21–30 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can it really not include images in the output though? I didn't see an example in the showcase.
The word cloud and the stick figure are taken from the `assets/img` folder; you can reference ANY file you want, as long as it is located somewhere within the `assets` folder.
Extremely low-quality project. The only things I care about in presentation software are: a) How do I export the presentation to some other computer? b) Will it even work on their ad-hoc configuration of hardware and software? Everything else is a distant second consideration. The JS framework used under the hood is like #100 on the list of things I care about.
Anyway, it exports pdf.
"text-only" is a good description of bad slides to me. Why do people do that? The are plenty of Markdown slides tools so there seems to be a need.
People don't tend to notice this as much though, and they are more concerned with familiarity or speed-of-production of the slides rather than make the slides effective for the audience. But hey, that same issue can be raised for most PowerPoint presentations, too. People just don't know how to make good slides and just take whatever is easiest for them.
"text-only" is a good description of bad slides to me. Why do people do that? The are plenty of Markdown slides tools so there seems to be a need.
But even embedded images implies uninspiring slides to me.
For example they have a system that allows you to add source code to a slide, but then don't you want to be annotating that code? Adding arrows, lines, highlighting bits, breaking it apart, etc?
"text-only" is a good description of bad slides to me. Why do people do that? The are plenty of Markdown slides tools so there seems to be a need.
the resulting slides can be as colourful (and text-less) as you want...
"text-only" is a good description of bad slides to me. Why do people do that? The are plenty of Markdown slides tools so there seems to be a need.
So many people end up writing what should be their presentation notes as their slide content. Personally I think you're better off with a holding image and move your content to the presenter notes section.
I've used revealjs.com and hovercraft [1] in the past but usually end up on GSuite Slides to throw things together quickly. Slides (like PowerPoint) can't do branching presentation paths though :(
Extremely low-quality project. The only things I care about in presentation software are: a) How do I export the presentation to some other computer? b) Will it even work on their ad-hoc configuration of hardware and software? Everything else is a distant second consideration. The JS framework used under the hood is like #100 on the list of things I care about.
This is a classic HN comment. Contempt which turns out to be grounded in "I have an esoteric priority which is different from that of the author." Anyway, it exports pdf.
Not contempt. Instead of a lukewarm indifference-couched-in-praise, I'm giving you real feedback. People should cherish that. (I know I do.)
My priority isn't esoteric, it's the priority of 99.9% of those doing slide presentations. For the vast majority of people the problem they need solved is "will this work on their junk setup I first saw five minutes ago", not graphviz integration.
> Anyway, it exports pdf.
If so, this should be point #1 on your README, in big bold letters. In reality, of course, there's caveats, and the exported PDF will mostly fail in real-world conditions.
This is not surprising: the priorities are off, the features tested aren't the ones that need testing, and so the tool isn't solving the problem that really needs to be solved.
Again, please don't take this as contempt. Best wishes and I hope you set your priorities in order.