I have a guilty secret: I’m a PowerPoint user. Why do I use PowerPoint? Because it is an easy way to get text and graphics up on a screen to illustrate a lecture. I’m sure there are other and better ways of doing this, but don’t know what they are. I’ve been feeling bad about this since reading some of Edward Tufte ‘s anti-PP writings, and my guilt and shame are compounded after reading John Naughton’s attack on PP in todays’ Observer . Sample quote:
As an addiction of the white-collar classes, PowerPoint ranks second only in perniciousness to cocaine.
(Actually I have sometimes wondered whether my lectures would be improved by prior self-medication — a stiff drink perhaps — but have never run the experiment.)
Naughton links to Peter Norvig’s rendering of the Gettysburg address in PowerPoint — funny and effective.
Incidentally, this reminds me of Oliver Jensen’s “The Gettysburg Address in Eisenhowese” from Dwight Macdonald’s Parodies: An Anthology from Chaucer to Beerbohm—And After which begins thus:
I haven’t checked these figures, but 87 years ago, I think it was, a number of individuals organized a governmental set-up here in this country, I believe it covered certain Eastern areas, with this idea they were following up based on a sort of national independence arrangement and the program that every individual is just as good as every other individual. Well, now, of course, we are dealing with this big difference of opinion, civil disturbance you might say, although I don’t like to appear to take sides or name any individuals….
Norvig’s joke is amusing enough. However, Lincoln was speaking in a situation where everyone was already moved by a powerful occasion; where they already knew the sort of thing he was going to say; and his only chance of making an impact lay in finding a memorable way of saying it.
By contrast, when I speak to a group of fellow computer scientists, they are interested only in new information I might give them. They are inclined to be bored by the occasion, and they don’t care whether I speak in well-made sentences. (Many of them, indeed, don’t speak my language very well, so graces of verbal construction would largely be wasted.) I do all I can to keep their attention on the scrap of novelty I have to offer, and that includes PowerPoint.
(By the way, the criticism that slides can be misleading — see Naughton’s retelling of the NASA slide story — is completely irrelevant. Unless, of course, they can be shown to be more misleading than some alternate style of presentation—which he doesn’t try to do.)
“Why do I use PowerPoint? Because it is an easy way to get text and graphics up on a screen to illustrate a lecture. I’m sure there are other and better ways of doing this, but don’t know what they are.”
The last time I saw Dennis Shasha (he’s at NYU, or was then) speak, he used web pages. He scrolled or followed hyperlinks as he talked.
It’s unfair to blame PowerPoint, though. Most people are terrible at public speaking. Their slides reflect this. The slides aren’t there for their audience. They’re there for themselves. Speakers who don’t think about their audience aren’t going to communicate well, whatever tool they use.
I have never used Power Point (though I just bought a copy of Apple’s Keynote) but I am not persuaded by either Tufte or now Naughton. If you read Tufte carefully, I think you’ll find his argument factually shallow. Of course PP can be mis-used — such as to present a final report as PowerPoint document — only! which apparently is what the NASA people did. The very idea is so preposterous that it should hardly need condemnation; if NASA did it then it should be roundly condemned. But don’t blame the tool for misuse of it by the craftsman. PowerPoint is for presentations — it is not designed — to think of it in functional software terms — to replace Word and Excel.
Please see Is PowerPoint also a moral issue?
For those who want more of this thing, there’s also Daniel Radosh’s PowerPoint Anthology of American Literature:
http://home.nyc.rr.com/dradosh/ppaol.html
Of course, a lot of what Tufte is talking about is the abuse of Powerpoint, especially the “AutocContent Wizards” (according to Tufte, one of the few products that explicitly mocks its costumers). Tufte makes two valid points though. The first is that the standardization of presentations limits free thinking (although his comparison with Stalin is stretching it). If we think that slides with three bullet-points just look the best, it is not unlikely that we will adjust our presentations to fit that mold.
The second point is the low resolution of powerpoint, especially for statistical presentations. I have actually been surprised by how much more information you can convey on a handout than in a PowerPoint presentation.
As somewhat of an aside, Erik’s first example echoes traditional rhetorical & poetic technique —- to offer “threes.” Two is not enough, four is too many, three is just right.
So perthaps if “3 bullet-points” is common in PP, it is not because of the program but because of something more deeply-rooted in human expression?
I don’t mean to limit Erik’s overall point but it’s interesting that the first example offered (of how PP might limit thinking) harkens back to something we’ve been doing for many centuries before Bill Gate’ birth.
This is very like the criticisms of word processors that used to be (and maybe are) still made. Start with the constraint that someone has to deliver a talk, with some sort of documentary record, and that someone else has to listen to it.
An adequate PowerPoint presentation can be produced a lot more easily than a written paper. But during the time devoted to getting a written paper into presentable shape, there are many more occasions to think about the substantive content. The same is true in spades if the paper has to go through several typed or handwritten drafts rather than being put together on a wordprocessor.
So listeners will prefer a speaker who produces a written paper then speaks to it*. In the absence of a big incentive to given an excellent rather than an adequate talk, however, speakers will prefer the quick and dirty Powerpoint solution.
The worst abuse of Power Point occurs in our nation’s schools. This is of course where the most egregious abuses of any sort of technology occur. Where are the earth’s most nefarious Sloppy Joes constructed, for instance?
I’ve known college freshmen and freshwomen who could set up a wonderful Power Point presentation but could not find their way home without checking the address stencilled into the band of their underpants.
Thus, obviously, I have no idea why it is so hard to scan the information written upon one’s underpants into Power Point.
My first year of teaching a big lecture course, I got a course evaluation that amounted to a two-page treatise on the proper way to compose a Powerpoint presentation. Not from a Tufte-reader, mind you, but by a guy who’d recently gotten himself out of management consulting but couldn’t, apparently, get management consulting out of himself. It was like a recipe for pissing off Tufte and putting an entire lecture hall to sleep: simple screens, each designed to tell (rather than offer) a small piece of information (instead of a concept or question) to an audience member.
Powerpoint should be abolished, not because of any inherent evil, but because it’s what an entire generation of professionals (of whatever stripe) has come to mistake for clarity.
I can’t quite get what the fuss is all about but as I am just about to “port” over portions a book to Keynote I be able to judge for myself. (I assume that Bob’s comment goes for Apple’s Keynote as well.)
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review