[machinelabo]

For me, slides are like art. I make slides with graphics, with weird arrows, boxes and call outs, images tiled in a particular way, and many custom things. They're more graphical than textual because slides aren't about people reading them - they're already listening to you and simultaneously listening + reading is difficult for the audience. Slides should show visual relationships of your talking points. Use graphics to show architecture, hierarchy, dependencies, etc. Use images to give context. Can it be done programmatically? Sure, if I spend 4 hours customizing my code. I'd rather fire up Powerpoint or Google Slides and roll with it. Also, I present once a quarter, I never found these automatic slide generators useful but I presume if you're presenting concise/textual information often, it can be useful.

[abusedmedia]

There are many different situations/users where decks can be used and the one you describe is just one of them.

If you present few times a year in important events, sure, you'd better using a tool that allows pushing every single pixels because it makes sense for your situation and you have time/skills for.

But if you need to produce (many) documents for reports/lessons/references maybe you'd prefer something that automate a bit more and because you're not interested spending time to invent graphics design.

Also, what you say about images vs text, again, you're right when you're making a show. If you present information that needs to be understood very well, I can assure you that words and (short) sentences displayed when you're speaking, can help a tons.

[nbadg]

I would argue that, if you need to have long-form text to explain your content (even if it's only a short sentence or two), then a live presentation is the wrong format for delivering that information. Live presentations simply aren't a good medium for conveying dense information to an unfamiliar and/or varied audience.

I also think people don't have a good appreciation for the time asymmetries in the presentations they give. How big is your audience? If you want to make the case that "it's not worth my time to put together a better presentation", then you have to multiply every minute of your presentation prep by the total number of people you're presenting to. If you're delivering metrics to a company-wide monthly town hall meeting, and 10 minutes prepping saves you 1 minute of presentation, or 10 minutes of layout work saves you 1 minute of comprehension, then no, it's not worth your time, but it's absolutely worth the company's time.

> If you present information the needs to be understood very well, I can assure you that words and (short) sentences displayed when you're speaking, can help a tons.

I have a lot of problems with this. What kind of information are you talking about? Surely you're not suggesting explaining a simple trendline with short sentences is better than a graph? And even assuming you have something where a textual representation is the best choice, how you display that text on a slide absolutely can and does have a very real impact in uptake. Are you making a slide with nothing on it except a single number as a 12-point bullet at the top left? Taking an extra 60 seconds to increase the font size and center it on the page is going to drastically increase readability.

Listen, I understand this stuff takes time, and not everyone has that time. I have a lot of sympathy for being frustrated at how slow our software tools are. And (even though I still do it!), I absolutely hate how tedious it is to push those pixels around to put together a visually coherent presentation. You say outright that the reason you don't push those pixels is because you're not interested in spending the time. That's what you should stick with, and it demonstrates a clear need for a presentation authoring tool that makes these kinds of things easy. But don't say you're doing it because it increases comprehension. You're not making a powerpoint completely out of bullet points because it makes the information easier to digest, you're doing it because you don't want to spend the time and effort to make it more digestible. And we need to be honest about that or nobody is going to bother making tools that make it better.

Side note, there's way too much anecdata on presentations, particularly given how much research has been put into them. Here's a good jumping off point with lots of citations: https://policyviz.com/2019/10/23/research-reveals-powerpoint...

[abusedmedia]

It looks like you’ve constructed your whole argument against something I didn’t write, that is, I’m against PPT, and I’m not!

I agree with every principles in your argument, but even in this case, this tool can beat PPT in SOME cases.

I need to create 2/3 decks per week for my students, decks with some words, images, links, code, video, interactive object, etc that I present to them and after that they use as handouts. I’ve tested many tools for this stuff (PPT included), thus, I know precisely the different pro’s and con’s.

Btw, to me “words” and “short sentense” are very different things than “long-form text” and “dense information”, sorry if that wasn’t clear, my fault.

[ziftface]

So why do the text-based tools like this one get in your way? They can do images just as well. Unless I misunderstood what you meant by graphics.

[SCLeo]

For example, if you are teaching grammar. You want to highlight all verbs in red, all nouns in blue, and all adjectives in green. You cannot do this unless you resort to CSS. But in my opinion, the ability to highlight words and set font color with couple clicks is much more simpler.