“A mongrel form of communication”
A mentor once said that to me. He was talking about this sort of thing:
That is, a huge wall of text standing behind a speaker. It violates a ton of communication principles. Here are a few.
The literate mind automatically begins to process words as soon as it sees them. Why would a speaker want to split the audience’s attention? Too often, these sort of distractions just hang in the background, allowing audience members to fake interest by staring behind the speaker. Ever wonder why all speakers that do this are unable to move a crowd? This is because the critical feedback loop of adjusting a speech to the audience in real time is broken.
The text is disrespectfully dense. When we are faced with dense text in our normal lived—a book, a memo, a computer screen—we automatically adjust the text to a comfortable distance. When it is projected on a screen, we are stuck with squinting. This is why all movies project text in giant, single lines, or are Star Wars, and give you the text in all possible sizes. Why would you want your audience to struggle with your message?
Documents composed as a deck are necessarily half thoughts and incomplete sentences. Those are the only things that fit. Therefore, plans and actions that come from decks are incomplete. The better model is a strongly visual presentation, accompanied by a memo with an executive summary and details following that.
Betrays the medium. A speech with a projection is a profoundly visual medium. Every slide that fails to honor that fact weakens the whole message.
Physically difficult to hold. Printed decks are in landscape, and never seem to fit into our muscle memory, which is tuned to paper in portrait. If landscape was so great, why wasn’t it adopted by book and newspapers ages ago?
I could go on. Maybe in a separate post?