[Fed-Talk] MISSING THE POINT - Is PowerPoint the enemy of thought?
[Fed-Talk] MISSING THE POINT - Is PowerPoint the enemy of thought?
- Subject: [Fed-Talk] MISSING THE POINT - Is PowerPoint the enemy of thought?
- From: Dave Hale <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:09:07 -0400
From GOVEXEC, September 1, 2004 issue and also posted at
http://www.govexec.com/features/0904-01/0904-01s3.htm
MISSING THE POINT By Shane Harris email@hidden
Is PowerPoint the enemy of thought?
It's not precisely clear how PowerPoint evolved from an office novelty
into one of the world's most widely used software programs. About 300
million people worldwide use it to create more than 30 million
bullet-point-laden slide presentations every day.
Maybe PowerPoint quenched presenters' demand for an alternative to
overhead transparencies and 35 mm carousel slides, which were expensive
to produce and became hopelessly disarrayed if dropped on the ground,
say, just before a big meeting. Perhaps PowerPoint's owner, software
monolith Microsoft Corp., cornered the briefing business through feats
of marketing or, some say, monopolistic practices.
However it happened, PowerPoint has become the tool of choice when the
nation's leaders want to get their point across.
In December 2001, President Bush received a PowerPoint briefing from
Gen. Tommy Franks on options for invading Iraq. A year later, political
adviser Karl Rove gave Bush bulleted PowerPoint slides to show which
leadership qualities to emphasize in his reelection campaign.
In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell used PowerPoint
slides showing satellite photos of suspected Iraqi weapons facilities
to convince the U.N. General Assembly that Iraq was a world threat. A
month earlier, engineers had given PowerPoint summaries to NASA
executives about damage to the doomed space shuttle Columbia from a
piece of foam that struck its wing during liftoff. And in the early
days of the Bush administration, counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke
wrote his plan to "roll up" the al Qaeda terrorist network using, what
else, PowerPoint.
These are some of the program's sexiest implementations. But PowerPoint
is ubiquitous throughout the federal bureaucracy, trotted out even for
mundane conference speeches or working group meetings. In many of those
gatherings, it's almost expected.
It's common, however, to find people who don't know how to use the
presentation maker. Microsoft advertises that PowerPoint will "improve
the way you create, present and collaborate on presentations." But more
often, clear-thinking, articulate people who use PowerPoint are
transformed into muddied, monotonous speakers who shoehorn their
thoughts into bullet points and anesthetize audiences with their slide
shows.
A growing body of research suggests that, far from illuminating
people's thoughts, PowerPoint actually obscures them. And now a debate
is brewing across government as PowerPoint critics and adherents ask,
"Is this any way for us to communicate?" Considering the momentous
deliberations in which PowerPoint is employed, it's not such a bad
question.
Slide Rules
Recently, Edward Tufte, Yale professor emeritus of political science,
computer science and statistics, helped make PowerPoint-bashing popular
with this unflattering thesis: Most PowerPoint users are drawn to it
because they're stupid.
In a 27-page treatise published last year, Tufte argued, sans bullet
points, that PowerPoint's unsophisticated design attracts shallow
thinkers. For example, it encourages supplanting already brief text
with stock illustrations known as "clip art," a convenient way to avoid
complete sentences and punctuation.
PowerPoint is designed to think for its users. Its selling feature, the
Auto Content Wizard, tells presenters how to position bullet points -
usually not more than three to five per slide - and offers
prefabricated subject headings such as "Vision Statement," "Goals and
Objectives" and "How Did We Get Here?" Limited slide space doesn't
allow much elaboration on broad topics.
Tufte seized on PowerPoint's limiting "cognitive style," which he says:
Suffocates evidence and thought with bullet points;
Makes it difficult to print much data on a slide;
And offers little opportunity for intellectual digression, since slides
are presented in sequence.
The result, Tufte writes in The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint
(Graphics Press LLC, 2003), are slick pamphlets that turn serious
discussions "into a sales pitch." PowerPoint cannot convey complex
ideas, he argues. And in government, where many ideas are complex, that
can be dangerous.
Before Tufte began his PowerPoint crusade, he created an academic
discipline to study how people interpret visual information. His books,
such as The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (Graphics Press,
2001), are bibles, not just for serious-minded designers, but for
anyone interested in how people receive messages, from architects to
commercial illustrators to map makers. So, when Tufte says PowerPoint's
visual style encourages "generic, mushy, simplistic thought," people
listen.
Some of them run NASA. Soon after the loss of Columbia, Tufte filed a
Freedom of Information Act request for PowerPoint briefings pertaining
to the flight. Among those he received were three briefings to NASA
senior managers by contract engineers with the Boeing Co. about
possible damage to Columbia's wing, caused by impact with foam debris.
Tufte was aghast. The slides were a muddle of banner headings and
bullet points. Important findings were buried in subheadings.
Information in data tables was squished into tight cells, making it
hard to read. The engineers wrote in a mishmash of acronyms and
parenthetical notes that didn't clearly convey that Columbia was in
danger.
"I couldn't believe it," Tufte recalls. So he posted the slides on the
Internet.
The members of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board couldn't
believe it either. Their final report cited Tufte's analysis and
excoriated NASA for favoring slides over prosaic explanations.
The investigators singled out one slide that proved pivotal in the
failure of NASA executives to grasp Columbia's jeopardy. It is
classically bad PowerPoint, a "festival of bureaucratic
hyper-rationalism," Tufte writes. It contains six levels of hierarchy:
A banner title followed by a big bullet point, a dash, a diamond and a
little bullet point to denote subpoints, and finally, a set of
parentheses.
"It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this
PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening
situation," the Columbia investigators wrote. "The board views the
endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers
as an illustration of the problematic methods of communication at
NASA."
Today, PowerPoint briefings are sometimes banned at the space agency.
For some technical reports, engineers and scientists must write their
findings on paper in narrative style, which they did more often before
PowerPoint became popular.
Tufte has given lectures to NASA managers, and they've adopted some of
his theories, says Ralph Roe, director of the Engineering and Safety
Center, an independent group created to root out safety risks following
Columbia's disintegration. "PowerPoint is good for briefing and
highlighting . . . and for status reports," Roe says. "But we shouldn't
neglect to have, in the case of technical work, an engineering or
scientific report that is always available to back that up. . . . The
processes you go through in writing things out in long form add some
rigor. You come up with a better product in the end."
NASA executives drew unintended conclusions from the Columbia
engineers' bullet points. But if those points had been described in
detail, Roe thinks it's more likely that the executives would have
comprehended them.
Stop Thinking
It's no accident that PowerPoint slides often are thin on content. Over
time, Microsoft developers have added visual effects such as clip art,
borders and larger fonts that leave less room for words.
Developers also have searched for ways to help presenters rely less on
their own creativity. Indeed, the Auto Content Wizard was developed in
the mid-1990s when users complained of writer's block when they stared
at blank slides. As Ian Parker noted in a history of PowerPoint in the
May 28, 2001, issue of The New Yorker magazine, a Microsoft developer
jokingly offered a solution: "What we need is some automatic content!
Punch the button and you'll have a presentation." Auto Content was
born, "a rare example," Parker wrote, "of a product named in outright
mockery of its target customers."
Gradually, more elaborate visual and sound effects have almost done
away with the need for presenters. An entire industry of PowerPoint
"plug-ins" has emerged. For instance, Right Seat Inc., a Golden, Colo.,
company, makes a product called Vox Proxy that inserts animated,
talking characters into slides. There's a character for every audience,
such as Tom, a tall, dark-haired, vanilla Everyman. But there are
zanier actors, such as Squidge, a green-eyed goblin with enormous ears,
and Marge, a biped dinosaur-like creature that wears a green necklace
and a dress. Right Seat executives say Vox Proxy characters spice up
otherwise boring PowerPoint presentations. The plug-ins have been
purchased by 37 federal organizations or agencies, including the Air
Force, the Bureau of Prisons and the FBI.
The success of other PowerPoint augmenters indicates that many
presenters find slides, on their own, too boring to keep an audience
engaged. But viewers often complain about special effects overkill,
such as darting arrows to emphasize words, or cameos by a faceless
stick figure, called a Screen Bean, which sports a question mark or
light bulb over its head to denote uncertainty or a "bright idea."
"Whenever I see clip art and special effects, I immediately don't trust
the speaker because I think he's covering for the fact that he has
nothing to say," says a Washington trade association executive who has
witnessed numerous PowerPoint briefings by officials from the Health
and Human Services Department. Usually they cover complicated topics
such as compliance with federal health-care regulations, but that
doesn't stop presenters from trying to convey their points with
technological acrobatics.
Aside from distracting viewers, special effects tend to obscure the
facts that lie beneath them. In his chronicle of the lead-up to war in
Iraq, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post recounts the briefing that
President Bush received from Gen. Tommy Franks on his options for
invasion. Franks "presented a chart in the form of a matrix with
'slices' of regime power listed along the top, or horizontal axis, and
the 'lines of operations' along the side, or vertical axis," Woodward
writes in Plan of Attack (Simon & Schuster, 2004).
At key intersections, "little graphic explosions or starbursts
indicated where particular 'lines of operations' could be effectively
employed against 'slices' of regime vulnerability," such as bombing key
leadership or security facilities, Woodward reports. "The president was
taken with the concept that force could be applied selectively and
carefully across the different slices. . . . [But] in an interview two
years later, Bush specifically recalled 'the little starbursts' on the
matrix but not much of the detail."
Fake Learning
The president's failure to recall detail is a common occurrence for
people who try to learn from slides. Michael Miller, chief technology
officer of the National Defense University's Information Resource
Management College and a cognitive psychologist by training, says
people who are shown a presentation years after first seeing it can
usually recognize particular slides. But when asked to recall what the
slides said, they're often stumped.
How much detail someone recalls is a better measure of how much he has
learned, because the information has been assimilated into his memory,
Miller says. "You learned what was on the slide and can later use that
information."
People learn differently - some like to read text, some prefer to
listen to a speaker - but there are no shortcuts to comprehension. And
PowerPoint is all about shortcuts, he says.
The program makes things easy for the presenter, not the audience,
Miller explains. Take bullet points. Ordinarily, a speaker might write
down, for his own use, a series of points he wants to make, Miller
says. But his audience expects him to fill in the data between those
points since, on their own, they make sense to no one but the speaker.
But PowerPoint encourages speakers to present just the notes, passing
them off as a finished product, Miller says. Put another way,
PowerPoint lulls its users into thinking they've actually communicated
by projecting their notes on a screen, reading them aloud and then
distributing them on paper so people can take them home. "It's the
illusion of education," Miller says.
Many of the National Defense University's professors are PowerPoint
addicts, Miller says. To keep PowerPoint out of the classroom,
professors must expand their lecture slides into prose. Miller says a
four-slide presentation could yield 10 pages of course material, which
can be posted on the Internet, handed out in packets, or taught in the
classroom.
Don't Blame the Messenger
Although many people love to hate Power-Point, a countermovement is
growing among communications experts who say it's not an inherently bad
device. They defend PowerPoint's use in moderation, and put the onus on
users to tame its stupefying tendencies.
Lead critic Tufte rightly criticizes PowerPoint's reliance on bullets,
the sequential presentation of slides, and features such as Auto
Content, says Karl Keller, a principal with consulting firm
Communication Partners in Evanston, Ill., who wrote a retort to Tufte's
essay last October. Tufte fails to recognize that, with some mental
elbow grease, PowerPoint can be a decent tool for displaying
information, Keller says.
In his essay, Keller retooled the infamous slide presented by Boeing
engineers into an arguably clearer format. He also crafted coherent
data tables and dropped them into slides, to show that PowerPoint can
deliver cogent data.
Of course, that all requires a higher level of independent thinking
than PowerPoint encourages. But is the program to blame for its users
being intellectually lazy?
"People who just read slides are just poor speakers in the first place.
It has nothing to do with PowerPoint," says Annetta Cheek, who holds
the rare but official title of plain language coordinator for the
Federal Aviation Administration and leads an interagency seminar on
clear writing for federal employees. "If they had note cards in front
of them, they'd just be reading those."
Cheek, a PowerPoint user, says people can learn to write better - and
thus give better presentations - but that government employees face
particular challenges. "Writing in government is often turgid, overly
complex, puffed up with a lot of extra words," Cheek says. "I think a
lot of federal writing doesn't say anything."
And since PowerPoint slides often don't say much either, people should
use them to only supplement presentations, and should focus their
energy on learning to write better, Cheek says.
Paradoxically, a major weakness in government writing is something
PowerPoint presumably could correct: It's too long. In federal writing
and presentations, Cheek says, "There seems to be a feeling that if
it's short, there must be something wrong." But rather than learn to
write tersely, presenters often paste unnecessary content into their
presentations - such as passages from laws or regulations - that adds
little of substance and is hard to read if you're sitting far from the
screen, Cheek says.
PowerPoint's critics and defenders agree that most people are capable
of articulating, and that if they think about what they want to say
before they boot up their slide maker, their innate Auto Content device
might guide them.
But they also concur that this requires something PowerPoint is
designed to avoid: hard work, preparation and the courage to stand by
one's words. "Shy presenters like [PowerPoint] because they can stand
in the dark, next to the screen, and they don't have to look at the
audience," Tufte says. "They look at the screen. And the audience looks
at the screen. And they can hide in the dark."
Unless people make themselves the masters of their words, Tufte and
others say, their points will stay hidden, as well.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden