Reduction of number of Days in Test will only make situation worse. I don't think, on an under prepared track, shorten matches will bring result, rather it'll increase more boredom. Here is my explanation -
First, nowhere in Asia, more than 7 hours of playing light is possible, in most places, at best 6.5 hours. Now days, teams hardly bowls 90 overs in 6 hours, therefore in a 4 day match, in Asia at least, I don't see more than 350 overs. May be in English summer, we can get 110 overs/day, but that will be physically extremely demanding - after all, modern players are human. They are not Cyborgs of 1920s, 30s, 40s & 50s - when the likes of Larwood, Voce, Truman, Tyson or Lindwal could bowl at 150KM speed, even on 5th spell, for sometimes a 35 overs workload in a day (In 1930s, average Test day had around 120 overs).
Second major problem is, whenever a side is in trouble, in a shorten game, they'll go for defensive cricket & at worst will go for time wasting. I can give a classic example of Tests in PAK during winter (one can check the recent FC scores as well) - at best 5.5 hours are possible in northern part & countless times, I have seen matches ending in draws for over losses to poor light - every time, whenever a team (mostly tourists) were in trouble, they went for 11 overs/hour until Umpires offered light. In a shorten Test, I see this happening more & more - the shorter the game, less time for making a come back, hence the side with disadvantage will go for safety first game from day 1. And, I am not even considering time loss for weather here.
But, more important issue is the thought process that shortening the game will encourage attacking cricket - NO, IT WON'T; even on rank turners or green tops. Reason is, on bowling friendly wickets, for a longer game, teams know that there is no way out, better go for positive game & try to win it. Recent Dhaka Test, BD batted at 5/over & I mentioned that several times - on that track, Test won't go to Day 5, better try to score runs until you get an unplayable one - England went exactly same way. Make it a 350 overs game, I am sure both teams would have gone for safety first game - even BD, it's better to lose 0-1 than 0-2.
What happens in FC games is that, there is point associated - no one is winner, if it's a draw. Standard point scoring system in Shefield shield was (not sure now) - win 6 points; lose 0 points; draw 2 points for the side with 1st innings lead; if both sides declare on 1st innings - 1 point each, regardless of the volume of 1st innings. In Counties, there was 16 bonus points for taking 9 or more wickets or scoring 300+ runs in 100 overs in first innings & 8 points for a direct win - no point for a draw.
In that context, often teams used to declare/forfeit innings for a direct result, in most matches. There are score cards like 302/6dec.; 243/4dec., 201/4dec - to set up a target of 260 in 70 overs - whoever wins, gets the winners points. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT DOESN'T COST MUCH FOR LOSING A GAME. In Test cricket, THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. For, that in Counties, we have seen jokes like 25 ball hundreds, teams bowling waste high full tosses with a feet over stepping to set a target, even forfeiting 2 innings for a result. In a shorten Test, that will never happen - we'll mostly see Captains setting 400 in 80 overs on Day 4; because it's not a FC match that loss doesn't matter.
Take this WACA Test - do we believe that, had it been 360 overs game, after 242 & 244; SAF would have gone crazy to put 450 in 100 overs to set 450 for Aussies to chase in last 125 - or even if so, Aussies would have obliged to go for all-out win or accept loss? I tell what would have happend if it was a 360 Overs Test - SAF would have batted at same tempo, first to make sure that they don't lose; then they would have declared at may be 400, setting 400 in 110 overs (or even less overs); Aussies would have batted first 50 overs to reach a total like 170/1, so that they can bat out next 60 in case of couple of quick wickets; may be if had they reached 303/3 in 90 overs, then they would have gone for the attack - but, then we would have seen the other ugly side, SAF bowling with 7 men on line & 1 foot outside off.
I have studied lots of Test score cards in different conditions for entire history - based on that, I can reconfirm that, best way to make Test matches more aggressive & entertaining is by increasing overs - take the draw out of equation; for limitation of overs, so that teams don't play survival game. Till 1940s, Test matches in AUS/SAF/WI were played till result (timeless Test), whereas in ENG, it was 3/4 days (360 to 480 overs) - one can check, the scoring rate in AUS was better simply because teams knew that slowing down won't save them from a defeat, but in ENG some of the most boring draws took place, when half a day is washed out. In 50s, they started to limit days in Test everywhere - Cricket was most boring in 50s & 60s - teams batted at 1.70 rate for 2 days to avoid defeat & play out overs; Captains set 9 men on line once batting side posted something like 450/3 - the simple reason is, they have done too well for us to win it from here, next best option is to play out time for a draw. One can check in CricInfo - several 5/6 Test series ended 1-0, 0-0, 1-0; even after 550 overs/Test between 1948 to 1975.
By the way, I don't agree with OP that in Olden/Golden days every wicket was a mine field. What Junaids is missing is to glorify the Sobers, Pollocks, Herveys or Comptons - he is taking out the credit of the bowlers. If all the wickets were mine field, then Truman, Laker, Benaud, Lindwal..... must have been dud ........ There were plenty, plenty of high scoring matches, in fact much more than now. Some of the best batsmen's batting record in 50s & 60s in "result" Test would be embarrassment for them - they maintained high career average through making money on high scoring draws.
Making under prepared tracks & shortening the game is not the solution - it'll make the game even more boring. On turners, team losing the toss, will start with 5 men on line, to make sure that batting first side doesn't score fast & goes for slogging to post a fast enough big score; then they'll bat to buy out time. Exactly the opposite on green tops - side being put into will try to buy out as much time as possible on 3rd innings (& waste time on 2nd innings, while bowling). Cricket, by trait is a game where bowlers will work hard to get 40 wickets, while batsmen will bat in a positive intent to dominate. If I were in charge, I would have made 2 changes in the game - 1st, 6.5 hours & 96 overs/day - at the end of the day, the number of overs short multiply with 5 & add as extra (penalty runs). Biggest enemy for Test cricket these days are decelerate time wasting & UAE type wickets - number of people in stands means nothing; it's not 1936 that one needs to go to stadium to follow a match or watch Bradman batting.
This thread started on a wrong note - in UK, 90% of the crowd in stands are pensioners; in Asia 90% young men follow Test cricket via net, wireless devices or TV. Only way we can keep the interest is playing the game in right spirit, on good wickets - duration is just a mental aspect - no one questions the duration of a movie, if the screenplay is engaging & the performance of the actors are great.