On the surface I'd agree, but the devil is in the details. The presenter is a professor and he probably designed the slides taking in account a student audience instead of the "usual" industry audience. Why that matters is because students might read the slides on their own without "attending" the presentation, and so he needed to cram as much context as possible on each slide.
Basically (from my viewpoint) these slides are supposed to stand on their own as a lesson instead of an auxiliary aid or tool as in a "show" put on a stage by an industry expert. Neither case is lesser than the other, but the goals lead to different design that might be interpreted as wrong (from the other side).
Of course this all rests on my assumptions, if the presenter didn't intend these slides to work on their own then indeed they're not good.
My slideshows tend to be very obtuse, on their own, but they make a lot of sense, if you read the notes (which are often a script or prompts for speaking).
I agree. The slides must be nice for the talk. For a self reading material make an extended version or the notes or a blog post expanding the slides.
I've seen a lot of academic presentations that are a big wall of text or a big wall of formulas[1], and they are never good. Fontsize >= 28 (or 24), one (or two) big graphics per slide, number of slides <= minutes/2 (or 3).
[1] The problem with LaTeX is that it's very easy to add some $formulas$ an it's very painful to add graphics, so in math some people just write formulas and more formulas.
Basically (from my viewpoint) these slides are supposed to stand on their own as a lesson instead of an auxiliary aid or tool as in a "show" put on a stage by an industry expert. Neither case is lesser than the other, but the goals lead to different design that might be interpreted as wrong (from the other side).
Of course this all rests on my assumptions, if the presenter didn't intend these slides to work on their own then indeed they're not good.