Rich Shepard wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:
If you are not using overlays (i.e., everything displays in one gulp on
each of those slides), and if you don't mind having the same title with a
Roman numeral index (e.g., "Results I" and "Results II") for the two
slides, you can condense it to one slide, whose title is as above but
without the Roman numerals (e.g., "Results"), and put
"[allowframebreaks]"
in ERT at the beginning of the slide title. This has the advantage that
if you change the bullet items later, the locations of the breaks are
adjusted automatically, and you don't have to modify the ERT. The twin
disadvantages are that you are locked into the same-title-plus-numeral
frame titles and overlaying is disabled.
This is what I do, and I don't see the numbered slide titles as a
disadvantage at all. It tells the audience that I'm still on the same topic
as the previous slide(s). Makes it easier for those still awake to know
where we are.
I'd test that myself if any of my students were still awake at that
point, but no joy. :-)
I suspect that the \setcounter{enum}{3} approach leaves the slide
untitled,
and that may not communicate as well with the audience.
No. You manually split the list at some point and insert a new
BeginFrame at the split point (including whatever title you like). So
the second slide has a title (barring a memory lapse on the author's
part), but if changes are made to the bullet lists (either
adding/deleting items or changing the text length, considerable manual
(re)tuning is in order. Were it not for the loss of overlays (which I
use extensively), I'd always use the allowframebreaks option.
/Paul
