Redesigning Mary Meeker's Internet Slideshow

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: Redesigning Mary Meeker's Internet Slideshow

#41

Post by prepend » Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 12:48 PM UTC

workoy wrote: post #7

Cubbers slides are prettier. However i'm able to grasp content better from Meekers slides. I guess the people (Meeker, NSA) who make these presentations just want to get the message across and care little about pretty slides.

It's interesting how superficial some of the presentation designers can get. You don't need beauty to present data clearly and make it actionable.

I'd be interested in seeing some cost/benefit analysis on spending money on improving these kinds of presentation. Do you actually get a return from beautification projects like this.

Of course, there is a difference between bad presentation and competent. But I don't think Meeker's presentation is bad. Businessweek is just trying to attract controversy by throwing out "a crime against good design."

I work in a scientific field and we frequently get pitches by design firms trying to win work by spending money rebuilding paper presentations, etc. I think there is room to fix broken presentations. But there is diminishing returns from trying to improve a perfectly competent presentation.

Re: Redesigning Mary Meeker's Internet Slideshow

#42

Post by prepend » Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 12:51 PM UTC

drb311 wrote: post #16

danso wrote: post #12

> The Paris-based designer kept the “serious look and feel” and stuck with the shade of grayish green favored by Meeker, a partner at the Silicon Valley venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. But De Cubber introduced a dark background—white, he says, is harder to read on a big conference-room screen—and reduced the number of different colors to create visual consistency. Finally, he got rid of an u…

Who cares what it looks like on a big conference-room screen? 99% of viewers are looking at it on a desktop or laptop. I've always wondered how you can apply the banal "story-telling" presentation advice to slide decks that share detailed information that requires discussion, analysis and thought. Now I know -- you can't. Emiland has, in fairness, greatly improved the text. "77% less financing volume" is a far better…

"Who cares what it looks like on a big conference-room screen?"

It was written to be presented at the Code conference. I think it's rather silly to ignore the design constraints of its initial presentation mode just because it will later be viewed online.

Post reply on HN