Skip to main content

Zoomable, Non-Linear PowerPoint Presentations with pptPlex

OK, so many people have asked me how I do my presentations and could they have a link that I've decided to put the links and a short explanation on my blog. My presentations are all done in PowerPoint 2007, but I use a Microsoft Office Labs plug-in called pptPlex. From their website come the following quotes:

"pptPlex uses Plex technology to give you the power to zoom in and out of slide sections and move directly between slides that are not sequential in your presentation."
"...pptPlex can help you organize and present information in a non-linear fashion."
If you don't know what any of this means, then you should ask me to do a presentation :-) or have a look at their videos. It's very simple to install and use. However, remember that you need it to be installed on your presentation machine in order to give the Plex version of the presentation, otherwise it will just show as a normal PowerPoint presentation.
If the pptPlex Ribbon Tab doesn't display in PowerPoint...
There are several reports of the plug-in becoming disabled on some systems and the ribbon tab not displaying. There are solutions on the forums for this, but most of them have an error in the selection of which plug-ins to manage, so I'll quickly give an explanation here. If you have any other problems, don't ask me, use their forums.
  1. Click the (round) Office button and then click on PowerPoint Options
  2. Select Add-Ins from the left
  3. If pptPlex from Microsoft Office Labs appears in the disabled list then carry on, otherwise you have a different problem
  4. Right at the bottom, select Disabled Items from the Manage drop down list box and click Go...
  5. Select the add-in from the list and click Enable, then click OK in the PowerPoint Options dialog (you may need to shut PowerPoint down and start again).

Comments

Post a comment

Popular Posts

You say it's 'Security Best Practice' - prove it!

Over the last few weeks I have had many conversations and even attended presentations where people talk about 'Security Best Practices' and how we should all follow them. However, 'Best Practice' is just another way of saying 'What everyone else does!' OK, so if everyone else does it and it's the right thing to do, you should be able to prove it. The trouble is that nobody ever measures best practice - why would you? If everyone's doing it, it must be right. Well, I don't agree with this sentiment. Don't get me wrong, many of the so-called best practices are good for most organisations, but blindly following them without thought for your specific business could cause as many problems as you solve. I see best practice like buying an off-the-peg suit - it will fit most people acceptably well if they are a fairly 'normal' size and shape. However, it will never fit as well as a tailored suit and isn't an option for those of us who are o

Coventry Building Society Grid Card

Coventry Building Society have recently introduced the Grid Card as a simple form of 2-factor authentication. It replaces memorable words in the login process. Now the idea is that you require something you know (i.e. your password) and something you have (i.e. the Grid Card) to log in - 2 things = 2 factors. For more about authentication see this post . How does it work? Very simply is the answer. During the log in process, you will be asked to enter the digits at 3 co-ordinates. For example: c3, d2 and j5 would mean that you enter 5, 6 and 3 (this is the example Coventry give). Is this better than a secret word? Yes, is the short answer. How many people will choose a memorable word that someone close to them could guess? Remember, that this isn't a password as such, it is expected to be a word and a word that means something to the user. The problem is that users cannot remember lots of passwords, so remembering two would be difficult. Also, having two passwords isn't real

Trusteer or no trust 'ere...

...that is the question. Well, I've had more of a look into Trusteer's Rapport, and it seems that my fears were justified. There are many security professionals out there who are claiming that this is 'snake oil' - marketing hype for something that isn't possible. Trusteer's Rapport gives security 'guaranteed' even if your machine is infected with malware according to their marketing department. Now any security professional worth his salt will tell you that this is rubbish and you should run a mile from claims like this. Anyway, I will try to address a few questions I raised in my last post about this. Firstly, I was correct in my assumption that Rapport requires a list of the servers that you wish to communicate with; it contacts a secure DNS server, which has a list already in it. This is how it switches from a phishing site to the legitimate site silently in the background. I have yet to fully investigate the security of this DNS, however, as most