docs: design presentation opening visuals
This commit is contained in:
@@ -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.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user