I am strangely fascinated by the philosophical debates about PowerPoint. Edward Tufte, who’s a hero of ours, is virulently opposed to PowerPoint.  I’m someone who uses it constantly, so it would be a bit hypocritical for me to rant against it. True, I think it enables a lot of our worst tendencies (being verbose, summarizing rather than unpacking, using bulletized abstractions rather than concrete examples, thinking in terms of a collection of points rather than a storyline, “telling” rather than teasing, etc. … as a matter of fact, this parenthetical comment is itself rather PowerPointian). But I also have to say that the existence of Krispy Kreme enables a lot of my worst tendencies, too, and I don’t have an unkind word to say about them. It’s certainly *possible* to create a kick-ass PowerPoint, and it’s certainly *possible* not to eat a half-dozen doughnuts when you walk in KK. So.
In the WSJ, Lee Gomes has interviewed the inventors of PowerPoint to get their take on the anti-PPT criticisms. The surprise: They basically agree. Here’s an excerpt:
Â
Mr. Gaskins and Mr. Austin, now 63 and 60, respectively, reflected on PowerPoint’s creation and its current omnipresence in an interview last week. They are intensely proud of their technical and strategic successes. But to a striking degree, they aren’t the least bit defensive about the criticisms routinely heard of PowerPoint. In fact, the best single source of PowerPoint commentary, both pro and con, (including a rich vein of Dilbert cartoons) can be found at RobertGaskins.com, his personal home page.
Perhaps the most scathing criticism comes from the Yale graphics guru Edward Tufte, who says the software “elevates format over content, betraying an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.” He even suggested PowerPoint played a role in the Columbia shuttle disaster, as some vital technical news was buried in an otherwise upbeat slide.
No quarrel from Mr. Gaskins: “All the things Tufte says are absolutely true. People often make very bad use of PowerPoint.”
Mr. Gaskins reminds his questioner that a PowerPoint presentation was never supposed to be the entire proposal, just a quick summary of something longer and better thought out. He cites as an example his original business plan for the program: 53 densely argued pages long. The dozen or so slides that accompanied it were but the highlights.
Since then, he complains, “a lot of people in business have given up writing the documents. They just write the presentations, which are summaries without the detail, without the backup. A lot of people don’t like the intellectual rigor of actually doing the work.”
Powerpoint has always been the target for many attacks, because of its features or lack of them. At the end, the responsability, the power of a good presentation comes from the author, not the software.
Tools are no to be blamed, not knowing how to use them effectively is the real culprit here.
Creativity surfaces when constraints or limitations need to be overcome, and this, limitations and constraints, flow a plenty on this “beloved” software.
If I can make a logo on Powerpoint, with looks good and clear meaning, it will look that way everywhere else.
One thing I don’t like about using Powerpoint is that even if the presentation’s great – when people are reading on the screen, they’re not listening. It’s bad enough audiences are distracted by their blackberrys.
Your book’s chapter on stories made me wonder if I should go without powerpoint next time and simply decide, what bullets – if anything – I want them to take home with them. Perhaps we give them out at the end, much like your end-of-book summary… as a reference back to the things they were actually listening to.
I know I would like it better. Time will tell if other’s do.
A hammer smashing a finger says more about the skill of the hammer’s operator than it does about the value of the hammer as a tool. Used effectively, the hammer can build a home.
Like a microphone, or even a pen, the effectiveness of Powerpoint depends entirely on the ability of the user.
If Shakespeare were alive today perhaps he would explain it by saying, “Nothing in a Powerpoint is good or bad, but the user makes it so.”
At least a quarter of my professional life for the past 15 years has depended on my ability to create effective presentations using Powerpoint. My only complaint about the tool is that it hasn’t been improved in a decade. Microsoft’s monopolistic practices exterminated all competitors (Harvard Graphics, Lotus Freelance, who knows what others might’ve emerged) and thereby any incentive for further innovation or refinement. In the absence of alternatives I’m still using a rock to pound nails.
Check out http://www.mediashout.com
It was developed for leading worship, but it will do anything. The beauty lies in that the software only stores “cues” that point to whatever media you want to display. I always start with a list of comments (that don’t display) that serve as an outline, then I fill in whatever I need to go along with my presentation (graphics, animations, video clips, text). It’s a great program. You can download a free trial.
The comments about powerpoint being a tool to be used correctly or incorrectly are spot on. Here is a template that I use to make the slide a part of the presentation, not “the presentation”.
The slide headline and takeaway should correlate and almost read as a sentence.
Headline: New Marketing Approach
Takeaway: Sales Increased by 30%
In the middle, sandwich in grapics, charts, visuals and few words. You want them looking at a message and hearing you. If you are reading bullets, they are reading the same bullets at a different speed, and wishing you would shut up so they can read.
Powerpoint is a competent tool in use by many that are less than competent using it.
A good presentation shouldn’t need a visual focus: the speaker should be the focus so the audience can detect every little detail of his expression.
I don’t like doughnuts but i want to try KKs.Not in the UK I guess? C
One thing that bugs me about the use of a PowerPoint is that it creates a sense of obligation. For instance, if you flash up a slide with a core point, right there in black & white, what you’re doing is setting up the expectation that when you say something important, it’ll be on a slide. And that makes me wonder: Will people subconsciously dismiss the other things I’m saying because I didn’t put them on slides? And that worry, in turn, tempts me to use more slides (so the audience doesn’t miss the importance, of course!). But having more slides activates my Simplicity instinct. A mental battle ensues. So you can see it is all very complex and dramatic for me…
107539682128871954 http://wow.avtlg.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=9
People using Powerpoint should read and then make up their own minds. For what it’s worth I think it’s wrong to say the tool is neutral and that the user makes the finished product. Actually, the tool creates a way of thinking about the process that can heavily influence the user without their being aware of it. Most Powerpoint users I have encountered seem to assume the tool exists to enable an endless series of bullet points. It doesn’t have to be like this, of course. Microsoft has itself published a great little book called by Cliff Atkinson. Core message? – It’s the Story, Stupid.