The presentation fails to define natural language and conversational interface, which are two key terms that should not be left undefined because we, the audience, need to understand the presenter’s scope of definition. Other limiting sections of the presentation are the First Street Investments example that does not fully capture the concept of natural language and conversational interfaces, and the use of only two references by the author. The researcher should have used at least six references to add depth to his arguments.
2/5 – use of a good example and good definition of a key term. The lack of a definition for natural language and conversational interface, limits our ability to fully evaluate the author’s understanding of these key terms. Limited use of references.
The first item we notice is a wrong presentation title. The title is not appropriate because a communication interface need not necessarily be a conversation interface. Graphical interfaces are also communication interfaces and from the presentation the author restricts himself to conversation interfaces. Another concern is that the presentation is unnecessarily lengthy probably because of redundancy for example conversation interface is defined in slide 3 and 12, and the slides look clumsy from too much wording. Nevertheless, one of the biggest strengths of the presentation is the definition of key terms - natural language, conversation interface and natural language – and the presenters discipline in restricting his/her conversation within the given boundaries. Based on the author’s definition of both natural language and conversation interface the example provided about a webpage is appropriate. However, we notice that half of the resources used for reference are pre year 2000. The presenter should seek more current references to work with.
The presentation structure and skill utilized here