{"id":229,"date":"2014-06-19T09:15:50","date_gmt":"2014-06-19T17:15:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/?page_id=229"},"modified":"2014-06-19T09:15:50","modified_gmt":"2014-06-19T17:15:50","slug":"tuftes-powerpoint-paper","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/sample-page\/lab-meetings\/tuftes-powerpoint-paper\/","title":{"rendered":"Tufte’s PowerPoint Paper"},"content":{"rendered":"

Favorite passage in Tufte’s “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within”<\/p>\n

\n

Jason’s List<\/h2>\n
\n
    \n
  • Page 11: PowerPoint is not good at math and science; here at NASA, engineers are using a presentation tool that apparently makes it difficult to write scientific notation.<\/li>\n
  • Page 14, 4th Paragraph: Replacing PowerPoint with Microsoft Word (or, better, a tool with non-proprietary universal formats) will make presentations and their audiences smarter.<\/li>\n
  • Page 14, 4th Paragraph:\u00a0\u00a0Of course full-screen projected images and videos are necessary; that is the one harmless use of PP.<\/li>\n
  • Page 15, 5th Paragraph: Yet, in visual reasoning, art, typography, cartography, even sculpture, the quantity of detail is an issue completely separate from the difficulty of reading.<\/li>\n
  • Page 24, 3rd Paragraph: What Graunt needs to do for his presentation at Harvard is simply to provide printed copies of his original table to everyone in the audience.<\/li>\n
  • Page 26, 1st Paragraph: Unfortunately, PP slides on paper and computer screen replicate and intensify all the problems of the PP cognitive style. Such slides extend the reach of PP’s proprietary closed-document format since PP capabilities are necessary to see the slides. The short-run\u00a0convenience\u00a0to presenters and long-run benefit to Microsoft come at an enormous cost to the content and the audience.<\/li>\n
  • Page 26, 3rd Paragraph: …report makers should have the courtesy to write a real report (which might also be handed out at a meeting) and address their readers as serious people.<\/li>\n
  • Page 27, 5th Paragraph: PowerPoint becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of PowerPoint makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.<\/li>\n
  • Page 29, 2nd Paragraph: PP competes only with itself: there are no incentives for a meaningful change in a monopoly product with an 86% gross profit margin…Only monopolies can blame consumers for poor performance.<\/li>\n
  • Page 30, 4th Paragraph: Someday there will be a serious technical reporting tool better than\u00a0a word-processor. This tool would combine a variety of page-layout\u00a0templates (scientific formats uninfected by marketing communications\u00a0outreach specialists); publication-quality tools for reporting statistical\u00a0evidence in graphs and tables (designed by statisticians not commercial\u00a0artists); mathematical notation (allowing NASA \u00a0engineers to use exponents);\u00a0a scientific spellchecker and thesaurus; open-document non-proprietary\u00a0formats; large-paper color printing of reports; and within-document\u00a0editing of words and graphics. This tool design should be driven by the\u00a0necessities of evidence \u00a0display , not pitching.<\/li>\n
  • Page 30, 5th Paragraph: There is also a chance that the act of writing sentences and preparing a technical report will make for a smarter report, an opportunity unavailable to those preparing PP slides.<\/li>\n
  • Page 30, Last Paragraph:\u00a0Serious presentations might well begin with a concise briefing paper\u00a0or technical report (the 4-pager) that everyone reads (people can read 3\u00a0or 4 times faster than presenters can talk). Following the reading period,\u00a0the presenter might provide a guided analysis of the briefing paper and\u00a0then encourage and perhaps lead a discussion of the material at hand.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
    \u00a0<\/div>\n

    Andrew’s list<\/h2>\n

    Quotes:<\/h3>\n
      \n
    • Page 4, 3rd paragraph:\u00a0 “\u2026 foreshortening of evidence and thought, low spatial resolution, an intensely hierarchical single-path structure as the model for organizing every type of content, breaking up narratives and data into slides and minimal fragments \u2026 chartjunk \u2026 Phluff \u2026 logotypes \u2026 preoccupation with format \u2026 turns information into a sales pitch”<\/li>\n
    • Page 5, 2nd paragraph: ” \u2026 which create the impression that data graphics are for propaganda and advertisements”<\/li>\n
    • Page 6, 3rd paragraph: ” It is helpful to provide audience members with at least one mode of information that allows them to control the order and pace of learning”<\/li>\n
    • Page 7, 1st paragraph: “The metaphor of PowerPoint is the software corporation itself \u2026 a big bureaucracy engaged in computer programming \u2026 and in marketing”<\/li>\n
    • Page 11, last paragraph: “Technical articles are not published in PP; why then should PP be used for serious technical analysis”<\/li>\n
    • Page 12, 1st paragraph: “How is it that each \u2026 always fits exactly on one slide?”<\/li>\n
    • Page 15, 4th paragraph: “A vicious circle results.\u00a0 Thin content leads to boring presentations.\u00a0 To make them unboring, PP Phluff is added, damaging the content, making the presentation even more boring \u2026”<\/li>\n
    • Page 16, 3rd paragraph: “It is unwise and arrogant to replace the sentence as the basic unit for explaining something.” [referring to improper use of bullets]<\/li>\n
    • Page 17, 2nd paragraph: “It follows that more complex and realistic multivariate causal models are way over the head of the simplistic bullet-list format”.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
        \n
      • In other words, sometimes a flowchart is more appropriate than a bullet list.<\/li>\n
      • Page 26, last paragraph: “The PP slide format has the worst signal\/noise ratio of any known method of communication on paper or computer screen.”\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
          \n
        • True, but not necessarily bad.\u00a0 The purpose of slides is to outline the presentation and allow the speaker to explain the details.\u00a0 If you want greater information density, why not write a book and skip the presentation altogether?<\/li>\n
        • Page 29, 1st paragraph: “These self-parodying elaborations have made each new release different from the previous – bot not smarter.”<\/li>\n
        • Page 30, 4th paragraph: “Someday there will be a serious technical reporting too better than a word-processor \u2026”\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
            \n
          • Sounds like a user-friendly LaTeX editor.<\/li>\n
          • Page 30, 5th paragraph: “There is also a chance that the act of writing sentences and preparing a technical report will make for a smarter report”<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            Other thoughts:<\/h3>\n
              \n
            • I think Tufte bashes bullet points excessively.\u00a0 Bullets may be abused frequently, but they are not inherently bad.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                \n
              • I think there is a difference between a technical report and a presentation, the tools and format need not be the same for both.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                  \n
                • Giving the audience the full report or Tufte’s “4-pager” assumes that they will take the time to carefully read it and be able to understand it.\u00a0 Using slides allows you to convey the main points to a heterogenous audience without getting bogged down in details.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                   <\/p>\n

                  Elliot’s List<\/h2>\n
                  \n
                    \n
                  • “But formats,\u00a0<\/em>sequencing, and cognitive approach should be decided by the character\u00a0<\/em>of\u00a0<\/em>the\u00a0<\/em>content and what is to be explained, not by the limitations\u00a0<\/em>of\u00a0<\/em>the presentation\u00a0<\/em>technology.” pg 6<\/em><\/li>\n
                  • “<\/em>THE\u00a0metaphor of PowerPoint is\u00a0the software corporation itself.” pg 7<\/em><\/li>\n
                  • “<\/em>A\u00a0BETTER\u00a0metaphor for presentations is\u00a0good teaching.” pg 7<\/em><\/li>\n
                  • “<\/em>PP demands a shorthand of acronyms, phrase\u00a0fragments, clipped jargon, and vague pronoun\u00a0references in order to get at least some information\u00a0into the tight format.” pg 10<\/li>\n
                  • “How is it that each elaborate\u00a0architecture of thought always fits\u00a0exactly\u00a0<\/em>on one slide?” pg 12<\/li>\n
                  • “Both the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and the Return\u00a0to Flight Task Group were filled with smart experienced people with\u00a0spectacular credentials. These review boards examined what is probably\u00a0the best evidence available on PP for technical work: hundreds of PP\u00a0decks from a high-IQ government agency thoroughly practiced in PP.\u00a0Both review boards concluded that\u00a0(1)\u00a0PowerPoint is an inappropriate\u00a0tool for engineering reports, presentations, documentation and (2)\u00a0the\u00a0technical report is superior to PP. Matched up against alternative tools,\u00a0PowerPoint lost.” pg 14<\/li>\n
                  • “Yet in visual reasoning, art, typography, cartography,\u00a0even sculpture,\u00a0the quantity\u00a0<\/em>of\u00a0detail is an issue completely separate from the\u00a0<\/em>difficulty of reading.\u00a0<\/em>Indeed, quite often, the more intense the detail,\u00a0the\u00a0greater\u00a0<\/em>the clarity and understanding\u00a0–\u00a0because meaning and reasoning\u00a0are relentlessly\u00a0contextual.\u00a0<\/em>Less is a bore.” pg 15<\/li>\n
                  • “Bullets leave critical relationships unspecified” pg 16<\/li>\n
                  • “In Graunt’s table, 1,719,585 pairwise comparisons,\u00a0of varying relevance to be sure, are within the eyespan of the inquiring\u00a0mind. In contrast, the 155 tiny tables on 155 PP slides would offer only\u00a010,230\u00a0pairwise comparisons, about 6 in\u00a01,000\u00a0of those available in\u00a0Graunt’s original table.” pg 24<\/li>\n
                  • “The PP slide format has the worst signal\/noise ratio\u00a0<\/em>of\u00a0<\/em>any known\u00a0<\/em>method of communication on paper or computer screen.” pg 26<\/em><\/li>\n
                  • “<\/em>There is also a chance\u00a0<\/em>that the act of writing sentences and preparing a technical report will make for\u00a0<\/em>a smarter report” pg 30<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n

                     <\/p>\n

                    Mont’s List (note: no bullets \ud83d\ude42<\/h2>\n

                     <\/p>\n

                    A better metaphor for presentation is good teaching.<\/p>\n

                    Serious problems require a serious tool: written reports.<\/p>\n

                    A good model for the technical report is a scientific paper or commentary on a paper published in substantial scientific journals such as Nature or Science.<\/p>\n

                    Every visual element in the graphic shows data.<\/p>\n

                    The templates do, however, emulate the format of reading primers for 6 year-olds.<\/p>\n

                    For Tables the idea is to make comparisons.<\/p>\n

                    This short-run convenience to presenters and long-run benefit to Microsoft comes at an enormous cost to the content and to the audience.<\/p>\n

                    The PP slide format has the worst signal\/noise ratio of any known method of communication on paper or computer screen.<\/p>\n

                    Sentences are smarter than the grunts of bullet points.<\/p>\n

                    At a minimum we should choose presentation tools that do no harm to content.<\/p>\n

                    Colin’s List<\/h2>\n
                    1) Page 4, Paragraph 2 “PowerPoint is presenter-oriented, not content-oriented, not audience-oriented<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    2) Pg 5, Para 3 “Many true statements are too long to fit on a PP slide, but this does not mean we should abbreviate the truth to make the words fit.”<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    3) Pg 13, Para 1 “The Board makes an explicit comparison: some tools are better than others for engineering, and technical reports are better than PowerPoint.”<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    4) Pg 14, Para 1, “For a sucessful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” -Richard Feynman<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    5) Pg 14, para 4, “For nearly all engineering and scientific communication, instead of PowerPoint, the presentation and reporting software should be a word-processing program capable of capturing, editing, and publishing text, tables, data graphics, images, and scientific notation.”<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    6) Pg 16, Para 3, “It is unwise and arrogant to replace the sentence as the basic unit for explaining something.”<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    7) Pg 16, Para 4 “But in the reality of day-to-day practice, the PP cognitive style is faux-analytical, with a bias towards promoting effects without causes.”<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    8) Pg 24, Para 1 ” That attitude- what counts are power and pitches, not truth and evidence- also lurks within PowerPoint.”<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    9) Pg 29, Para 3 “A better cognitive style for presentations is needed, a style that respects, encourages, and cooperates with evidence and thought.”<\/div>\n
                    \u00a0<\/div>\n
                    10) Pg 30, Para 5 “That one piece of paper shows the content-equivalent of 50 to 250 typical PP slides.”<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                    Favorite passage in Tufte’s “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within” Jason’s List Page 11: PowerPoint is not good at math and science; here at NASA, engineers are using a presentation tool that apparently makes it difficult to write scientific notation. Page 14, 4th Paragraph: Replacing PowerPoint with \u2026 Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"parent":29,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-229","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/229","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=229"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/229\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/29"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.engineering.ucdavis.edu\/biosport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}