lda.chat/lda-wf
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: design presentation opening visuals

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
lda
2026-07-10 03:09:00 +07:00 Verified
parent 5c011ead9d
commit c5e0361791
2 changed files with 203 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/current_roadmap.md
+3 -1
View File
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ Design contracts:
- [`Scene 10 guided product moment`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-scene-10-guided-product-moment-design.md)
- [`presentation live/replay truth`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-presentation-live-replay-truth-design.md)
- [`presentation lifecycle story expansion`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-09-presentation-lifecycle-story-expansion-design.md)
- [`presentation opening visuals`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-10-presentation-opening-visuals-design.md)
Implementation order:
@@ -194,7 +195,8 @@ Recommended next visual slices:
1. Opening visuals: rebuild Scenes 1 and 2 around concrete diagrams for
"AI-agent pursuit -> workflow substrate" and "direct actions are not reusable
automation".
automation". Design:
[`presentation opening visuals`](superpowers/specs/2026-07-10-presentation-opening-visuals-design.md).
2. Demo surface cleanup: normalize Scenes 8-12 into a single product-flow
language with factual panes, graph context, and fewer competing panels.
3. Evidence and closing visuals: make Scenes 13 and 14 readable as a defense
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-07-10-presentation-opening-visuals-design.md
+200
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
# Presentation Opening Visuals Design
## Purpose
Scenes 1 and 2 currently start the defense with too much text and too little
visual argument. The opening should make the thesis title defensible before the
technical slides begin: the project started as an AI-agent ambition, but the
implemented contribution is the workflow platform layer that makes external
agents useful for reusable workspace automation.
The opening must feel like a story, not a disclaimer.
## Core Framing
The first minute should use an origin-story stance:
```text
I wanted to build an AI agent for workspace workflows.
I found that the durable platform underneath the agent was the hard part.
This thesis focuses on that platform layer.
```
The title should decompose into three conceptual parts:
```text
Planner -> Tool Surface -> Workflow Platform
```
Known products should appear only where they clarify the model:
- `Codex`, `Claude`, and `ChatGPT` sit under `Planner`.
- `CLI`, `MCP`, and `APIs` sit under `Tool Surface`.
- `lda.chat` is highlighted as the submitted workflow-platform/substrate
implementation.
Do not introduce `wf` CLI branding in the opening. The CLI appears later as one
implementation surface.
## Scene 1: Thesis Origin
Scene 1 should have two beats.
### Beat 1: Title reveal
Primary visual:
- A cinematic title reveal using the real thesis title.
- The title should be readable at 720p and not collapse into a wall of text.
- The subtitle may keep the forced "AI Agent" wording, but the animation should
prepare the decomposition that follows.
Required visual elements:
- Large title typography.
- Three faint latent components behind or below the title: `Planner`,
`Tool Surface`, `Workflow Platform`.
- Simple iconography for the three components:
- Planner: model/chat/brain-like symbol.
- Tool Surface: terminal/API/plug-like symbol.
- Workflow Platform: durable graph/store/records-like symbol.
### Beat 2: Contribution focus
Primary visual:
```text
Planner Tool Surface Workflow Platform
Codex / Claude CLI / MCP / APIs lda.chat
ChatGPT Typed · Durable · Inspectable
```
The workflow-platform block should become dominant. `lda.chat` is branding here;
it is not replaced by `wf`.
Required behavior:
- The visual emphasis moves from the whole "AI agent" phrase to the platform
block.
- A defense question pill remains available: `Where is the AI agent?`
- The main slide body should not say "this thesis does not implement a new
autonomous planning algorithm." That sentence belongs in speaker notes or the
Q&A branch, not the primary visual.
Speaker-script intent:
```text
By AI agent, I do not mean I built a new Codex or Claude. Existing agents can
already plan and call tools. I focused on the workflow platform layer: the part
that makes their work typed, durable, inspectable, and reusable.
```
## Scene 2: From Action Sequence To Automation
Scene 2 should also have two beats.
### Beat 1: Agent loop
Primary visual:
```text
Action sequence
think -> tool -> observe -> tool -> done
```
The left side should show a transcript/action sequence that can prove what
happened once but does not itself become reusable automation.
Required visual elements:
- Small, recognizable action icons: thought bubble, tool call, observation,
second tool call, done marker.
- The transcript should visually fade, compress, or trail off. It should not be
framed as useless; it is useful but insufficient.
### Beat 2: Reusable automation
Primary visual:
```text
Reusable automation
design -> save -> connect -> run -> inspect
```
Use simple verbs. Do not introduce the formal lifecycle terms
`Draft / Artifact / Deployment / Run / Trace` yet. Those belong in Scene 5.
Required visual elements:
- Five concrete icons:
- Design: pencil/diagram.
- Save: versioned file/artifact.
- Connect: plug/binding.
- Run: play/execution.
- Inspect: magnifier/trace.
- A persistent container or rail that implies durability across time.
- A short contrast line:
`The agent loop acts once. The platform makes work reusable.`
Speaker-script intent:
```text
The problem is not whether an agent can act. The problem is whether its action
becomes something reusable. A transcript can prove what happened, but workspace
automation needs a platform that can design, save, connect, run, and inspect the
work.
```
## Visual Requirements
- Use icons and shapes, not text-only lists.
- Avoid overusing generic cards. Prefer one dominant diagram per beat.
- Keep copy large enough for a 720p display.
- Motion should be scripted, not interactive. Save click/zoom interactions for
architecture, demo, and Q&A scenes.
- The opening should be confident. Avoid defensive wording in the main visual.
- Scenes 3, 4, and 5 are baseline-good and out of scope for this slice.
## Data And Components
Likely implementation targets:
- `web/apps/console/src/presentation/storyboard.ts`
- `web/apps/console/src/presentation/SceneBody.tsx`
- `web/apps/console/src/presentation/presentation.css`
- New focused components are acceptable if they keep `SceneBody.tsx` lean.
Suggested component split:
- `OpeningThesisScene`: title reveal and decomposition.
- `ProblemLoopScene`: action sequence vs reusable automation.
- Optional shared `ConceptIcon` if icons stay inline/SVG.
The visuals can be hand-authored SVG/CSS. Do not add a new icon package unless
the implementation plan justifies it.
## Tests
Add tests that pin behavior without overfitting animation details:
- Scene 1 renders `Planner`, `Tool Surface`, `Workflow Platform`, known agent
names, `lda.chat`, and `Typed · Durable · Inspectable`.
- Scene 1 exposes a `Where is the AI agent?` discussion action.
- Scene 2 renders `Action sequence` and `Reusable automation`.
- Scene 2 uses simple verbs: `design`, `save`, `connect`, `run`, `inspect`.
- Scene 2 does not render formal lifecycle names before Scene 5.
Visual smoke should capture:
- `#scene/thesis/title`
- `#scene/thesis/substrate`
- `#scene/problem/direct-actions`
- `#scene/problem/missing-contracts`
## Out Of Scope
- Redesigning Scenes 3, 4, or 5.
- Changing thesis title text.
- Adding live LLM behavior.
- Reworking the report workflow demo.
- Adding named related-system comparisons before Scene 3.