One of the best presentations I have attended was 90 minutes of stock photos. Each one was loosely connected to the next point that was to be made.
A couple of weeks ago I made a presentation where absolutely every bit of text said the exact opposite of what I was actually saying to the class. I was half way through the lesson before someone noticed. It got their attention though.
Slides are there to stop your class falling asleep, serve as a mind-jogger for yourself, and supply those rare bits of information that absolutely have to be visual, such as a graph or diagram. None of these things need text (except maybe the title).
The picture style is my preferred method. I give my audience something prettier than me to look at that doesn't take much concentration, that should be reserved for listening and thinking. I've seen far too many where the slides are for the speaker's benefit: to remind them what to talk about next. You too must have experienced someone turning to the next slide and they have already covered the material on it.
You didn't provide any arguments or evidence to support your view that text on slides is detrimental to learning.
Also, your experiment to make a presentation with opposite slides probably confused a lot of people in the audience before someone "noticed". Nice trick to get their attention but did they learn any better?
One of the best presentations I have attended was 90 minutes of stock photos. Each one was loosely connected to the next point that was to be made.
A couple of weeks ago I made a presentation where absolutely every bit of text said the exact opposite of what I was actually saying to the class. I was half way through the lesson before someone noticed. It got their attention though.
Slides are there to stop your class falling asleep, serve as a mind-jogger for yourself, and supply those rare bits of information that absolutely have to be visual, such as a graph or diagram. None of these things need text (except maybe the title).