Finally — paradoxically — research shows that the standard advice of seven bullets of seven words each is about the worst approach to slide design. Communication improves dramatically if you either reduce the amount of text to much less than that — or increase it to much more. The next three sections will explain each of these counter - intuitive points in turn.
GRAPHICS 91
In a Wired magazine article that popularized this position (titled “ PowerPoint Is Evil ” and subtitled “ Power Corrupts: PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely ” ), Tufte (2003a) claimed that “ The PowerPoint style routinely disrupts, dominates, and trivializes content. ” Several others have also criticized PowerPoint presentations, from politicians to military personnel (Ricks, 2006).
Why should the software be blamed, rather than its users? The problem with a program like PowerPoint, according to its critics, is that it leads the user to develop presentations in a particular way, and this way may not be ideal. This criticism can be applied not just to PowerPoint, but also to other presentation programs, including Apple ’ s Keynote and Google Docs. 4
Other authorities on presentation have responded that it is possible to create effective slides with PowerPoint or other presentation tools, and therefore that the criticism of these tools is misplaced. While the tools may not be perfect, they assert, these tools do not deserve all the blame that is heaped on them, since there are clear guidelines that can be followed for making effective presentations using them. 5
Most importantly, perhaps, the debate is a clash of opinions more than anything else, because neither side has provided much evidence to support its position.6 Fortunately, though, there is some research on the effectiveness of PowerPoint as a presentation tool.
This research is summarized in the box below.
4 “ Software engineers . . . necessarily implement fairly distinct ideas and concepts into any software . . . of how the fi nal product is to be used ” (Voswinckel, 2005, p. 45). Presentation software therefore provides “ . . . an obvious predisposition towards a certain, default workfl ow ” (p. 50).
4 “ Software engineers . . . necessarily implement fairly distinct ideas and concepts into any software . . . of how the fi nal product is to be used ” (Voswinckel, 2005, p. 45). Presentation software therefore provides “ . . . an obvious predisposition towards a certain, default workfl ow ” (p. 50).
5 See Norman (2004), Holmes (2004), and Doumont (2005). The website http://sooper.org/misc/
ppt/ provides an extensive list of links, in chronological order, to contributors to the debate over the past several years.
5 See Norman (2004), Holmes (2004), and Doumont (2005). The website http://sooper.org/misc/
ppt/ provides an extensive list of links, in chronological order, to contributors to the debate over the past several years.
6 Few (2006) criticizes Tufte for not providing any empirical evidence to support his argument.
6 Few (2006) criticizes Tufte for not providing any empirical evidence to support his argument.
POWERPOINT EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
Most of the PowerPoint effectiveness research described here comes from the fi eld of education. Initial research in this area was optimistic, suggesting that PowerPoint had a positive effect on student understanding, recall, and grades. Specifi c conclusions included that, as a result of using PowerPoint in lectures:
Students understood material better (Fifi eld & Peifer, 1994)
Students remembered more (Pearson, Folske, Paulson, & Burggraf, 1994) They scored higher on tests (Jensen, Wilcox, Hatch, & Sumdahl, 1995)
Their overall grades improved (Lowry, 1999; Mantei, 2000; Szabo & Hastings, 2000)
They liked the lectures more and said that they helped them learn (Simpson, Pollacia, Speers, Willis, & Tarver, 2003).
Other studies, however, found mixed results, no effect, or negative results where students who had not been exposed to PowerPoint - based lectures scored higher on tests than those who had.
Among students who received PowerPoint lectures, female students had improved grades, but the male students did not (Kask, 2000).
No difference in results between lectures with and without PowerPoint (Daniels, 1999; Mines, 2001; Ranking & Hoaas, 2001).
Kapoun (2003) taught multiple fi fteen - minute instructional sessions, with and without PowerPoint, and found that students scored higher on tests afterward for the sessions without PowerPoint.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(Continued )
p04.indd 91
p04.indd 91 7/25/08 12:18:36 PM7/25/08 12:18:36 PM
Resolving the Debate: The Importance of Presentation Idiom
The authorities are divided, and so is the research. Where does this leave us? The authorities — and the researchers — seem to be working at cross - purposes. In a certain sense, both sides are correct, because they appear to have different approaches to presen- tation in mind. 7
To understand this, it helps to understand the idea of presentation idiom . A presentation idiom is a form of expression and an associated set of design principles. I call the two main types of presentation idiom Ballroom style and Conference Room style. Ballroom style presentations are what most typical PowerPoint presentations are trying to be:
colorful, vibrant, attention - grabbing, and (sometimes) noisy. They typically take place in a large, dark room — such as a hotel ballroom. Conference Room style presentations are more understated: they have less color, with more details on each page; they are more likely to be on printed handouts than projected slides, and they are more suited to your average corporate conference room.
The biggest single mistake that presenters make — and the root cause of the PowerPoint debate, it seems to me — is confusing the two idioms, and particularly, using ballroom style where conference room style is more appropriate. Almost all PowerPoint presentations are given using ballroom style — yet most of the time presentation conditions call for confer- ence room style. Ballroom style is appropriate for when the objective is to inform, impress, and/or entertain a large audience and when the information fl ow is largely expected to be one - way (presenter to audience). Conference room style presentations are more suited to meetings for which the objective is to engage, persuade, come to some conclusion, and
7An earlier draft of parts of this section and Chapter 8 were previously published in Abela (2006).
7An earlier draft of parts of this section and Chapter 8 were previously published in Abela (2006).
The problem with the earlier research, it turns out, was that most of the studies compared results from classes taught in years prior to the introduction of PowerPoint to those taught afterward, or classes for which the content of PowerPoint lectures was different from those of non - PowerPoint lectures.
In more recent research, when otherwise identical classes were run simultaneously, some with PowerPoint and some without, student attitudes to the class improved (as well as — not surprisingly — their ability to use PowerPoint), but no effect on their academic performance was found — either positive or negative.
So according to this research, PowerPoint is neither helpful nor harmful, at least in an educational environment.
Susskind (2005) reports on an experiment during two sections of an Introduction to Psychology course. For the fi rst fi ve weeks, one section received PowerPoint lectures and the other one did not. Students were then tested, and the teaching methods were switched for the next fi ve weeks. In each case, no differences in academic performance was found as a result of the PowerPoint lectures.
It is worth noting that in much of this research the PowerPoint presentations studied were largely text, typically lists of bullet points.
As we saw above, this is PowerPoint at its worst . Bullet point slides are often less effective than no slides at all, so the mixed results from these studies should not be surprising.
•
p04.indd 92
p04.indd 92 7/25/08 12:18:37 PM7/25/08 12:18:37 PM
GRAPHICS 93
drive action. Conference room style presentations are therefore appropriate for any of the following:
Making recommendations Selling
Training
Communicating the implications of research Raising funds
Information fl ow in this idiom is expected to be two - way — it ’ s more interactive. Table IV.1 summarizes and compares the main characteristics of ballroom and conference room style presentations.
From this perspective, Tufte is criticizing — correctly — the use of ballroom style presenta- tions in situations that need conference room style presentations. His critics are defend- ing ballroom style presentations in situations in which they are appropriate. Therefore, in that sense, both are correct.