A presentation can look polished and still make the audience work too hard. This audit is designed for the final review stage, when the slides already exist and you need to decide what to cut, clarify, rehearse, or rebuild before presenting. It is a practical editing tool, not a scientific scoring instrument.
How to use the audit
Open the deck in slideshow view and work through it once without editing. Mark problems as you notice them, then make a second pass using the checklist below. The point is to catch friction that is easy to miss while designing: a title that names a topic but does not make a point, a chart that requires legend hunting, a transition that assumes too much, or a slide that takes longer to explain than the audience will see it.
Use three labels only: Keep, Revise, and Cut. If every item becomes “Revise,” the labels are no longer helping you make decisions.
1. Message check: can each slide earn its place?
| Check | Keep when… | Revise when… |
|---|---|---|
| Main point | You can state the slide’s purpose in one sentence. | You need to describe several unrelated reasons for showing it. |
| Title | The title helps the audience understand the point or question. | The title only names a subject such as “Results” or “Overview.” |
| Evidence | The visible material supports the sentence you are saying. | The slide contains detail you never discuss. |
| Sequence | The slide follows naturally from the previous one. | You need a long explanation just to explain why it appears now. |
A useful test is to hide the body of the slide and read only the title. If the title tells you nothing about why the slide matters, rewrite the title before redesigning the rest. CueLab’s guide on claim-based slide titles shows this in more detail.
2. Attention check: where do the eyes land first?
View each slide for about five seconds, then look away. Write down the first element you noticed. If it was a logo, decorative photograph, bright footer, or unrelated number, the hierarchy is working against the explanation.
- One element should usually carry the strongest visual emphasis.
- Related labels should sit close to the thing they describe.
- Decoration should not compete with evidence.
- Colour should have a job rather than simply making every object different.
- If the slide contains several equally important items, the layout should make that equality deliberate rather than accidental.
For slides with several competing targets, compare your result with the CueLab visual-attention guide.
Before-and-after slide example
Before: “Q3 Results”
+8%
-2%
+3%
+14%
Four equally strong signals; the audience has to decide what matters.
After: “Returning customer count grew by 14%”
+14%
The title states the message and the supporting values remain available without competing equally.
Interpretation limit: these illustrative growth rates do not show which customer group contributed most to revenue. That would require the underlying revenue amounts, group sizes, and definitions. The revised title describes the returning-customer count rather than inventing a revenue cause.
3. Chart check: can someone read the comparison without decoding the design?
Do not ask only whether the chart is technically correct. Ask what the viewer must do before the comparison becomes clear.
| Question | Good sign | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|
| What should the audience compare? | The comparison is obvious from the title, annotation, or emphasis. | The viewer must inspect the whole chart to guess the intended point. |
| How are series identified? | Names are direct, close, or consistently encoded. | The viewer repeatedly moves between data and a distant legend. |
| Does the scale fit the claim? | The scale makes the actual difference easy to judge. | The visual effect is stronger or weaker than the underlying difference suggests. |
| Are labels readable at presentation size? | Labels survive a normal viewing distance. | Labels work only when you are sitting close to the monitor. |
If the legend itself is creating work, use the method in direct labels versus legends.
4. Spoken explanation check: does the slide support the sentence, or duplicate it?
Read your opening sentence for the slide out loud while looking at the screen. If the audience is expected to read a paragraph at the same moment, decide which channel should carry the detail. A diagram, short phrase, or highlighted number can support the spoken explanation without reproducing it word for word.
Mark any slide where you regularly say, “I know this is a lot,” “You probably can’t read this,” or “I’ll explain the important part.” Those phrases are useful warnings during rehearsal because they often reveal a design problem that should be solved before the room sees it.
5. Transition check: can the audience tell why the next slide appears?
Write one short transition between every pair of major sections. You do not need to memorize it. The exercise is diagnostic. If you cannot explain the move from one section to the next, the structure may be missing a link.
Useful transitions usually do one of three things: close the previous question, introduce the next question, or show how the next piece of evidence changes the decision. A transition that merely says “next slide” does none of those jobs.
6. Timing check: where does the presentation actually run long?
Time the presentation in realistic conditions, including slide changes, pauses, demonstrations, and questions you plan to ask. Do not estimate timing from word count alone.
| Checkpoint | Planned time | Actual time | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening complete | ____ | ____ | Keep / shorten |
| First major section complete | ____ | ____ | Keep / shorten |
| Middle complete | ____ | ____ | Keep / shorten |
| Final recommendation begins | ____ | ____ | Move earlier / keep |
| Close complete | ____ | ____ | Within limit / over |
Do not remove only from the ending because the opening ran long. Cut the section that created the delay. If the middle repeatedly expands, review why presentation middles lose structure.
7. Question-readiness check
Write down the three questions most likely to challenge your conclusion, not the three easiest questions to answer. Beside each one, note the evidence you would use, the limit you would acknowledge, and the action you would take if you did not know the answer.
When the answer is genuinely unavailable, use the response structure in how to handle questions you cannot answer rather than improvising certainty.
8. Accessibility and room check
- View the deck on the actual projector or display when possible.
- Check whether colour alone carries meaning.
- Confirm that important text remains readable from the back of the room or at normal video-call size.
- Make sure videos have usable audio and, where needed, captions.
- Keep a non-animated backup of any slide that depends on complex transitions.
- Test links, embedded media, and demonstrations on the machine that will be used.
The 20-minute final pass
If time is short, do not attempt a complete redesign. Spend five minutes on message and titles, five on visual hierarchy and charts, five on transitions and timing, and five on the opening, closing, and likely questions. Fix the problems that interfere with understanding before polishing minor alignment or decorative details.
Printable audit sheet
| Slide | Purpose clear? | Attention clear? | Evidence readable? | Timing issue? | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Keep / Revise / Cut |
| 2 | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Keep / Revise / Cut |
| 3 | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Keep / Revise / Cut |
| 4 | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Keep / Revise / Cut |
| 5 | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Y / N | Keep / Revise / Cut |
Duplicate rows as needed. The sheet is intentionally simple: it is meant to force decisions, not produce a flattering score.