On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> We have non-native english speakers and remote participants both working at a
> disadvantage to follow the discussion in the room. We should make it harder
> for them by removing the pretext that the discussion is structured around
> material that they can review and follow along on? I don't think that's even
> remotely helpful.
To my mind, that is a key concept. Also, a prepared slide showing a graphic and
a whiteboard rendition of the same graphic both show a graphic. What is
different is that the prepared slide will be more readable (a font is much
clearer than my handwriting), and will take less (real) time to produce (I can
show a slide instantly, but it may take a couple of minutes to draw the
picture). And third, the prepared slide is thought through in advance; the
drawn graphic needs to be as well to really be useful, but may be dreamed up on
the spot, written over several times as the discussion proceeds, etc.
>From my perspective, a white board or flip chart is a good thing and I usually
>ask from one to be present when I speak. The prepared slides are useful for
>everyone and especially ESL folks. And BTW, the listener with the slides on
>his own computer can flip around in the deck on his own ("wait a minute,
>didn't he just say [flip flip]... Oh, he's saying …") where an erased
>whiteboard can't be flipped back to.
I agree with the notion that the primary purpose of the meeting is discussion.
What you and I tell those who present in v6ops is that we want the presentation
to guide and support a discussion, and anything that is pure presentation
should take no more than half of the time allotted to them. I don't see that
the tool is the problem, it's the user of the tool, and we all vary in our
presentation/discussion skills.
