In "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint," Edward Tufte seriously hates on the famous software program. You could say he's analyzing the various pros and cons of using PowerPoint, but let's face it, he's hating on it. And not just from the viewpoint of a disgruntled administrator - he brings in a case study of the Columbia spacecraft crash... and attributes a major reason for its crash to PowerPoint.
Ouch.
Tufte's first argument that stuck out to me was how the format of PowerPoint breeds the usage of hierarchical categories that are simply not needed. "Bullet Points Dilute Thought," he states, which intrigues me. I would think that by summarizing an idea into bullet points and categories, subject matter would be distilled down to its essence, not diluted into meaningless "phluff."
Take note of the screen shot below, which is taken from Tufte's article. He is describing the hierarchical usage in the PowerPoint presentation that was used to describe warning signs that all was not well before the Columbia crash.
Put in this very clear format, the hierarchy used actually seems preposterous! You know, dashes and diamonds and little bullets... It makes sense that the human brain would get a bite of information and then "dilute" it with lots of personal assumptions. He states that this is one of the main reasons that dissemination of information of the damage to the Columbia spacecraft was so scatterbrained and ineffective. Thus, nobody did anything about the damage and bam, the craft crashed.
Another pointer that Tufte makes is that PowerPoint has a low resolution. My first thought was, "Are you serious? PowerPoint presentations can be extremely fancy and high-res!" Then I checked the date that this article was written - 2003. Aha, that explains it. Technology advances at exponential speeds, and the popular PowerPoint is no exception.
What caught my eye the most, though, about this issue that Tufte brings up (and not just discarding it as outdated) is that each slide in PowerPoint condenses information down to such concentrated extents that much is lost in the process. This harkens back to the previous point about how bullets "dilute thought." He notes that presenters put only very little on each slide because of the resolution, thus "with so little information per slide, many many slides are needed. Audiences consequently endure a relentless sequentiality, one damn slide after another."
True, true. I have definitely sat through many a mind-numbing presentations that flashed before my eyes.
The thing is, Tufte hates on PowerPoint, but what does he suggest to replace it? Personally, I believe that PowerPoint is a tool - and like any tool, it can be used improperly and even cause a lot of damage (as in the case of the Columbia crash). But when used properly, PowerPoint can transform teaching and also learning into a dynamic presentation that engages and inspires.
Ouch.
Tufte's first argument that stuck out to me was how the format of PowerPoint breeds the usage of hierarchical categories that are simply not needed. "Bullet Points Dilute Thought," he states, which intrigues me. I would think that by summarizing an idea into bullet points and categories, subject matter would be distilled down to its essence, not diluted into meaningless "phluff."
Take note of the screen shot below, which is taken from Tufte's article. He is describing the hierarchical usage in the PowerPoint presentation that was used to describe warning signs that all was not well before the Columbia crash.
Put in this very clear format, the hierarchy used actually seems preposterous! You know, dashes and diamonds and little bullets... It makes sense that the human brain would get a bite of information and then "dilute" it with lots of personal assumptions. He states that this is one of the main reasons that dissemination of information of the damage to the Columbia spacecraft was so scatterbrained and ineffective. Thus, nobody did anything about the damage and bam, the craft crashed.
Another pointer that Tufte makes is that PowerPoint has a low resolution. My first thought was, "Are you serious? PowerPoint presentations can be extremely fancy and high-res!" Then I checked the date that this article was written - 2003. Aha, that explains it. Technology advances at exponential speeds, and the popular PowerPoint is no exception.
What caught my eye the most, though, about this issue that Tufte brings up (and not just discarding it as outdated) is that each slide in PowerPoint condenses information down to such concentrated extents that much is lost in the process. This harkens back to the previous point about how bullets "dilute thought." He notes that presenters put only very little on each slide because of the resolution, thus "with so little information per slide, many many slides are needed. Audiences consequently endure a relentless sequentiality, one damn slide after another."
True, true. I have definitely sat through many a mind-numbing presentations that flashed before my eyes.
The thing is, Tufte hates on PowerPoint, but what does he suggest to replace it? Personally, I believe that PowerPoint is a tool - and like any tool, it can be used improperly and even cause a lot of damage (as in the case of the Columbia crash). But when used properly, PowerPoint can transform teaching and also learning into a dynamic presentation that engages and inspires.
No comments:
Post a Comment