One common problem when explaining ideas is that we often jump right into talking about the solution, and just assume prior knowledge of the problem we are talking about.
But since the audience probably doesn't know the problem as intimately as we do, this tends to make our explanation hard to understand - even if our solution is straightforward.
A simple trick I once learned is to structure the explanation into four parts, with one sentence for each part: (1) state the problem, (2) state the consequences of the problem, (3) state the solution, (4) state the consequences of the solution.
Since the explanation now automatically includes both the problem and the solution, it usually is both more compelling and easier to understand.
2 & 4 are so crucial. They represent what 1 & 2 mean. Otherwise you have just put an idea in the ether, floating like Forrest Gump's feather but without truly communicating it to anyone in particular. 2 & 4 are the attempt to connect the idea to something in the other person's mind. To make it resonate with them (think about the physical meaning of that word). Or as another commenter put it, "why is it useful?"
It's always possible that your idea with land with something by accident, but it will be by accident and it may not land with the person you intended it to.
A similar pattern I try to use frequently is this:
>A simple trick I once learned is to structure the explanation into four parts, with one sentence for each part: (1) state the problem, (2) state the consequences of the problem, (3) state the solution, (4) state the consequences of the solution.
That's a good structure! I have thought about it -- in the context of technical talks -- as Why/What/How. You start at a high level, and progressively zoom in. Why is the problem, What is the solution, and How is the technical details of the solution.
But since the audience probably doesn't know the problem as intimately as we do, this tends to make our explanation hard to understand - even if our solution is straightforward.
A simple trick I once learned is to structure the explanation into four parts, with one sentence for each part: (1) state the problem, (2) state the consequences of the problem, (3) state the solution, (4) state the consequences of the solution.
Since the explanation now automatically includes both the problem and the solution, it usually is both more compelling and easier to understand.