{"id":371,"date":"2006-08-19T14:07:02","date_gmt":"2006-08-19T19:07:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/UnhinderedByTalent.com\/Phi\/?p=371"},"modified":"2006-08-19T14:32:35","modified_gmt":"2006-08-19T19:32:35","slug":"a-wonderfully-damning-indictment-of-powerpoint","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/UnhinderedByTalent.com\/Phi\/archives\/2006\/08\/19\/a-wonderfully-damning-indictment-of-powerpoint\/","title":{"rendered":"A wonderfully damning indictment of PowerPoint"},"content":{"rendered":"

In prepration for coordinating our CSci senior seminar course here at UMM<\/a>, I’m reading the second edition of Edward R. Tufte’s excellent<\/em> pamphlet The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Pitching out currupts within<\/a>. I’d used the first edition a few years ago and really liked it, and the second is just has brilliant.<\/p>\n

Tufte’s work is massively quotable, so it’s hard to choose, but I think this bit pretty much sums up the deal:<\/p>\n

\nBoth the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and the Return to Flight Task Group were filled with smart experienced people with spectacular credentials. These review boards examined what is probably the best evidence available on PP [PowerPoint] for technical work: hundreds of PP decks from a high-IQ government agency thoroughly practiced in PP. Both review boards concluded that (1) PowerPoint is an inappropriate tool for engineering reports, presentations, documentation and (2) the technical report is superior to PP. Matched up against alternative tools, PowerPoint lost.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The short version is that PowerPoint frankly sucks as a medium for conveying complex and information rich material. For example,<\/p>\n

\nCompared with the worldwide publications shown here, the PP [PowerPoint] statistical graphics are the thinnest of all, except for those in Pravda<\/em> in 1982, back when that newspaper operated as the major propaganda instrument of the Soviet communist party and a totalitarian government. Doing a bit better than Pravda<\/em> is not good enough…\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s a brilliant pamphlet and only costs $7, so there’s really no excuse for rushing out and getting one if you haven’t done so yet.<\/p>\n

I’m particularly struck by this because a few days ago we had two classic mis-uses of PowerPoint at our opening faculty\/staff convocation of the school year. One used a retina destroying color scheme motivated (I think) by a desire to work with our school colors, which almost certainly weren’t chosen for their typographic suitability, and another presenter suffered from the all<\/em> too familiar problem of constantly jumping to the wrong slide and struggling to navigate to the desired location. These were bright, skilled people who regularly (and rightly) represent our institution out in the world, and their choice and use of PowerPoint made them look, well, silly.<\/p>\n

Sigh.<\/p>\n

Much like Peter Norvig’s excellent re-casting of the Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as a PowerPoint presentation<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\nGood morning. Just a second while I get this connection to work. Do I press this button here? Function-F7? No, that’s not right. Hmmm. Maybe I’ll have to reboot. Hold on a minute. Um, my name is Abe Lincoln and I’m your president. While we’re waiting, I want to thank Judge David Wills, chairman of the committee supervising the dedication of the Gettysburg cemetery. It’s great to be here, Dave, and you and the committee are doing a great job. Gee, sometimes this new technology does have glitches, but we couldn’t live without it, could we? Oh – is it ready? OK, here we go\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If you’ve never read it, drop everything and go there now!<\/p>\n

\"Braided<\/a><\/p>\n\n\t

\n\tTags: technology<\/a>
<\/div>\n\n\n\t

Related posts<\/h4>\n\t