PowerPoint
I have seen several criticisms of PowerPoint recently, most notably by Edward Tufte, guru of conveying visual information (for instance, his essay, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint). The gist is that condensing analytical arguments into slide format with bullet points cheapens and weakens the structure of the logic. And at their worst, programs like PowerPoint can mold the thinking of the person using them such that they lose the ability to craft coherent, sophisticated, analytical arguments.
These critics have a point. The arbitrariness of PowerPoint's format-- in which each "page" allows four or five bullet points-- may not match with the flow of a particular coherent argument. And PowerPoint also contains way too many cutesy features that can tempt the writer to substitute form and fluorish for actual content. These are serious issues.
But I am also wary of some of the criticisms of PowerPoint, as they seem to arise merely from having sat through a few awful presentations, or from being made to create a presentation that turned out to be difficult. These whiny, peevish criticisms often point more toward problems with the people than with the program.
First of all, no presentation can be more coherent than the person who wrote it. Think about that. If a person is, for instance, unable to write cogently-- unable to distill their thoughts into sentences that flow, unable to craft paragraphs that move logically from start to finish, unable to use English grammar-- how can they possibly write a good presentation using any program?
PowerPoint is an outline. People who can't write outlines can't use PowerPoint effectively. And I would claim that every coherent analytical argument can be summarized in an outline. If it can't, the person probably doesn't quite understand what they're trying to say. PowerPoint is like math. It's like being able to write an equation rather than a word problem.
So before criticizing the software, check out the brain trying to use it.
For example, Edward Tufte's brain is quite logical and analytical. Blogger Aaron Swartz very nicely wrote up Tufte's essay, "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint," into a clear and satisfying PowerPoint outline. I bet it would make an effective presentation.
These critics have a point. The arbitrariness of PowerPoint's format-- in which each "page" allows four or five bullet points-- may not match with the flow of a particular coherent argument. And PowerPoint also contains way too many cutesy features that can tempt the writer to substitute form and fluorish for actual content. These are serious issues.
But I am also wary of some of the criticisms of PowerPoint, as they seem to arise merely from having sat through a few awful presentations, or from being made to create a presentation that turned out to be difficult. These whiny, peevish criticisms often point more toward problems with the people than with the program.
First of all, no presentation can be more coherent than the person who wrote it. Think about that. If a person is, for instance, unable to write cogently-- unable to distill their thoughts into sentences that flow, unable to craft paragraphs that move logically from start to finish, unable to use English grammar-- how can they possibly write a good presentation using any program?
PowerPoint is an outline. People who can't write outlines can't use PowerPoint effectively. And I would claim that every coherent analytical argument can be summarized in an outline. If it can't, the person probably doesn't quite understand what they're trying to say. PowerPoint is like math. It's like being able to write an equation rather than a word problem.
So before criticizing the software, check out the brain trying to use it.
For example, Edward Tufte's brain is quite logical and analytical. Blogger Aaron Swartz very nicely wrote up Tufte's essay, "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint," into a clear and satisfying PowerPoint outline. I bet it would make an effective presentation.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home