> start writing your notes in the speaker notes and leave the slides blank, instead of the other way around (which is kind of what PowerPoint's UI pushes you towards). Only create the actual slide content after refining your speaker notes once or twice.
At that point, you might as well extract those notes into a proper technical report—which is the _actual_ conclusion that Tufte came to:
> Attempting to have slides serve both as projected visuals and as stand-alone handouts makes for bad visuals and bad documentation. Yet, this is a typical, acceptable approach. PowerPoint (or Keynote) is a tool for displaying visual information, information that helps you tell your story, make your case, or prove your point. PowerPoint is a terrible tool for making written documents, that's what word processors are for.
(Aside: Did anyone actually click through and read Tufte's original "PowerPoint Does Rocket Science" (that this piece borrows liberally from—and then perverts)? This piece amounts to middling-quality reblog spam, except worse—because it comes with the added downside that it injects some synthesis about the slide in question (containing "a huge amount of text") being described as too long. Anyone following up and checking sources will see that not only is this not supported by Tufte's work, but it wouldn't be a stretch to say that what is presented here as a summary of the work of Tuft et al runs counter to what they had to say.
It gets truly bizarre when you start reviewing the samples that Tufte provided. It turns out that the slide pictured in this article is not even the slide that was "in play" during the relevant incident. If this blog post were a serious publication (instead of a grey area, slightly scummy, content-marketing afterthought that it is), it would constitute academic fraud...)
