OT? Criteria for LENGTHY presentations

Hi,

An artist friend approached me to produce a video (DVD).
I declined (not what I'm interested in doing) but offered
to prepare a list of issues that should be considered
when doing same.  (mic'ing, background noise, camera angles,
etc.).

I was given a bunch of "professional" (e.g., $100/ea) videos
of similar content to review.  The comments that accompanied
them (from my friend and other "artists") were invariably:
"Oh, there's lots of great information in (most of) these!
But, THEY PUT YOU TO SLEEP!"  (literally).

OK, so I watched a couple.  Boring but probably because I am
not interested in the material and can't really "relate" to
it or how I could benefit from it.

They are typically 90 minutes, or so.  Sometimes broken into
shorter segments.  But, I see nothing that *suggests* you
"walk away and take a break, here".  So, it's like watching
someone talk for 90 minutes about *his/her* work while you
"watch from a distance".

I suspect the length is one big issue.  I can't remember having
to sit through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career.
Staff meeting, etc.

And, the fact that it is *one* voice/presenter (note the evening
news tends to ping-pong between *two* presenters -- so there is
some variation in the speech characteristics, etc.) probably
contributes.

There are usually just one or two FIXED camera angles -- you're
always looking at the same backdrop, no real eye candy to revive
your interest, etc.

Given that much of the material probably *needs* the lengthy
presentation (you can't really do the Professor trick of
hand-waving and pulling the finished result out of a secret
compartment -- "The details are left as an exercise for the
student"), it seems like something else has to be tweaked to
make it more "engaging" or "riveting".

[I suspect folks would also balk at $100 for a *30* minute video!
So, there is some value to length]

I'm thinking back on the presentations that I enjoyed most and
note that humor played a role in many -- some "joke" injected
at a particular point (Not "A priest, a rabbi and a minister..."
but, rather, a slide inserted upside down, or a slide of the
presenter's kids at a birthday party mixed in with the lot, etc.)

But, that would get old, too, if it was mechanically applied to
all of these.

So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
presentation?

On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>An artist friend approached me to produce a video (DVD).
>I declined (not what I'm interested in doing) but offered
>to prepare a list of issues that should be considered
>when doing same.  (mic'ing, background noise, camera angles,
>etc.).
>
>I was given a bunch of "professional" (e.g., $100/ea) videos
>of similar content to review.  The comments that accompanied
>them (from my friend and other "artists") were invariably:
>"Oh, there's lots of great information in (most of) these!
>But, THEY PUT YOU TO SLEEP!"  (literally).
>
>OK, so I watched a couple.  Boring but probably because I am
>not interested in the material and can't really "relate" to
>it or how I could benefit from it.
>
>They are typically 90 minutes, or so.  Sometimes broken into
>shorter segments.  But, I see nothing that *suggests* you
>"walk away and take a break, here".  So, it's like watching
>someone talk for 90 minutes about *his/her* work while you
>"watch from a distance".
>
>I suspect the length is one big issue.  I can't remember having
>to sit through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career.
>Staff meeting, etc.
>
>And, the fact that it is *one* voice/presenter (note the evening
>news tends to ping-pong between *two* presenters -- so there is
>some variation in the speech characteristics, etc.) probably
>contributes.
>
>There are usually just one or two FIXED camera angles -- you're
>always looking at the same backdrop, no real eye candy to revive
>your interest, etc.
>
>Given that much of the material probably *needs* the lengthy
>presentation (you can't really do the Professor trick of
>hand-waving and pulling the finished result out of a secret
>compartment -- "The details are left as an exercise for the
>student"), it seems like something else has to be tweaked to
>make it more "engaging" or "riveting".
>
>[I suspect folks would also balk at $100 for a *30* minute video!
>So, there is some value to length]
>
>I'm thinking back on the presentations that I enjoyed most and
>note that humor played a role in many -- some "joke" injected
>at a particular point (Not "A priest, a rabbi and a minister..."
>but, rather, a slide inserted upside down, or a slide of the
>presenter's kids at a birthday party mixed in with the lot, etc.)
>
>But, that would get old, too, if it was mechanically applied to
>all of these.
>
>So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
>presentation?

Good content, fast pace, no fathead-ness.

Not reading PowerPoint text that I can read myself.

Minimally annoying voice and presentation.

90 minutes is a bit much.


I want to do a series of vids, to unload all the weird stuff that I
know. Gotta find someone to help, and keep me from being
fatheaded/annoying.



-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

On 5/13/2015 4:28 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> An artist friend approached me to produce a video (DVD).
>> I declined (not what I'm interested in doing) but offered
>> to prepare a list of issues that should be considered
>> when doing same.  (mic'ing, background noise, camera angles,
>> etc.).
>>
>> I was given a bunch of "professional" (e.g., $100/ea) videos
>> of similar content to review.  The comments that accompanied
>> them (from my friend and other "artists") were invariably:
>> "Oh, there's lots of great information in (most of) these!
>> But, THEY PUT YOU TO SLEEP!"  (literally).
>>
>> OK, so I watched a couple.  Boring but probably because I am
>> not interested in the material and can't really "relate" to
>> it or how I could benefit from it.
>>
>> They are typically 90 minutes, or so.  Sometimes broken into
>> shorter segments.  But, I see nothing that *suggests* you
>> "walk away and take a break, here".  So, it's like watching
>> someone talk for 90 minutes about *his/her* work while you
>> "watch from a distance".
>>
>> I suspect the length is one big issue.  I can't remember having
>> to sit through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career.
>> Staff meeting, etc.
>>
>> And, the fact that it is *one* voice/presenter (note the evening
>> news tends to ping-pong between *two* presenters -- so there is
>> some variation in the speech characteristics, etc.) probably
>> contributes.

Even one presenter can adopt different presentation styles, tones, 
delivery.  In a long presentation that will be important.


>> There are usually just one or two FIXED camera angles -- you're
>> always looking at the same backdrop, no real eye candy to revive
>> your interest, etc.

That can make a big impact on the viewability of a video.  Look at any 
good infomercial (is that an oxymoron?) and they walk around the stage.


>> Given that much of the material probably *needs* the lengthy
>> presentation (you can't really do the Professor trick of
>> hand-waving and pulling the finished result out of a secret
>> compartment -- "The details are left as an exercise for the
>> student"), it seems like something else has to be tweaked to
>> make it more "engaging" or "riveting".
>>
>> [I suspect folks would also balk at $100 for a *30* minute video!
>> So, there is some value to length]
>>
>> I'm thinking back on the presentations that I enjoyed most and
>> note that humor played a role in many -- some "joke" injected
>> at a particular point (Not "A priest, a rabbi and a minister..."
>> but, rather, a slide inserted upside down, or a slide of the
>> presenter's kids at a birthday party mixed in with the lot, etc.)

Really?  You remember a presentation because the person told a joke? 
When I was learning about presentations (DOD type stuff) it seems they 
were getting away from a tradition of inserting a semi-nude lady.  We 
were specifically warned this was no longer expected.  lol

Humor goes a long way, but I don't think it should be off topic.  One of 
the best presentations I've seen was the introduction of the Lattice XO2 
FPGAs.  It was done like an infomercial with a very vocal pitch man, "EX 
OH, EX OH, EX OH TWO!!!"  Not a lot of info, but they made their point 
that it was something you needed to look at.


>> But, that would get old, too, if it was mechanically applied to
>> all of these.
>>
>> So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
>> presentation?
>
> Good content, fast pace, no fathead-ness.
>
> Not reading PowerPoint text that I can read myself.

Yes, having the lecturer literally read the slides (I'm showing my age 
here) is bad.  But too often that is fixed by making the slides more 
brief so that you can't get much from the slides alone.  So please add 
to your recommendations to have reasonably complete supplementary material.


> Minimally annoying voice and presentation.
>
> 90 minutes is a bit much.

Yes, 90 minutes needs a break at the halfway point at least.


> I want to do a series of vids, to unload all the weird stuff that I
> know. Gotta find someone to help, and keep me from being
> fatheaded/annoying.

The real trick to any presentation is to organize the material to 
support *exactly* what you are trying to convey.  So start with 
organizing the info you expect your audience to retain when they walk 
away and make everything you provide directly support that goal.

The one rule of presentations I have heard that seems to be ironclad is 
to tell the audience three times.  Tell them what you are going to tell 
them (an intro to explain what it is), tell them what you are telling 
them (the raw facts, info and support) and tell them what you told them 
(review it to help plant it firmly in their minds).  This can be applied 
at various levels in the presentation.

-- 

Rick

On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> An artist friend approached me to produce a video (DVD).
> I declined (not what I'm interested in doing) but offered to prepare a
> list of issues that should be considered when doing same.  (mic'ing,
> background noise, camera angles, etc.).
> 
> I was given a bunch of "professional" (e.g., $100/ea) videos of similar
> content to review.  The comments that accompanied them (from my friend
> and other "artists") were invariably:
> "Oh, there's lots of great information in (most of) these!
> But, THEY PUT YOU TO SLEEP!"  (literally).
> 
> OK, so I watched a couple.  Boring but probably because I am not
> interested in the material and can't really "relate" to it or how I
> could benefit from it.
> 
> They are typically 90 minutes, or so.  Sometimes broken into shorter
> segments.  But, I see nothing that *suggests* you "walk away and take a
> break, here".  So, it's like watching someone talk for 90 minutes about
> *his/her* work while you "watch from a distance".
> 
> I suspect the length is one big issue.  I can't remember having to sit
> through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career. Staff meeting,
> etc.
> 
> And, the fact that it is *one* voice/presenter (note the evening news
> tends to ping-pong between *two* presenters -- so there is some
> variation in the speech characteristics, etc.) probably contributes.
> 
> There are usually just one or two FIXED camera angles -- you're always
> looking at the same backdrop, no real eye candy to revive your interest,
> etc.
> 
> Given that much of the material probably *needs* the lengthy
> presentation (you can't really do the Professor trick of hand-waving and
> pulling the finished result out of a secret compartment -- "The details
> are left as an exercise for the student"), it seems like something else
> has to be tweaked to make it more "engaging" or "riveting".
> 
> [I suspect folks would also balk at $100 for a *30* minute video!
> So, there is some value to length]
> 
> I'm thinking back on the presentations that I enjoyed most and note that
> humor played a role in many -- some "joke" injected at a particular
> point (Not "A priest, a rabbi and a minister..." but, rather, a slide
> inserted upside down, or a slide of the presenter's kids at a birthday
> party mixed in with the lot, etc.)
> 
> But, that would get old, too, if it was mechanically applied to all of
> these.
> 
> So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
> presentation?

I used to go to the Embedded Systems Conference quite a lot, where the 
sessions were 90 minutes long.  I both presented and watched.

1: Keep the material clear.

2: Power point slides are visual aids, not text to read from.

3: Move around.  I jump around like a demented flea when I present

4: Make jokes.  Don't TELL jokes, MAKE jokes.  Generally I try
   for asides that are apropos to the material, or stupid puns.

5: Vary the rhythm of the presentation -- break up the technical
   stuff with illustrative anecdotes (since I teach stuff on
   motion control, these will often involve smoke, loud noises,
   and/or coworkers exiting the room at speed).

6: Respond to questions.

Some of these are, obviously, hard to do in a video.  For point 6, having 
someone off-camera to ask questions for the viewing audience might help, 
however.  For point 3, having a presenter who's moving around would 
require a better class of cameraman than just a fixed camera, but might 
help.

The rest of the points could be done as easily in a video as in a real 
presentation.

Having said all of that, passively watching video is different from being 
in the room with a real-live person who can see your face (or the top of 
your head, if he's got the misfortune of having the 1:30-3:00 time slot).  
So having the presenter announce significant breaks in the flow somehow 
(or even "we're going to take a break, why don't you pause the video for a 
few minutes) may cue the audience to go rest up.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>An artist friend approached me to produce a video (DVD).
>I declined (not what I'm interested in doing) but offered
>to prepare a list of issues that should be considered
>when doing same.  (mic'ing, background noise, camera angles,
>etc.).
>
>I was given a bunch of "professional" (e.g., $100/ea) videos
>of similar content to review.  The comments that accompanied
>them (from my friend and other "artists") were invariably:
>"Oh, there's lots of great information in (most of) these!
>But, THEY PUT YOU TO SLEEP!"  (literally).
>
>OK, so I watched a couple.  Boring but probably because I am
>not interested in the material and can't really "relate" to
>it or how I could benefit from it.
>
>They are typically 90 minutes, or so.  Sometimes broken into
>shorter segments.  But, I see nothing that *suggests* you
>"walk away and take a break, here".  So, it's like watching
>someone talk for 90 minutes about *his/her* work while you
>"watch from a distance".
>
>I suspect the length is one big issue.  I can't remember having
>to sit through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career.
>Staff meeting, etc.
>
>And, the fact that it is *one* voice/presenter (note the evening
>news tends to ping-pong between *two* presenters -- so there is
>some variation in the speech characteristics, etc.) probably
>contributes.
>
>There are usually just one or two FIXED camera angles -- you're
>always looking at the same backdrop, no real eye candy to revive
>your interest, etc.
>
>Given that much of the material probably *needs* the lengthy
>presentation (you can't really do the Professor trick of
>hand-waving and pulling the finished result out of a secret
>compartment -- "The details are left as an exercise for the
>student"), it seems like something else has to be tweaked to
>make it more "engaging" or "riveting".
>
>[I suspect folks would also balk at $100 for a *30* minute video!
>So, there is some value to length]
>
>I'm thinking back on the presentations that I enjoyed most and
>note that humor played a role in many -- some "joke" injected
>at a particular point (Not "A priest, a rabbi and a minister..."
>but, rather, a slide inserted upside down, or a slide of the
>presenter's kids at a birthday party mixed in with the lot, etc.)
>
>But, that would get old, too, if it was mechanically applied to
>all of these.
>
>So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
>presentation?


Personally I hate video presentations.  There are *occasional* times
when they're useful, and certainly short videos of how to do something
are often helpful, but I want to read a well written paper, at my
pace, not watch someone jump around like a demented flea.  That's
certainly a form of entertainment, but for a different time (and Tim,
could you post a video of that, I'm sure we'd all like to see it).

I've been falling behind on what's going on with The Mill, simply
because all the good information has been released as video
presentations.  While I have mixed feelings about the viability of the
project, there are some interesting ideas being worked on, so I do
want to keep up.  Now Ivan is not a bad presenter (I have certainly
seen *far* worse), and I've forced myself to watch a number of the
presentations, but I'd rather find a toilet that needs scrubbing or
something.

In short, I think the secret to a good video presentation is not doing
one.

But that's just me (I can't stand watching broadcast news either,
please, please, please just let me read the article), I know a lot of
people (perhaps most people) prefer the presentation.

An interactive session is different, but don't spend the presentation
going over the minutia - that's what the accompanying materials are
for.

Anyway, my two cents.

John Larkin wrote:
<snip>
>
> I want to do a series of vids, to unload all the weird stuff that I
> know. Gotta find someone to help, and keep me from being
> fatheaded/annoying.
>
>
>

Do it to audio-only first ( dictation, basically ) and
by the time you finish that, you'll know how to outline what
you're doing and it'll be a snap.

I don't know why, but listening to yourself talk helps.

( learned this working the A/V dept in kolledge - only
one guy went all the way to video; the rest just fleshed
out the outline in print ).

-- 
Les Cargill

Am 13.05.2015 um 21:51 schrieb Don Y:

> They are typically 90 minutes, or so.  Sometimes broken into
> shorter segments.  But, I see nothing that *suggests* you
> "walk away and take a break, here".  So, it's like watching
> someone talk for 90 minutes about *his/her* work while you
> "watch from a distance".

Strike one: Violation of the rule "We can talk about anything, but not 
over an hour!" (This loses some zing in translation from German, where 
both "about" and "over" are the same word: "über").  Brains will just 
shut down at about the 45 minute mark.

> There are usually just one or two FIXED camera angles -- you're
> always looking at the same backdrop, no real eye candy to revive
> your interest, etc.

Strike two! Fixed camera is just silly.  People in a real-live audience 
would never sit that still, so they don't want to watch video that locks 
their virtual eyes into a single position like that, either.  Suffice it 
to say that professional cameras have shoulder rigs for a reason, and 
the SteadyCam was invented because it was necessary.

> I'm thinking back on the presentations that I enjoyed most and
> note that humor played a role in many -- some "joke" injected
> at a particular point (Not "A priest, a rabbi and a minister..."
> but, rather, a slide inserted upside down, or a slide of the
> presenter's kids at a birthday party mixed in with the lot, etc.)

The best joke of that kind I ever saw was when the guy announced that he 
was now going to veer off to discuss a side issue for a jiffy, and 
illustrated that by slapping on a full-page, single opening parenthesis 
(and the closing ')' as he finished the excursion, too).

The guy was as Italian as they come, too, so he had no problems 
whatsoever with moving around sufficiently, nor with varying the tone of 
is voice. ;-)

And (this being well before "powerpointed" became an adjective, meaning 
"mentally exhausted by an overload of animated graphs") he did animated 
graphs, too: his slides had fold-ins, fold-outs, and fold-outs on the 
fold-ins, rounded off by stuff in his pockets that he threw on the 
projector's glass, too.  Of course, some of the fold-ins would come 
loose and end up all over the place, and hilarity ensued...

The only thing missing was a big old song-and-dance number.

In short, there was complete and utter chaos on stage ... which is 
exactly what made it such a completely and utterly captivating lecture.

> So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
> presentation?

* Structure.  Explain the general layout of the lecture at the start. 
If it's really long, mention where along that line you currently are.

* A well-placed break or two.

* A presenter who really cares about the subject matter, and isn't 
afraid to show it.

* Surprises.  Any surprise, really.

On Wed, 13 May 2015 19:04:25 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> I want to do a series of vids, to unload all the weird stuff that I
>> know. Gotta find someone to help, and keep me from being
>> fatheaded/annoying.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Do it to audio-only first ( dictation, basically ) and
>by the time you finish that, you'll know how to outline what
>you're doing and it'll be a snap.

I need a whiteboard! And I wouldn't really rehearse.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

On 5/13/2015 1:28 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:51:12 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>> So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
>> presentation?
>
> Good content, fast pace, no fathead-ness.

There's a difference between a *technical* presentation and
this sort of thing.

First, you're (they're) not just showing little snippets:
- here's how you solder an SMT
- here's how you remove an SMT that you soldered in the wrong place
etc.

Rather, they are typically describing a painting, from start to finish.
I.e., how you decide what to put *in* the painting -- and what to
elide.  How you choose the overall color scheme.  Which colors go on
*first* (varies with medium).  How to *handle* (apply) the paint.
How to get particular "effects" in the painting, moods, etc.  Why
something looks good -- or bad -- and how to fix that (some media
don't lend themselves to alteration as well as others; indeed,
some *colors* in a given medium may be more "difficult" to deal
with than others).

An analogy would be for you to describe the specification, design,
fabrication and *testing/validation* of a circuit in a 90 minute
presentation.  And *show* it, working, at the end!

> Not reading PowerPoint text that I can read myself.

These aren't "slide presentations".  Typically, the presenter
is standing behind a work surface or adjacent to an easel.
A camera captures him/her in that position, "talking to you".

Meanwhile, another camera will be focused on his canvas -- for
those moments when he is applying/removing paint, etc.

A third camera will be focused on his palette -- so you can see which
colors he is picking and how he is mixing them (on the palette).

In post, you cut between the different cameras based on where the
interest lies -- you wouldn't keep a camera focused on your *schematic*
while you were illustrating how to solder the components!

> Minimally annoying voice and presentation.

The voice is the hard one.  Most artists narrate their own presentations.
And, few are properly "scripted" -- perhaps a general outline but a lot of
the content is anecdotes that come up as the artist is "making the painting".
E.g., if his brush is too wet and the paint runs into unintended areas,
he may draw your attention to this and comment on how to avoid it in the
future.  Or, how to fish the "contaminating color" out of the area
of the painting that it wasn't supposed to enter!

E.g., like showing someone how to unsolder a device that got jostled
during (hand) soldering and is now in teh wrong place on the board
(you probably didn't *plan* on making that mistake!)

> 90 minutes is a bit much.

Yes.  But, there is no easy way to "force a break".  I've made anote
that it may be preferable to split the presentation over *two*
(or more) DVD's -- even if you only have 45 minutes of video on
each and are "wasting" more than half of the capacity!  (media is
cheap) The point being this would force the viewer to take a break;
give them an EXCUSE not to watch the second half "right now".

OTOH, if it's just the next "chapter stop" on the medium, there is
no NATURAL suggestion that they pause, here.

> I want to do a series of vids, to unload all the weird stuff that I
> know. Gotta find someone to help, and keep me from being
> fatheaded/annoying.

I started writing "papers"/tutorials many years ago.  I have a few
thousand pages to date.  They come in handy when I have to explain
something to someone:  "here, read this".  Yet, don't have to stand up to
the sort of scrutiny that a "polished" product would.

Documentaries come to mind.  They're not usually boring, because that 
would be devestating to their purpose.  Why aren't they?  (Well, in the 
eye of the beholder, I'm sure...)
- Structure: lay out your plan in the beginning, follow it through
- Break it down into segments of alternating purpose and pace
- A problem-and-solution can often be phrased as a mystery, so you lead 
into it; the tension keeps the starting point in mind.  Usually a pretty 
trite thing (seems to me, grade school textbooks do that), but it's 
something.  A mystery is typically considered the easiest kind of story to 
write.
- Typically they'll go from narrative sections to interview sections. 
Something similar might still be useful even if it's all the same person 
doing the presentation.
- VISUALS all the time!

And if it's truly just too boring to watch, consider rephrasing it as an 
academic paper instead.  Those things can drone on for days.  But you can 
always skim and look at figures and jump around sections, and always come 
back to things you might've missed.  Some things are very hard to describe 
or convey in written versus visual technique, but on occasion, those can 
be compressed to their very essence as short clips, and the description 
left in the text.  (Electronic articles have hyperlinks, it's the most 
amazing invention! ;) )

Another reference comes to mind, Bob Ross -- a visual and narrative 
experience, always interesting and changing, until the painting is 
complete.  Rich with technique and conversation, it holds your attention 
in a casual way.

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

"Don Y" <this@is.not.me.com> wrote in message 
news:mj09v0$5tv$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Hi,
>
> An artist friend approached me to produce a video (DVD).
> I declined (not what I'm interested in doing) but offered
> to prepare a list of issues that should be considered
> when doing same.  (mic'ing, background noise, camera angles,
> etc.).
>
> I was given a bunch of "professional" (e.g., $100/ea) videos
> of similar content to review.  The comments that accompanied
> them (from my friend and other "artists") were invariably:
> "Oh, there's lots of great information in (most of) these!
> But, THEY PUT YOU TO SLEEP!"  (literally).
>
> OK, so I watched a couple.  Boring but probably because I am
> not interested in the material and can't really "relate" to
> it or how I could benefit from it.
>
> They are typically 90 minutes, or so.  Sometimes broken into
> shorter segments.  But, I see nothing that *suggests* you
> "walk away and take a break, here".  So, it's like watching
> someone talk for 90 minutes about *his/her* work while you
> "watch from a distance".
>
> I suspect the length is one big issue.  I can't remember having
> to sit through a 90 minute "lecture" in my professional career.
> Staff meeting, etc.
>
> And, the fact that it is *one* voice/presenter (note the evening
> news tends to ping-pong between *two* presenters -- so there is
> some variation in the speech characteristics, etc.) probably
> contributes.
>
> There are usually just one or two FIXED camera angles -- you're
> always looking at the same backdrop, no real eye candy to revive
> your interest, etc.
>
> Given that much of the material probably *needs* the lengthy
> presentation (you can't really do the Professor trick of
> hand-waving and pulling the finished result out of a secret
> compartment -- "The details are left as an exercise for the
> student"), it seems like something else has to be tweaked to
> make it more "engaging" or "riveting".
>
> [I suspect folks would also balk at $100 for a *30* minute video!
> So, there is some value to length]
>
> I'm thinking back on the presentations that I enjoyed most and
> note that humor played a role in many -- some "joke" injected
> at a particular point (Not "A priest, a rabbi and a minister..."
> but, rather, a slide inserted upside down, or a slide of the
> presenter's kids at a birthday party mixed in with the lot, etc.)
>
> But, that would get old, too, if it was mechanically applied to
> all of these.
>
> So, what keeps *your* interest in a lengthy (non-interactive!)
> presentation?