Presentation Training

posted Sun, 5 Jun 2011, 9:06 pm

I’m using PowerPoint more than ever these days, and that’s not necessarily good or bad — but it’s making me realize not only that this is by far the preferred mode of communication in American business, it’s actually overtaken the written report as the authoritative business document — without a compelling slide deck, your report will probably gather dust (in fact, it will probably gather dust anyway). And if you can’t present your deck, your really screwed.

Last week, I was fortunate enough to have a training session with a professional presentation consultant, to talk about how to present PowerPoint decks. It was really great — I chose to focus in presenting decks while sitting down, at a meeting, which is how most of my presentations are these days. I was videotaped, and we reviewed the videos afterwards, which really is the most effective way to destroy your self confidence. Unlike standing in front of a screen for a presentation, where everybody is looking at you, when you’re sitting down, most people are looking at the deck (not you), on paper if you’re lucky, but these days, more likely on their laptops. Creating any sort of presence in this situation is incredibly hard if you aren’t used to it. Here are some of the tips:

• Start with the deck off to the side, and introduce yourself. The goal here is to establish why you’re here, and why the audience should care to listen to you. It should take about 15 seconds, and cover your name, your responsibility relative to the group, what the group is going to get out of the talk, and what you’re going to talk about — making eye contact the whole time. For example, “I’m Mike DiMicco, and I’m in charge of the group looking into whether you should buy that company you’ve been looking at. I’ll be talking about our model, the results, and our recommendation, and I’d like to get some feedback on anything we may have overlooked.” That’s it. Hopefully you’ve gotten them hooked on you as an authority, so they’re listening to you rather than staring at their slides.





• Posture is very important, and mine’s not so good when sitting down. Too relaxed. Also, I speak way too fast, but you probably all knew that already (so did I).





• When you switch between people you’re talking to, and making eye contact with, turn your whole body toward them, turning your head and squaring your shoulders. Turns out this is why office chairs pivot. However, office chairs also have wheels. Don’t use those.





• Hands on or above the table, no weight on the table (no leaning).

We also lamented how PowerPoint makes presentations harder than they used to be. The most interesting was that when you had to make slides by hand in the old days, it took a long time, and you were constantly asking yourself, “Do I need this slide? What should go on this slide?” In other words, the innate procrastinator helped you make fewer slides, which would then be used as a visual aid rather than a crutch during a talk. Today, it’s so easy to add slides that we just default to more and more slides, with more and more on each one. And since we can edit until the last minute, we do, and as such, we often don’t know our slides as well as if we had had a chance to get comfortable with them before the presentation. Result: PowerPoint presentations that suck.

My Latest Road Warrior Tools

posted Tue, 24 May 2011, 6:58 pm

In my new job, I’ve been doing quite a bit of traveling, and I’ve found a few things that I’ve really come to appreciate.

First, if you intend on using wifi, you need a travel router. It’s simple — set it up one time, and then whenever you go to a hotel, just plug it into the wired Ethernet jack and you’re good to go.
This may seem like an extravagance, but:

• Not all hotels have wireless Internet, even in this day and age. Or if they do, maybe the access point is far from your room, so you have a crappy signal. Not anymore.
• Some hotels allow you to authenticate one device on their network, with a specific password. With a router, the network sees only one device (the router), but you can connect as many as you want to the router.
• You never have to muck around in network settings on your laptop/iPhone/iPad to find and link to the hotel’s wireless network — since you’re creating the network, the name and settings don’t change.
• You can have as much or as little security on your network as you like.

These routers are now the size of a deck of cards, and cost as little as $30. Here’s mine, which I highly recommend. It’s smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the Airport Express I had before (which died), but this one also has one other critical advantage — it can be set up via a web browser, without special configuration software. As I said above, it doesn’t require tinkering once it’s set up, but in the event that it does, I don’t want to have to deal with config software.

The second thing I’ve been enjoying is the Apple DV connector for iPhone/iPad. It has a dock connector on one end, and on the other, an HDMI connector and a pass-through dock connector (which can be used to charge the iDevice while it’s streaming video). I was shocked to find that my iPhone is capable of outputting pretty good quality video, without stuttering, from either Netflix or via Air Video (particularly over wifi, another reason for a travel router).

Sort of back — and popless

posted Mon, 2 May 2011, 12:33 am

First off, no apologies for the long absence (wow, nearly 9 months!). In summary: infant becoming toddler, end of old job, start of new job, not using Mac anymore, which in retrospect, was a lot of what I wrote about here. Life is good, but busy, and it’s hard to find time to write stuff.

So, if I write, what do I think I’ll write about? I don’t know, but two rules: I have to think it’s interesting, and it has to take less than 20 minutes — unless it’s REALLY interesting. This falls into the first category.

Back at the end of 2007, the AV Club (the Onion’s music/movies/TV/books site, which is not a satire, but is very good) started a year-long feature by one of its music writers. Noel Murray. He decided that he’d go the next 10 months without buying new music, and instead re-listen and write a weekly column called “Popless” about the music on his hard drive, in alphabetical order (by band), with an eye toward paring it down. It’s pretty fascinating, particularly since we seem to have some common taste in music (helps that we’re the same age).

If you want to give it a shot, skip the intro (linked above), go to the first real week, and start reading. If you’re bored, start scrolling through the music at the bottom (“Abba” to “American Music Club”), maybe you’ll find something interesting to you.

Wish I could figure out how to put them all together into one file, load it on my phone, and have endless downtime reading.

Mail Filtering

posted Fri, 6 Aug 2010, 2:00 pm

Microsoft Entourage for Mac has more automation capability than just about any mail application I’m aware of (surprising, I know!). Thanks to the ability to have nearly any event trigger an AppleScript, as well as a full-featured AppleScript library, you can do pretty much whatever you want with messages. I wish I could apply some of that to gmail.

My most used automated task is the “2 weeks delete.” I have a folder on the server where, instead of actually trashing mail after I read it, I hit command-2, which throws the message into a “temp-2 weeks” folder. As soon as a message is more than 2 weeks old, it’s automatically trashed. The system offers 3 nice features: I get stuff out of my inbox, it’s still around for a while in case I realize I need it for some reason, and around the time I’ve forgotten about its existence, it’s auto-deleted. I’d bet 70% of my work mail goes through this 2-week folder.

Note that there are emails that I do keep and archive, but the majority of mails fall into the “read, act, delete in 2 weeks” workflow.

I’d bet my personal email has a similarly high ratio of mails that could be triaged. Gmail doesn’t have this feature as far as I can tell, but I jury-rigged a manual implementation:

• Auto-label all incoming mail with the label “2 weeks.”

• When you read your mail, run through this decision tree:

• Do I want to keep it permanently? If yes, take off the 2 weeks label and archive it. There’s no reason to have an overflowing inbox on gmail, since all your mail is in “All Mail,” anyway. If no…

• Can I act on it right away? If so, archive it with the 2 weeks label. If not, leave it in your inbox. Note that this last thing isn’t a great idea if you don’t want an overflowing inbox.

The manual part is that, every once in a while, you have to go to the “2 weeks” label (mailbox), and empty the things that are more than 2 weeks old. Would be nice if this were automatic, but that’s where we are, as far as I can tell.

Finally, you may be wondering why I care about throwing away gmail anyway, considering that I’m using 11% of my allocated space (after years of use). I just don’t want to keep crap around. I really, really don’t need all the mail I get for eternity, and neither does Google.

iPad

posted Mon, 19 Jul 2010, 12:37 pm

About 3 weeks ago, I got an iPad, which I wanted to wait for but knew was more or less inevitable. It’s been a fun couple of weeks, and I’ve learned that while there are some really nice things about the iPad as a platform, there are definitely some substantial limitations.

This is a long post, so click through if you want to read the rest.

Read more

Controversies at the World Cup

posted Sat, 3 Jul 2010, 8:23 am

It’s been quite the World Cup so far, and one that will likely change the face of international soccer in the coming years. FIFA has had its hands full with unexpected issues, ranging from vuvuzelas to goal-line and video replay technology to discussions about how rules are to be enforced. So, here’s what I think.

Vuvuzelas

Yes, they’re loud, and I’m sure they’re annoying to people on the field. But they’re part of the game in South Africa, and they’re no different than other annoying things that crowds do (just as Sol Campbell whether the singing in England gets on his nerves). Personally, I don’t like “The Wave,” particularly during soccer games, when there’s definitely action going on on the field and people are constantly standing up in front of me. But, it’s what crowds do.

Mike’s verdict: The vuvuzelas stay. Players, fans, reporters, and TV viewers: suck it up.

Goal-line technology

FIFA has been famously anti-technology for years, refusing to consider using any sort of technology to judge whether a ball is in the net or not. The rules state that the entire ball has to be over the line, and sometimes, the nearest official who can make the call is the linesman, who is half the width of the field away. Famously, England scored a goal this World Cup against Slovakia Germany (thanks, Rom!) that was at least a yard over the line, but the linesman and referee weren’t in position to see it, so it was diallowed.

FIFA’s stand has always been that technology would ruin the flow of the game, with constant stops to check replays. They attempted to address this issue on a test basis in the UEFA Europa League, where a 5th and 6th official were added on the goal lines to more closely watch for goals.

Mike’s verdict: The game needs goal-line technology, particularly when the stakes are as high as the World Cup. In my opinion, professional matches need this. Some people claim that it takes away a “pure” aspect of the game that the kids playing at the park on Saturdays play by the same rules and technology as the pros (i.e., the referees make the decisions), but at this level, there’s a need for being certain.

Video replay

Currently, video replays can’t be used to review officials’ decisions during the game. As a result, there are some calls (like offside decisions on goals) where a call (or non-call) can dramatically alter the outcome of a game. This offside situation happened in Argentina’s favor, and the US was clearly disallowed a goal that would have been counted had review been possible.

Photo doesn’t do justice to the bad call.

Mike’s verdict: I’m not so opinionated on this one, but my feeling is that right now, the rules on video replays should stay as they are. I realize that will result in some missed calls, just like in many other sports. There is probably a way to have a limited number of “video challenges” per team per game, like in the NFL, but I haven’t figured out what I think about it (if so, then maybe 1 per team per game). Unlike in football, where there are strict rules on how far back you can go on a replay (only until the ball is snapped on the next play can a review be requested, as I understand), in soccer, play doesn’t stop. How far back should you be allowed to review? I think these sorts of issues would need to be worked out before I would be in favor of video replays.

Intentional handballs in front of goal

This issue came up yesterday in the quarterfinal game between Uruguay and Ghana. After 90 hard-fought minutes, the score was tied 1-1, and it went to 30 minutes of extra time. At the end of which, the score was still 1-1, and Ghana had one last trip down the field before time expired. After an unbelievable melee in front of the goal, Ghana finally got off a 3rd shot on target, which was saved from goal by a jumping Luis Suarez, who very clearly intentionally stuck up his hands to block the ball going into the goal.

Suarez was instantly and correctly red-carded, and Ghana was awarded a penalty kick. Perfect officiating. Suarez was ejected from this game, and would miss the next were Uruguay to advance (more on that in a second). The debate is to whether or not the penalty was harsh enough.

Mike’s verdict (part 1): Suarez’s handball was not in the spirit of the game, but he considered the consequences and did what he had to do, within the rules. Rather, he knew the consequences and did what he did. I would do (and have done, in high school) the same thing.

So, back to the game: Ghana steps up to take the penalty in what is certainly the last play of regulation: hit it, and Ghana goes through. Miss, and we’re (ironically) going to a penalty kick shootout.

Shooter steps up, kicks … and the ball caroms off the crossbar! The game goes to penalties, and Uruguay ends up winning, sending Ghana home. The cheaters prosper.

There’s been a ton of discussion about this, and I think it’s mainly because of the fact that Ghana ended up losing (had they won, either on the first penalty or in the shootout) this wouldn’t really be a discussion. If I were a Ghana fan, I’d feel completely cheated — and that’s wrong. People are calling for longer bans for Suarez, or other actions from FIFA.

Mike’s verdict (part 2): Again, I think Suarez did the right thing for his team. He weighed the consequences, and realized that a handball reduced the 100% chance of a goal to ~80% on the penalty kick, and it turned out that was the right gamble. The problem is that the penalty for doing this isn’t severe enough — but that needs to change before the action happens, so that it enters into the calculus of Suarez’s decision-making process.

The rules state that a goal cannot be awarded unless the ball goes over the line. There are those who suggest this should be changed, but I think that’s wrong. A goal has to be scored on the field.

I was talking to my wife this morning, who doesn’t follow soccer closely, and she came up with what I think may be the optimal solution: if the referee rules for an intentional, goal-preventing handball, everything stays the same, except for one crucial difference: the penalty shot happens without the keeper in the goal. This changes the balance, so that the penalty shot is now a 99.8% chance of scoring, so there’s extremely little advantage to be gained by intentionally handballing. Taken together with the certainty of missing the next game for the red card, I think this is a very workable solution.

Now that my team is out, I’m looking forward to just seeing some good games in the last 2 rounds!

iPhone 4: Why I'm Holding Off

posted Fri, 2 Jul 2010, 3:22 pm

First of all, it’s not the reception issue. I’ll go on record as saying that from the evidence, it sounds like there’s an issue where if you hold the phone in a “certain way” (meaning, like a normal person, especially a normal left-handed person, which I claim to be), you lose bars. Apple would have you believe that that’s all you’re losing (“bars”), and that there’s no real reception problem. I think that’s probably not true, and that you’re really losing some portion of your reception. However, I don’t care how many bars I have when I’m on a call, all I care about is whether the call is dropped or not. And from what I’ve read, all this can be solved with some sort of case, which I’d get anyway, since I have a case now, and by all reports, the iPhone 4 is more fragile than the 3GS I have now. So — no real issue in my book.

So, why am I not in line to get a new phone?

Mainly, it’s because my current phone is pretty darn good, and jailbreaking it has made it all the better. It’s still running iPhone OS 3.1.2, and among other things I can use jailbreak software to have multitasking (with what I think is a nicer UI than Apple’s), tether it to the internet, display my calendar on the lock screen, and lots of other little things like changing the SMS tone. Some of that (like multitasking) I can even get through official Apple channels with iOS4 on my current phone, but some, I can’t get even with Apple’s newest hardware and softare.

If I weren’t so attached to my phone, I think the iPhone 4 would make a great phone. The form factor is very nice, the camera (err, cameras) seems like a pretty big improvement over my phone, and video chatting with FaceTime seems like fun. The feature everyone’s talking about, though, is the higher-res screen, which looks really nice. In my couple of minutes with the phone last week, I though it was nice, but I wasn’t as blown away as some people seem to be. I just think that the iPhone is too small to really do any substantial reading, so the resolution isn’t a huge draw. Now if that screen were on a bigger device, like an iPad — then we’d be talking.

All this being said, there’s a pretty good chance that the phone will be jailbroken soon (I’m not counting Spirit for now, since I think that will be fixed soon by Apple), and I’ll likely take the plunge, particularly since we’re an iPhone family and it’ll be fun to video chat.

My Team for South Africa 2010

posted Thu, 17 Jun 2010, 2:40 pm

I’m making my call: Not sure if they’ll win it all, but Argentina is the team I’ll be cheering for through the rest of the tournament. Here’s why:

• They have my favorite non-Spurs player in the Premier League, Carlos Tevez, playing up front. He is the physical manifestation of effort — he runs continuously, always has a pained look on his face, and is a sensational striker. I wish Spurs would find a way to sign him.

• Tevez is partnered up front by Lionel Messi, who, at 22 years old, is rightly regarded as the best player in the world. He’s just incredibly fun to watch as he jukes opponents and regularly sets up goals by his teammates, and seems to completely enjoy the game.

• Diego Maradona is the manager, and is always good for a laugh. Once the best player in the world, he is most famous for the “Hand of God” goal in the 1986 World Cup in which he apparently intentionally knocked the ball into the goal with his hand. The goal was followed 4 minutes later by the so-called “Goal of the Century,” in which he single-handedly secured Argentina’s semifinal victory over England. He later fell into disgrace after numerous cocaine-related incidents, gained a ton of weight, and retired from the game. Everything looked to be on the outs until he was named Argentina manager in 2008. Since then he has had a, shall we say, unconventional, approach to managing the squad. In the World Cup qualification stage, he used over 100 different players in choosing the national team (most managers used less than 40). He has an amazing knack for saying insulting things at press conferences, which makes them all the more fun.

• They have a great attacking style. Of all the teams in the tournament, this is the one I’ve been most excited to watch. And isn’t that what it comes down to when you’re picking who to support?

I’ll be excited if Italy or the USA somehow win the World Cup, don’t get me wrong. And I’ll be really happy if the winning team plays great soccer to win (like Brazil probably will). But for pure fun, I’m pulling for Argentina.

Farm Share: Caldo (not-so) Verde

posted Mon, 14 Jun 2010, 9:53 pm

Hey, it’s a non-tech post!

This summer we signed up for a farm share with our upstairs neighbor, so every week, we’ll be getting a box of vegetables from Allendale Farm, a local farm here in Brookline (that has been a farm since 1762!). Basically, they fill it with whatever they think is ripe for the picking. Our thought was that we could eat what we want and pureé the rest for Adam, but we’re realizing that may not work due to the sheer volume. We got our first box on Thursday, and have been working through eating the ton of greens that we got. The box included a couple types of lettuce, cabbage, kale, spring garlic, and scallions.

Tonight we decided to dive into the kale, which I’m not sure I’d ever eaten before.

We chose a Portuguese soup called Caldo Verde, which has sausage, potato, and kale (and garlic, so got to use the spring garlic, too!). The recipe in the Boston Globe advertised it as both hearty and light, but I found it to be more on the hearty side. Despite feeling like we had all the greens in the world, turned out we didn’t have enough kale, so we called it “Caldo not-so Verde.” Still, we decided the recipe was a keeper.

It's Here! World Cup 2010!

posted Sat, 12 Jun 2010, 12:07 pm

Totally getting into watching the 2010 World Cup — it seems like it’s been months of build-up, but actually, it’s been years. Teams started playing qualification matches nearly 3 years ago, and South Africa has been preparing for this first-eve World Cup in Africa since they got the bid in 2004.

On the field, Spain is usually named as the favorite, having won the 2008 European Championship in definitive fashion, and having only lost once since then (to the USA, in the semifinals of the 2009 Confederations Cup, also in South Africa). The other traditional powerhouses are also there, including Brazil, Argentina, Italy, France, Germany, and England. The USA is in England’s group, and will play them later today in the first game of the group stage — a game that has been built up on both sides of the ocean. In America, it’s being sold as a David-vs-Goliath, “do you believe in miracles?” level game (which it certainly isn’t), but it is one of those games that can really rally the non-soccer fans of the country to care about the game, even if for only 90 minutes. In England, it’s a litmus test of a squad that has performed very well through qualification, but not convincingly in the friendly matches leading up to the World Cup finals. England has also been plagued with injuries, and this will be a test to see how well the team has gelled. And the best part of the game: the USA isn’t so outclassed that a win is impossible. Should be fun.

I don’t have any strong opinions about who I want to win it all. I want the USA to win today, because I think both they and England will advance from their group. I would love it if Italy won, but only if they’re playing well — they aren’t really that great this time around, and I don’t want them to limp over the finish line. It would be fun for the Netherlands to win. I don’t want France to win. What I’m really looking forward to is a month of great games, awesome goals, and a few upsets along the way.

Without cable, watching the games is interesting, too. ESPN3 is showing all the games live (except for the ones live on ABC), so I have my computer hooked up to the TV. So far, the quality has been great — so there are no excuses! Pull up a chair and start watching!