Muse Spark 1.3: Library services: choosing how to save £350,000

For the council's cabinet (elected members), meeting in public. The decision it supports: which of three options to adopt to save £350,000 a year from libraries.

Verdict: Not presentable
Deck rating: 811
Slides: 6 (brief: 5-8)
Design quality: 58%

Why it is not presentable

Layout defect: something off the slide, colliding, too small or too faint to read
Did not give the analysis's recommendation within the first two slides
Drew a conclusion from a figure without its caveat
A slide the judges rated as needing work

In detail

Caveat missing: respondents were mostly weekly users (82%, against 21% of card holders), not representative of residents.
Slide 1: text 6: 9 pt text.
Slide 2: text 6: 8 pt text.
Slide 3: text 6: 8 pt text.
Slide 4: text 5: 11 pt body text.
Slide 4: text 5: 11 pt body text.
Slide 4: text 5: 11 pt body text.
Slide 4: text 5: 10 pt body text.

Slide 1Polished
Slide 2Acceptable The consultation panel is much taller than its content requires, leaving a large empty area.The right-hand consultation box is mostly empty below its text, so about half the panel is wasted
Slide 3Acceptable The table gives every row equal emphasis; the libraries central to the takeaway are not highlighted.The table gives every row equal weight; Holloway and Marsh Lane are the libraries discussed but are not highlighted
Slide 4Acceptable The right-hand panel largely repeats the chart values rather than adding visual emphasis to the takeaway.The side panel is mostly empty below its text
Slide 5Needs work A stray or missing-character box appears after the Option B heading.A missing-glyph box (tofu) appears after 'B: SHORTER HOURS' in the label, where a symbol failed to render
Slide 6Polished The right panel's content sits in the top third, leaving a large empty area beneath