Chantal Bossé got hooked on PowerPoint while doing instructional design in the mid-90s. Convinced there was a better way to present, she started CHABOS in 2004 and became a presentations & visual communications expert. She helps entrepreneurs, speakers, and trainers improve their presentations' impact by having a clear message, great visuals, and a memorable delivery, whether in French or English. Chantal has been a speaker at various business events and a few international webinars, she is a presentation coach for the TEDxQuebec event.
In this conversation, Chantal talks about the benefits of creating large decks that have subsets suitable for specific audiences.
Geetesh: Tons of slides, many pictures, and so much text. Add to that many, many hyperlinks plus Custom Shows. This sort of presentation must be a dedication. How much time does it typically take to create and test this type of presentation?
Chantal: For this project, the client came to me with all the slides already done, so I don't have data on how long it took them to produce the original 300-slide deck. And I would add that so much text was really TOO much text, but that's another story. : )
Their request was to have a slide library from which physicians could pick the slides they needed, but they also wanted to have control over what content should be delivered for certain audiences. Since all their users had PowerPoint and the skills to use it, I introduced them to hyperlinks & Customs Shows within the tool. We had one or two conference calls to determine their needs in terms of navigation, and then I produced a first draft with the main dashboard and a secondary one. They supplied what groups of slides should be created so the final tool would make choosing a topic and its length pretty easy.
It took 42 hours for the whole project: navigation concept (17 dashboards), regular hyperlinking, create custom shows (total of 39), creation of thumbnails for "per slide" navigation (297 of them!), add tool tips to help during navigation, and all the testing. And it also includes some small training clips to help them update Custom Shows and how to avoid common problems. As a side note, at one point I did start to wonder if I would crash PowerPoint, but tests were conclusive and the client has been using it for almost a year now.
Some might think it's a lot of time and money, but their investment helped them avoid paying extra fees for a slide library service that did not fit all their needs, while keeping training to a minimum for all users.
Depending on navigation complexity, number of slides, and the need to have a "per slide" selection option, people can expect to put in at least 15 to 20 hours. But they should see this type of project as an investment, not as a cost, because it allows to reduce design and update time in the long term. It also allows to get incredible results with audiences when trainers have taken the time to get used to the new navigation system.
Geetesh: Regarding creating one large deck that is capable of addressing many types of audiences, what benefits do you see for the presenters and designers -- as against creating many smaller decks?
Chantal: For presenters, having everything in one large deck assures them they can address every audience at all times. Maybe they were asked to train on Topic A for 60 minutes, but realize that people in the audience are asking really important questions from another section. With this presentation structure, they are a few clicks away from all the content. Tailoring content to the audience's needs is a great way to obtain better results, whether in a training or sales environment. It's the difference between trying to answer a question with words only, and saying "Let me show you what I mean."
I could have used links to smaller decks from a main presentation, but that would have paved the way to missing content. Linked files have to be together at all times, and I have seen too many people copying the main presentation only… with disastrous results in front of their audience because all external content was not available anymore.
Also, designers greatly benefit from the one-large-deck method, especially in this specific client project. Some slides were re-used in many training sessions. If I would have used many small decks, we would have ended up with many copies of a same slide in several decks. When we know how quickly medical information (okay, almost all information!) needs to be updated, the client would have wasted enormous amounts of time for updates. What usually happens when clients have the same slide in many decks is that they completely lose control over updates, and end-up with low quality content.
See Also: Chantal Bossé on Indezine
April 2003 | May 2003 | December 2003 | January 2004 | February 2004 | March 2004 | April 2004 | May 2004 | June 2004 | July 2004 | August 2004 | September 2004 | October 2004 | November 2004 | December 2004 | January 2005 | February 2005 | March 2005 | April 2005 | May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | June 2006 | July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | August 2007 | September 2007 | October 2007 | November 2007 | December 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | May 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | August 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | November 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | April 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | September 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | October 2011 | November 2011 | December 2011 | January 2012 | February 2012 | March 2012 | April 2012 | May 2012 | June 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | September 2012 | October 2012 | November 2012 | December 2012 | January 2013 | February 2013 | March 2013 | April 2013 | May 2013 | June 2013 | July 2013 | August 2013 | September 2013 | October 2013 | November 2013 | December 2013 | January 2014 | February 2014 | March 2014 | April 2014 | May 2014 | June 2014 | July 2014 | August 2014 | September 2014 | October 2014 | November 2014 | December 2014 | January 2015 | February 2015 | March 2015 | April 2015 | May 2015 | June 2015 | July 2015 | August 2015 | September 2015 | October 2015 | November 2015 | December 2015 | January 2016 | February 2016 | March 2016 | April 2016 | May 2016 | June 2016 | July 2016 | August 2016 | September 2016 | October 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | January 2017 | February 2017 | March 2017 |
Microsoft and the Office logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.