Slide Quality Assessment

Slide Quality Assessment

Evaluate presentation slides using evidence-based quality criteria grounded in cognitive load research, accessibility standards, and presentation best practices from TED, MIT Communication Lab, and technical conference guidelines.

Research Foundation: Quality assessment based on working memory limits (Miller's Law), David JP Phillips' cognitive load studies, WCAG accessibility standards, and analysis of effective technical presentations.

IMPORTANT: Before analyzing slides, use the Read tool to load the style guide from the plugin directory:

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/presentation-best-practices.md

This contains the complete research-backed guidelines and validation criteria supporting the 12-point checklist.

The 12-Point Quality Checklist

Use this systematic framework to evaluate any presentation slide:

1. ✓ One Idea Per Slide (CRITICAL)

Criterion: Does the slide communicate exactly ONE central idea, finding, or question?

Why this matters:

• Prevents cognitive overload
• Maintains audience focus during narration
• Enables clear narrative progression

How to assess:

• Can slide be explained in ~90 seconds?
• Does all content support only the title's assertion?
• Are there multiple unrelated concepts?

Red flags:

• ✗ Covering multiple independent topics
• ✗ Requires >2 minutes to explain
• ✗ Content diverges from title

Fix: Split into multiple slides, one concept each

2. ✓ Meaningful Title (CRITICAL)

Criterion: Is the title an assertion (subject + verb + finding) rather than a label?

Why this matters:

• Titles act as "topic sentences"
• Reading titles in sequence tells the story
• Helps distracted viewers catch up
• Audience should understand main point from title alone

Good vs Bad:

• ❌ Bad (labels): "Results", "Background", "Performance"
• ✅ Good (assertions): "Experiment X demonstrates 2x gain", "Current solutions fail at scale"

How to assess:

• Does title state a takeaway (not just a topic)?
• Subject + verb + finding format?
• Would titles in sequence tell a coherent story?

Fix: Convert labels to complete assertions

3. ✓ Element Count ≤6 (CRITICAL)

Criterion: Total distinct elements ≤6 (bullets + images + diagrams + charts + code blocks)

Why this matters:

• Working memory: 7±2 items (Miller's Law)

• 6 elements exponentially increases cognitive load (Phillips research)

• Audience cannot process >6 simultaneous information chunks

What counts as elements:

• Each bullet point = 1
• Each image/diagram = 1
• Each code block = 1
• Each chart/graph = 1
• Nested bullets count separately

Exceptions:

• Progressive builds (v-click) revealing elements incrementally = OK
• Diagrams with integrated labels (count as 1 if cohesive)

How to assess: Count all visual and textual chunks the audience must process simultaneously

Red flags:

• ✗ 8+ bullet points
• ✗ Multiple diagrams + bullets
• ✗ Dense content without progressive disclosure

Fix: Reduce elements, split slides, or use v-click for progressive builds

4. ✓ Word Count <50 (CRITICAL)

Criterion: Body text <50 words (excluding title)

Why this matters:

• Audience cannot read and listen simultaneously

• 50 words = audience stops listening to speaker

• Slides support speaker, not replace them

How to assess:

• Count all words excluding title
• Include bullet text, captions, labels
• Exclude code (assess separately)

Red flags:

• ✗ Full sentences in bullets
• ✗ Paragraph text
• ✗ Long explanatory captions

Fix:

• Convert sentences to phrases (3-6 words per bullet)
• Move detailed explanations to presenter notes
• Split content across multiple slides

5. ✓ Visual Element Present

Criterion: At least one visual element (diagram, chart, image, code, or graphic)

Why this matters:

• Dual-channel processing (visual + audio) improves retention
• Visuals convey complex relationships better than text
• Almost never text-only slides

Exceptions allowing text-only:

• Quote slides
• Definition slides
• Bold statements for emphasis
• Section dividers

How to assess: Is there a diagram, chart, image, code block, or other visual?

Red flags:

• ✗ Only title + bullets
• ✗ Dense text without supporting visual
• ✗ Missed opportunity for diagram

Fix: Add mermaid diagram, chart, image, or code example

6. ✓ Font Sizes (Body ≥18pt, Heading ≥24pt)

Criterion: Body text ≥18pt, headings ≥24pt (accessibility requirement)

Why this matters:

• WCAG accessibility standards
• Readability from back of room
• Accommodates vision impairments

How to assess:

• Check Slidev theme defaults
• Verify no custom CSS reducing sizes
• Test: Can text be read from 20 feet away?

Red flags:

• ✗ Tiny code fonts (<14pt)
• ✗ Compressed text to fit content
• ✗ Caption text <16pt

Fix: Use proper font sizes, split slides if content doesn't fit

7. ✓ Contrast Ratio (≥4.5:1)

Criterion: Text contrast ≥4.5:1 for normal text, ≥3:1 for large text (>24pt)

Why this matters:

• WCAG Level AA accessibility requirement
• Readability under projection conditions
• Accommodates vision impairments

How to assess:

• Check dark text on light backgrounds (or inverse)
• Avoid: gray-on-gray, yellow-on-white, light-blue-on-white
• Test: Is text clearly readable at a glance?

Red flags:

• ✗ Low-contrast color schemes
• ✗ Light text on light backgrounds
• ✗ Colored text without sufficient contrast

Fix: Use high-contrast color pairs, test with contrast checker

8. ✓ Colorblind-Safe (Not Color-Only)

Criterion: Meaning not conveyed by color alone (use patterns, labels, shapes)

Why this matters:

• ~8% of males have color vision deficiency
• Projected colors appear differently than on screen
• Print/grayscale versions must be understandable

How to assess:

• Can information be understood in grayscale?
• Are chart lines distinguished by style (solid/dashed) not just color?
• Do diagrams use labels, not just color coding?

Red flags:

• ✗ "Green = good, red = bad" without labels
• ✗ Chart with only color-differentiated lines
• ✗ Diagrams relying solely on color

Fix: Add patterns, labels, shapes, or text alongside color

9. ✓ Standalone Comprehension

Criterion: Can viewer grasp main point from title + visual alone (without narration)?

Why this matters:

• Distracted viewers can catch up mid-presentation
• Slides work for async review
• Conclusions highlighted, not buried

How to assess:

• 5-second test: Show slide without context - is point clear?
• Does visual reinforce the title's assertion?
• Could someone skimming slides get the story?

Red flags:

• ✗ Title + content don't align
• ✗ Visual unrelated to title
• ✗ Requires full narration to understand

Fix: Strengthen title-visual connection, add clarifying labels

10. ✓ Phrases Not Sentences

Criterion: Bullets are short phrases (3-6 words), not full sentences

Why this matters:

• Prevents audience from reading ahead
• Keeps focus on speaker
• Avoids reading-while-listening conflict
• Garr Reynolds principle: slides support, don't replace speaker

Good vs Bad:

• ❌ Bad: "Kubernetes orchestrates containerized applications across a cluster of machines"
• ✅ Good: "Container orchestration across clusters"

How to assess: Are bullets short keyword phrases or full grammatical sentences?

Red flags:

• ✗ Bullets with periods at the end
• ✗ Multi-clause sentences
• ✗ Explanatory prose in bullets

Fix: Extract keywords, move details to presenter notes

11. ✓ White Space (≥10% Margins)

Criterion: Adequate white space around content (≥10% margins, well-distributed)

Why this matters:

• Prevents claustrophobic feeling
• Improves visual hierarchy
• Directs attention to content
• Professional appearance

How to assess:

• Is content distributed across slide?
• Breathing room around elements?
• Clear visual separation?

Red flags:

• ✗ Content edge-to-edge
• ✗ Cramped, dense appearance
• ✗ Elements overlapping or too close

Fix: Reduce content, increase padding, split slides

12. ✓ Explainable in ~90 Seconds

Criterion: Slide can be presented in approximately 90 seconds (configurable)

Why this matters:

• Maintains presentation pace
• Prevents overloaded slides
• Ensures depth without overwhelm
• Standard conference timing

How to assess:

• Can you explain all content in 90 seconds?
• Does slide require lengthy explanation?
• Would you rush through material?

Red flags:

• ✗ Requires >2 minutes to cover
• ✗ Dense content needing detailed explanation
• ✗ Multiple complex points

Fix: Split slides, simplify content, move details to notes

Quality Scoring System

Score calculation: Count ✓ for each criterion met (max 12 points)

Interpretation:

• 12/12 - Excellent: Publication-ready
• 10-11/12 - Good: Minor tweaks needed
• 8-9/12 - Acceptable: Some improvements needed
• 6-7/12 - Poor: Significant revision required
• <6/12 - Critical: Complete redesign needed

Priority for fixes:

1. CRITICAL violations (criteria 1-4): Must fix before presenting
2. HIGH violations (criteria 5-8): Should fix for quality presentation
3. MEDIUM violations (criteria 9-12): Nice to fix for polish

Analysis Output Format

When assessing a slide, provide:

## Slide [N]: [Current Title]

**Quality Score: [X/12]**

**Current State:**
- ✓/✗ One idea per slide
- ✓/✗ Meaningful title (assertion vs label)
- ✓/✗ Element count: [X] elements (target ≤6)
- ✓/✗ Word count: [Y] words (target <50)
- ✓/✗ Visual element present
- ✓/✗ Font sizes (body ≥18pt, heading ≥24pt)
- ✓/✗ Contrast ratio (≥4.5:1)
- ✓/✗ Colorblind-safe (not color-only)
- ✓/✗ Standalone comprehension (title + visual = point)
- ✓/✗ Phrases not sentences
- ✓/✗ White space (≥10% margins)
- ✓/✗ Explainable in ~90 seconds

**Critical Violations:** [List any CRITICAL criteria failures, or "None"]

**Recommendations (Priority Order):**

1. **[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM] - [Specific issue]**
   - Current: [What exists now with specific examples]
   - Suggested: [Concrete improvement with example]
   - Why: [Research basis from criteria above]
   - Impact: [Expected improvement]

2. **[Priority] - [Next issue]**
   [Same structure...]

**Quick Win:** [One simple change with biggest impact]

Optimization Strategies by Issue

Reducing Element Count (>6 elements)

Tactics:

• Merge related bullets into single points
• Move supporting details to presenter notes
• Split into 2-3 simpler slides
• Use progressive builds (v-click) to reveal incrementally

Example:

• Current: 8 bullets about microservices benefits
• Fix: Keep 4 key benefits, move implementation details to notes

Reducing Word Count (>50 words)

Tactics:

• Convert full sentences to keyword phrases
• Remove articles (a, an, the)
• Use symbols/abbreviations where clear
• Move explanations to presenter notes

Example:

• Current: "Kubernetes provides automated deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications"
• Fix: "Automated container deployment & scaling"

Creating Meaningful Titles (Label → Assertion)

Tactics:

• Add verb + finding to label
• State the conclusion, not the category
• Make title reveal the "so what?"

Examples:

• "Results" → "Response time improved 3x with caching"
• "Background" → "Current solutions fail under high load"
• "Architecture" → "Microservices enable independent scaling"

Adding Visual Elements

When to add what:

• Process/workflow → Mermaid flowchart
• Architecture → Mermaid component diagram
• Data comparison → Chart/graph
• Concepts → Icon or stock photo
• Code behavior → Code snippet with highlights

Tip: Use visual-design skill for diagram creation

Converting Sentences to Phrases

Pattern:

• Identify the core noun phrase
• Remove helping verbs, articles
• Keep 3-6 words maximum

Examples:

• "The system automatically scales based on traffic" → "Auto-scaling based on traffic"
• "We implemented caching to improve performance" → "Caching improves performance"

Edge Cases & Exceptions

Slides That Don't Follow Standard Rules

Title slides:

• Skip word count limit
• Focus on visual impact
• Branding/conference info acceptable

Code slides:

• Check syntax highlighting
• Verify relevant line selection (not full files)
• Ensure <15 lines per block
• OK if text-heavy (code is visual)

Data slides:

• Chart clarity most important
• One insight per slide (even if data supports multiple)
• Label axes, provide legend

Quote slides:

• Attribution required
• Large readable font
• Can be text-only
• Keep quote <50 words

Diagram-heavy slides:

• Minimal text OK if diagram self-explanatory
• Ensure diagram elements ≤6
• Add title asserting diagram's point

Reference slides (appendix/backup):

• Mark as "reference" or "backup"
• Skip optimization
• Dense content acceptable

When NOT to Optimize

Don't optimize when:

• Slide explicitly marked "detailed" or "reference"
• Mathematical proof requiring full derivation
• Code example needing complete context
• Intentional design choice with rationale

Ask first if:

• Unusual format seems intentional
• Content density might be presentation-specific requirement
• User indicates special constraints

Interaction Guidelines

When analyzing:

• Be specific (not vague like "improve clarity")
• Explain reasoning with research basis
• Prioritize recommendations (most impactful first)
• Acknowledge good elements (not only criticism)
• Offer to apply changes or let user decide

After analysis:

• Ask if user wants to apply recommendations
• Allow selective application (not all-or-nothing)
• Offer to re-assess after changes
• Suggest next steps (optimize another slide, etc.)

Working With This Skill

To analyze a slide:

1. Read the slide file
2. Apply each of the 12 criteria systematically
3. Count violations and score
4. Prioritize recommendations (CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM)
5. Provide specific, actionable suggestions
6. Offer to implement approved changes

Integration with other skills:

• Use presentation-design skill for overall structure/flow
• Use visual-design skill to create diagrams/visuals
• Use slidev-mastery skill for technical Slidev syntax

Tools available:

• Read: Examine slide content
• Edit: Apply recommended improvements
• Grep: Search for patterns across slides

Apply this framework consistently to help create clear, accessible, evidence-based presentations.