=0pt,footheight=0pt]{boxes}
\setbeamercovered{transparent} 
\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}

The fourth line says \setbeamercovered{transparent}; this is the option that ensures that some parts of the slide are greyed out rather than being completely invisible. Transitions between different states are created using a mixture of the commands \pause, \uncover and \only, which are explained in the package documentation.

11
  • 34
    I rather think this has all the disadvantages: You bombard the viewer with a comparable amount of visual clutter like when revealing everything at once and you have frequent changes on the slides drawing attention.
    – Wrzlprmft
    May 23 at 15:24
  • 6
    I agree with @Wrzlprmft. I prefer the \pause approach in Beamer. Slightly related to the topic at hand: this is an example of a talk I would likely tune out during because it is an assault of information. It is better to declutter a bit and have a few more slides than to bombard the viewer with a wall of text. May 23 at 16:55
  • 5
    @Wrzlprmft One main disadvantage avoided (of the standard bit-by-bit approach) is that it avoids the sensation of "spoon-feeding" by only giving the information in small bits. The two disadvantages you mention are there, but they're both mitigated: the clutter is more organized because there is a clear focus point, and the individual changes are less drastic. May 23 at 18:07
  • 3
    I find the "wall of text" comment odd. Traditionally one would use use a literal wall with four or more large blackboards containing far more text in total than one can fit on a single slide, and that is very often preferred by both presenters and audience in situations where it is practical. Mathematical arguments are just unavoidably complex, and it makes things easier if you can see everything simultaneously and not have to remember it. May 23 at 18:09
  • 3
    @CameronWilliams What do you mean with "the \pause approach"? Depending on the value you pass to \setbeamercovered, it can do both (invisible or grayed out). I suggest you avoid this term. May 23 at 18:36
20

This is a personal view, but with long experience behind it. I think the answer should be different for things like classroom lectures and conference presentations.

For classroom lectures, I suggest that you give the students access to any slides a day or two in advance. This permits those who have the inclination to look them over prior to the lecture and think about questions. It also permits them to print out the slides and annotate them during the lecture as a form of note taking. The purpose of such a lecture is learning and this can enhance it.

A conference presentation, on the other hand, is a kind of performance. Few people (some) will take detailed notes during the talk and the flow can be important. Also, such lectures are normally given to those with a lot of field experience already, so insight is more valuable there than detail. A friend of mine was brilliant about using things like PowerPoint to present very dynamic presentations that didn't actually need a speaker to present commentary. The presentation was complete in itself. I never had such skill.

But, consider both the purpose of the lecture and the nature of the audience. The best solution may well depend on those factors.

3
  • 2
    Good point that one should clearly distinguish between conference presentations and classroom lectures (although I'd add that, from my experience back then as a math student, I would really strongly advise against using slide presentations in lectures, except for a few very particular use cases). May 23 at 19:52
  • 5
    @JochenGlueck Oh god. Slides in a MATH class?! Might as well just tell students to read the textbook and not come to class.
    – DKNguyen
    May 24 at 0:45
  • 1
    @DKNguyen: Fortunately, it happened only very rarely in math or physics classes (once, if I remember correctly). It did, however, happen during two computer science courses that I tried to take while I was a (math) PhD student. I dropped both courses after a few weeks because the endless slides essentially made me fall asleep. May 24 at 9:08
14

No. What you should do is refrain from using your slides as speaker notes. Your slides should have 2 purposes: 1) to pique your audience’s interest in what you’re about to say and 2) to help them remember what you did say.

Compare these 2 slides:

slide with a lot of text on it

slide 1 rewritten with a better background and less text

Which slide would result in the audience spending time reading instead of listening to you, the presenter? Which slide would tend to make them more interested in your presentation?

Note: This isn’t a lesson on good slide design. I don’t think it’s arguable the second slide is better than the first. It is. It’s also not arguable there are more improvements we could make to the second slide to make it even better. The point I’m making here is to not put so much information on your slides that they’re effectively useless.

Now to the original question: “Should [you] reveal [your] slides bit-by-bit when giving a presentation/lecture?” That’s up to you. I said “no” initially, but it’s really up to you. It’s neither an absolutely good technique nor an absolutely bad technique. For presentations I deliver, I use that technique more often than not. In the example above, it may be advantageous to reveal first only the title, then the Positive Gz Effects, then the Negative G. Effects. It just depends.

Information on the slides from FAA Advisory Circular 91–61, February 28, 1984

7
  • 5
    This. I was waiting for an answer along the lines of "if your slides bombard people with information to the extent you need to manage their attention, make your slides simpler"
    – stanri
    May 24 at 7:04
  • 5
    One issue with the "keep the slides minimal" approach in this answer and in @stanri's comment is that its feasibility strongly depends on the topic of the talk. For instance, I regularly give and attend research talks in pure maths. The audience in such talks expects to see theorems, and for most mathematical theorems it is impossible to convey the assumptions just orally, so one has no choice but writing them down. Of course, this does not mean that one should overload the slides with a lot of information - but a slide as concise as the blue one above would be impossible for most theorems. May 24 at 9:21
  • You could combine these two slides: start with the basic version (just the topics) and with each point you explain add the explaination from the first slide. in this way the resulting view of the slide contains much information, which can be helpful if seen afterwards, but no visitor has to much information on first sight of this slide. May 24 at 10:52
  • 2
    @JochenGlueck I agree that one cannot always be as concise as in the example, but even a theorem can often be shortened to make the slides more readable. If they are standard and not relevant for the parts of the proof presented, then writing just "under some standard technical assumptions" is perfectly fine. Conversely, if the assumptions are involved and non-obvious, then it is often better to discuss them on a separate slide and reduce the theorem to "Under the previous assumptions". Too many people have the bad habit of blindly copying the theorem statement directly from the paper.
    – mlk
    May 24 at 14:07
  • 1
    "I don’t think it’s arguable the second slide is better than the first." this seems rather close-minded. May 24 at 21:56
3

There is no one right answer to this, because presentations are so different from each other in purpose and content. Rather, what can be answered is, at least in part, how can you tell which approach fits your presentation?

First question is: is the content critical to understanding the presentation? Could someone have you on audio only and still get the gist? If they could, then hopefully your content is relatively minimal and distraction-free, aimed at giving people who are more visual learners some signposts to help them along. Non-critical information lends itself better to the reveal-slowly approach, while critical information is better to leave up the whole time as different viewers will have different timing needs.

Second question, how much information is on the slides? Information dense slides can distract the reader from hearing the audio, as many people don't listen as effectively while they're reading. On the other hand, information light slides may be quickly consumed and lend themselves better to being up on the screen at once to avoid distracting the viewer with movement - unless that movement is helpful for signposting.

Third question - do you plan to release the slides to the public? Slides that will be released to the public should be created in a way where they are useful without any animations. As such, design them from the beginning to work in the all-at-once approach. Many users will view in a format that doesn't support animations (or doesn't support it easily) like PDF or still images, and instead will want to just see one particular slide to get information from it - even if there is animation support they won't appreciate the time it takes to scroll through the animation.

In the business world, I think you'll find that slides tend more towards the "animation" side, because the content on the slide itself isn't as important - the speaker is more important. In academia, in particular things like Math or Physics, the information is much more critical on the slide - the equation, the proof, that sort of thing - and as such lends itself less to doling information out in small bits. I tend to find that the first question is the deciding one for me most of the time, as a result.

3

Giving a talk is absolutely about managing your viewers' attention, and perhaps micromanaging it.

Every viewer has their own listening goal and learning style. But you have to give the same talk to everyone at once. So you more or less have to keep the audience's attention and understanding in sync with each other. At each point in the talk, you should have a plan -- not for controlling an engaged audience's attention, but for offering clear guidance on how they should direct it.

  • If you are speaking a key point, they should mainly be paying attention to your words. The slide's visuals should assist without distracting.

  • If they are reading text on the slide for more than 2-3 seconds, or thinking about a deep concept, or reading a plot carefully, etc., you should probably be mostly silent. Any comments should assist without distracting.

So the key principle is do not ask the audience to split their attention. People will split their attention different ways and nobody will get the complete picture.

  • Don't reveal a large detailed slide while speaking continuously. People will try to read it and tune you out, or give up on reading it and not get any use out of it.

  • Don't reveal portions of a slide rapidly while speaking continuously. Every transition takes people more time and attention to process than you think. People will miss what you're saying, or fall behind.

In general, going slowly and pausing gives people space for both autonomous thinking and following your cues.

2

Quod licet Jovi, non licit bovi.

Some people are good enough at presentations to make otherwise-bad approaches succeed brilliantly. Steve Jobs' slideshows broke every rule and were amazing. Doing this takes perfect timing and meticulous digital choreography, as well as a heaping helping of inspiration. And it's usually brittle: if you break your rehearsed flow (e.g. for questions), it's hard to get it back.

If you have any doubt whether you're that good, assume you aren't and stick with the basics. The benefits of fancy techniques are marginal, especially compared with the benefits of good fundamentals.

If you need to ask on here whether you should do it, the general answer is "no".


That said, if you have a specific use-case where you are confident it will be helpful (something like successive overlays on the same data), AND you are confident you can pull it off, it's a fine technique to use occasionally.

5
  • 1
    I think you want the dative "Jovi" and "bovi". Probably also "licet". May 23 at 19:36
  • @AndreasBlass oh all right…. (Thanks!)
    – fectin
    May 23 at 19:40
  • 1
    The central point seems to be that someone like Jobs can break every rule and it still works great, but that this doesn't apply to everyone. Precisely on that I cannot find anything. Searched for steve jobs presentations broke every rule (and similar) on DDG and can't find any such article. Lots about bad management, but the articles about Jobs' presentation "secrets" just report common wisdom: little text on each slide, make good headlines, visualize, etc. Works for everyone. I think this core point in the answer is something that could use major clarification or backing up with a source.
    – Luc
    May 24 at 15:05
  • 1
    @Luc your comment is well taken, but I don’t think I can provide a satisfactory answer. Jobs was so successful that his idiosyncrasies get presented by clickbait articles as good practice, and they just aren’t. For example, less text on a slide is definitely good. But Jobs took that to an extreme: single-word slides that flashed quickly up to emphasize his speech. Way, way more slides per minute than is good for most use-cases. Etc.
    – fectin
    May 24 at 15:21
  • 1
    @Luc if you are Steve Jobs, and just as importantly, have Apple’s production infrastructure behind you, you absolutely should look to him for sales inspiration. But if you’re flying solo and building a presentation to convey technical info, Jobs is the wrong model. (Not just picking on Jobs either; get good enough and you transcend some rules in a lot of arenas. Bruce Lee said the best martial arts style is no style; he didn’t mean that amateur flailing beats disciplined style)
    – fectin
    May 24 at 15:27
1

I agree with most of the points presented. The slides are NOT your notes and if giving the slides out to the audience is of any value to them, there was too much detail in the slides. The slides help guide you through your presentation, enabling you to add, remove, or rearrange talking points without have to memorize (and forget) the changes, which also lets you customize the presentation for different audiences - but you still need to know the material without need notes, the slides are cues for the presenter.

For the audience, the slides gives them something to focus on, gentle reminders of what you have said or are about to say, and also a visual of new or confusing terminology so they don't have to ask you for clarification. But the slides should not tell the entire story, in fact, they should whet the appetite for your presentation. There should be no value in handing the slides out to the audience.

As for the reveal technique, that depends on the presenter, the audience, and the material. I've presented to certain groups multiple times and learned that there are "hecklers" (people who disrupt your presentation with any motive, good or bad) that will ignore your order of presentation and interrupt you during bullet #1 with a question about bullet #6. For that group, I reveal one bullet at time. Other times, I'd reveal the entire list just to prevent individuals from asking "What about X?" which is bullet #6.

If you don't know your audience, follow your gut, develop your style of delivery and run with it. If you choose to reveal bullet-by-bullet, learn how to expose the entire slide at once in case there is a revolt. In the end, you want the audience to appreciate your presentation without having to battle them, but you also need to get your message across and maintain control of the presentation or you will have chaos.

1

One aspect I've not seen mentioned yet is that an important factor is whether the points are naturally sequential or not. Stepwise revealing works best if:

  • The points have a natural ordering such that it is useful to have digested one before moving on to the next
  • Each step is "meaty" enough to warrant at least 10-20 seconds before the next point is revealed
  • It is meaningful to have consecutive steps on the same slide (see Wrzlprmft's plot example)

Block revealing works best if

  • The points are an unordered list, ideally of minimal-text bullet points (see afwing's example)
  • The entire list can be taken in as a single glance and the eye doesn't actually have a sudden wall of text to track through
  • The points are not narrative or entirely self-explanatory (again, keyword bullet points help here) as you don't want to lose your audience because people are simply reading ahead in your own presentation (they can read faster than you can speak, after all)

The third option, when you have large, non-bite-sizeable points that are however not a natural sequence, is just to dedicate a slide to each (perhaps after an introduction where you explain that you will be showing several examples and their overarching connection) - much less visual clutter and better focus on a single concept at a time.

0

This may be style-dependent. My own style is such: I sometimes like to give a presentation like a mystery-plot, and not have 'spoilers' for the big conclusions.

However, in general, a rule of public-speaking [e.g. from "Toastmasters"] is to:

  • Tell them what you will tell them (intro / contents)

  • Tell them (body)

  • Tell them what you told them (summary / conclusion).

It's hard to see how one can avoid 'spoilers' in such a scenario!

As to partially revealing what is on a slide, if one uses this technique, use your verbal words to correspond with it, so that it makes sense to the audience. I.e. when new info is on the slide, start talking about it. This would then make the new slide-info into a "I'm talking about this now" marker.

The more important the presentation, the more one should stick to the fundamentals, as per Fectin's (and possibly other people's) answer.

0

If you have a slide that just consists of a few short bullet points, then I agree that there's not much point in revealing them one by one

I have the exactly opposed opinion. If you have a few short bullet points, you can reveal them one by one to keep a "thought path" for the viewers.

If you have more details on the slide (which I do not like but sometimes you have to) then I warn the audience beforehand that the slides are a reference, that they will have them and that I will just use a tiny part on them. In such a case, when you switch your slide, everyone is not frantically reading.

2
  • I think an important distinction to make here whether short mean refers to time or word count. If you are talking minutes about each bullet point, revealing them one by one is usually reasonable, even if every bullet point is only one word. However, if you are talking only a few seconds about each one, I consider it a bad idea for the reasons outlined in my answer.
    – Wrzlprmft
    May 25 at 18:11
  • @Wrzlprmft: thanks for the clarification - I meant preliminary "short in time" (but also "short in content" as the words should be short so that people do not spend time reading though walls of text)
    – WoJ
    May 25 at 18:16
0

I will usually avoid doing a sequential bullet-by-bullet reveal, and that's because I try to avoid my slides and my talk saying exactly the same thing.

Now, I'm aware that there's an accessibility benefit in conveying exactly the same message in two different forms (written and spoken), and if that's what you want to do, then there's an argument for keeping the two streams synchronised, so people get the message in both forms at the same time.

But personally, as a listener I find talks where the speaker reads the slides boring; and as a speaker, I hate being constrained by my slides because it eliminates all spontaneity. So I like to use slides that complement what I'm saying rather than repeating it verbatim. I might talk about general principles and have a slide that gives a concrete example: I will say "and there's an example of that on the slide", and give people a few seconds to read the slide, while not actually talking about the example at all.

So it's a personal thing, and it depends greatly on how closely you want your spoken words and your visuals to duplicate each other.

0

It depends on how you structure your talk. A slide deck designed to not have animations would be prepared in such a way that slides are easily navigable to begin with. The ultimate example of this is a paper handout - there is a wealth of techniques around organizing static text on a page so as to make it readable. If you bluntly add animations like reveals to this, it would be like trying to read a book and seeing one word at a time.

Conversely if you design a talk with revealing in mind, the slides are probably too confusing when you get the full version "in your face". So simply removing the reveals would lead to a confusing, overly busy presentation. To give another analogy, imagine that instead of watching a video you had an array of every frame.

I think your first step should always be to figure out what your audience likes. Are you able to tell if they like reveals or not? How have they reacted to past presentations? If you have an audience who hates reveals, it's pointless to use them regardless of their merits. They'll be primed to dislike your presentation just on that very fact. Why stack the deck (hah!) against yourself? Just give them what they want.

If you're not aware of any clear audience preference, it's a pros vs. cons type situation. Basically you pick the problems you want to have vs. the ones you want to avoid.

No reveals

  • Your slides can't be too complicated - you really need to stick to "one point per slide"
  • Lots of points with corollaries or tangents is probably not good - it will confuse the audience
  • The deck is easier to manage - one page is always one slide
  • Timing is easier because you have fewer time points to remember (just the slide changes)
  • Because you are probably thinking of something like "x minutes per slide", you have more leeway in sometimes going a bit over or under time for an individual slide, so you are more flexible on time (good if eg. audience likes to interrupt with questions)
  • Interruptions are generally easier to handle, especially when people ask you to skip a section or go back to past slides
  • Printing slidesheets is more straightforward and doesn't use as much paper

Judicious reveals (a few, but not too many)

  • You can get away with slightly more complicated/convoluted points in each slide - it's still a good idea to make sure every slide has one point, but you have more leeway
  • Managing the slides is a bit harder (not much harder, because you wisely avoided "a lot of reveals") since you have more frames and have to deal with the reveal logic and duplicated content on top of everything else
  • Timing is more critical - you have only seconds per frame, so if you go over (or end up starting late!) it easily derails the whole timetable you had
  • Going back or skipping slides is more annoying and distracting to the audience (since they see you flipping through animations, sometimes stopping at the wrong frame)
  • The presentation is hard to keep track of. With programs like powerpoint, you can't see at a glance how many steps an upcoming slide will have. If you go the Latex route and make each frame an individual page in the PDF, you now end up with things like 100 pages for a 20 slide presentation. Audiences tend to glimpse the large number as you set up and start panicking.
  • Printing is annoying - either you just accept needless duplication or you have to somehow print a subset of pages every time

Why not a lot of reveals?

I would say realistically you are picking between "no reveals" and "a few reveals".

The extreme of the animation spectrum would be to make a whole movie that you talk alongside, like a science documentary. Without even getting into pros/cons, making a movie would obviously be too impractical for just one talk, and it requires a lot of specialized skill.

Similarly for reveals and other animations, the more you use them, the more overhead it adds to the work of preparing the deck. Lots of animations makes sense if your talk will have a wide audience - like a TED talk that you're sure will go viral and get watched millions of times. But not if it's a one-time thing for a few hundred people.

-1

There are two issues here:

  1. Your slides should only have about as much text as a notecard, with just as much respect for grammar
  2. The appearance of text on the slide shouldn't be distracting.

I find that if you have 1 down you rarely need to have individual transitions for elements of your slide so 2 is a non-issue. A notable exception being question/answer patterns.

For an extremely pathological case: don't use the feature for individual transition animations for bullets on a slide. It is very distracting and many students stop using it even in high school.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .