| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
PowerPoint Is Evil | |
|
||
| Time: 09:34 EST/14:34 GMT | News Source: Wired | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Imagine a widely used and expensive prescription drug that promised to make us beautiful but didn't. Instead the drug had frequent, serious side effects: It induced stupidity, turned everyone into bores, wasted time, and degraded the quality and credibility of communication. These side effects would rightly lead to a worldwide product recall. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 223 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:55:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 8/20/2003 10:04:28 AM |
|
the article is missing the <rant></rant> tags.
OK folks move along, nothing here to see. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 11:21:55 AM |
| Funny, while criticizing how we now turn everything into a marketing pitch, the writer himself uses a marketing ploy to get attention for an article that is really more about poor presenting rather than PowerPoint itself. But to some extent, he has a good point--PowerPoint has made some people very lazy and/or lose sight of the focus of presenting. |
| #3 By 7711 (68.45.57.126) at 8/20/2003 11:22:07 AM |
|
#2....I fully agree.
As a high school physics teacher, I almost have to agree with the sentiment of the article. I've seen far too many students use the computer (whether it is Powerpoint or Word with great images and fonts or whatever) to do their projects or lab reports, and fall into the "style over substance" trap. Their projects look great, but they obviously are spending more time on formatting than on the material they are presenting. The computer is a great tool to help make a good presentation better, but... crap in a pretty package is still fundamentally crap. |
| #4 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 12:07:33 PM |
|
People are being a little sensitive about defending a product that's not really being attacked. Ehh, anyway, it's hilarious... if you guys had any perspective on what you are saying... for example:
"the author of this article is intent on blaming the tool for his (or someone else's) lack of presentation skills." Edward Tufte lacks presentation skills? Maybe you should do a little Googling on who Edward Tufte is, ISF guy. Hilarious comment! Have you ever heard of the books: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative Envisioning Information Edward Tufte is the foremost information designer in the world and has been the leading theorist, spokesman, and presenter for the significance of good visual and information design. This guy knows how to present. Blaming the tool? Did you read: "PowerPoint is a competent slide manager and projector. But rather than supplementing a presentation, it has become a substitute for it. Such misuse ignores the most important rule of speaking: Respect your audience." "the writer himself uses a marketing ploy to get attention for an article that is really more about poor presenting rather than PowerPoint itself." It's a ploy? He does argue that PP's influence is bad, doesn't he? He's marketing? Sounds like a rather lucid little essay to me. Maybe your expectations of a tech article and your defense mechanisms for Microsoft are clouding your mind with preconceptions, but I find nothign about this article to be very much like "marketing." No where does Tufte say that Powerpoint is solely to blame. He does blame the laziness and dependence and mindset of people on PowerPoint. In fact, he says exactly what jimlat and sphbecker are observing, but because it's the precious Microsoft product you guys are getting your panties in a bunch. His points are valid and well observed by most of us. The ease and format of PowerPoint has degraded presentations because of the laziness, preconceptions, and expectations of the users and audience. The only thing interesting is that Tufte is addressing an issue that was dealt with quite well and thoroughly in a more scholarly fashion than previously. Didn't you guys know about the classic little book "Really Bad PowerPoint (and How to Avoid It)" published two years ago? Clever little book. Not scholarly, but informative, fun, and quick and easy. It'll be interesting to see what Tufte's monogram adds to the discussion. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 12:59. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 12:14:30 PM |
|
The "PowerPoint is Evil" is article marketing hyperbole. That's the ploy. Call it a joke or whatever you want, but there's nothing like capitalizing on an anti-Microsoft sentiment to get attention. This post was edited by bluvg on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 12:18. |
| #6 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 12:22:46 PM |
|
Not really. For one, the title isn't the choice of the author. His title for the monogram is "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" -- oooh, how "marketing-y" of him! (Jesus, talking about blaming the wrong person!)
Most people would probably guess that the article is about exactly what it is about from the title. Only dorks seeking to defend the sanctity of MS would be inflamed and ensnared by such a title. I read the title and went: hmm, I bet I know exactly what that is about. I didn't go: ooh, what mean thing is someone saying about PowerPoint?... I bet they got it wrong... I'll post all the technical errors I can find... oh... darn.... the article is about the influence of PP on people's presentation skills and thinking... I'll call him EVIL for making me think he was attacking PowerPoint! |
| #7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 12:41:30 PM |
|
How do you know the title of the article isn't his choice? "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" is not the title of the article, but of his new monograph.
Don't fall of the edge with your perceived paranoia, Sodajerk... all I said was that the title (what I was refering to in my original post) was a marketing ploy, particularly when you consider it's in Wired magazine. Don't you think I know what the article is going to be about as well? I agree with many of his points. I just pointed out the irony of his distaste for the "an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch" when he himself is using the very same, at least for the title. The content of his article itself is informative and worthwhile. Ironic, too, that you're accusing me of being "inflamed and ensnared" to defend MS (I'm not really doing that--just making observations, actually) when you can tell by the tone of your posts that the inflamation and ensnaring is by one looking to counter a irrational defense of MS where there is none. |
| #8 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 12:51:20 PM |
|
"His title for the monogram is "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" -- oooh, how "marketing-y" of him!" --sodajerk
""The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" is not the title of the article, but of his new monograph." --bluvg Thanks, for the help, bluvg, didn't know that. "Don't you think I know what the article is going to be about as well?" I don't know... If you did understand what it was about from the title, how would it have functioned as a PLOY? As I said, I don't know if you were "inflamed and ensnared" but wouldn't this be required for it to be a ploy, a trick? I presumed you were tricked because that's what you claimed it did. If it conveyed its meaning to you, how is Tufte resorting to a gimmick? And as I said, 95% the world doesn't give a sh!t about defending PowerPoint so it wouldn't act as a ploy whatsoever. I sound inflamed? Umm, just chuckling at dumbasses who clearly don't know Tufte while I answer email... How is there not an irrational defense when your first post is an attack (while admittedly a begrudging and banckhanded compliment ultimately), RedHook is trying to get us to not even read it for ourselves--claiming its a rant--how many rants use the phrase "cognitive style"?, becker is criticizing it (calling Tufte's thinking stupid, even) but then making the same point as Tufte... sounds pretty irrational and defensive to me. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 12:56. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 1:20:28 PM |
|
Alright, since you are making a point about it, let me clarify:
Sodajerk: "For one, the title isn't the choice of the author. His title for the monogram is 'The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint' But we aren't talking about the monogram, we're talking about the article. The title of the article is "PowerPoint is Evil." Now, if the title had been "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint"--which is the real content and point of discussion of the article--Wired would likely have received fewer hits on this than any other article they post today. But since it's titled "PowerPoint is Evil," it gets attention. "PowerPoint is Evil" isn't really the point of discussion of the article, but it attracts readers. Thus, it is a marketing ploy, a sales pitch for the article. In the article, Tufte expresses disdain for "an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch." I'm pointing out the irony of that comment by contrasting it with the title. That was the point of my earlier comment. That's it! Sheesh. |
| #10 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 1:32:29 PM |
|
Oops--double post. This post was edited by bluvg on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 13:33. |
| #11 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 1:32:38 PM |
|
For what it's worth, I think it's pretty funny, though--
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. I've sat through so many boring presentations... and quite a few have been ruined by poor use of PowerPoint. My favorite mistake is the one where the presenter puts everything they're going to say, word-for-word, on the slide. I always feel like raising my hand and saying "Can I read the next paragraph???" |
| #12 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 1:36:34 PM |
|
And to make it clear, his point is PP "elevates format over content" which reveals "an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch." You've already indicated that the title expressed its purpose. It also sold itself. Tufte has nothing against commercialism, per se... just against commercialism without content. Since he says "format over content" is the cause of the commercialism effect and you say, "The content of his article itself is informative and worthwhile," I believe you've negated your own point and misinterpreted what he said.
And, yes, I think it is safe to say this is not his title. So there's no irony to it. How do I make such a presumption? This is based on having read all of his major books, reading many of his smaller writings, seeing him speak three times, and having the opportunity to speak with the man for several hours with a small group of people (he is extremely funny -- comparing bulletpoint-style thinking to Stalin -- but also always treats his writing seriously and like a scholar). This is also based on knowing how journalism, editors, and Wired in particular work. And to reduce his point to: marketing is bad... is only limiting yourself. To suggest that Wired, or even suppose Tufte himself, is marketing the piece contrary to his own views (resulting in irony) is ridiculous. "That was the point of my earlier comment. That's it! Sheesh." And my point was that almost all of your comments were ridiculous; whether or not there was an inkling of comprehension to any of the posts, all of the comments were largely reactionary. I didn't see much of a need to respond to your post individually except to make the point that "PowerPoint is Evil" is NOT an attention getting title for 95% of the world. |
| #13 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 2:30:32 PM |
|
You're reading your own supposition of my viewpoint into my comments, Sodajerk. I never attacked the author. I never attacked his points. I never said he was against commercialism. I never called anyone "dumbasses" (lest you think I'm "inflamed"). I never even attacked having catchy titles. All I did was point out the irony of the author expressing dissatisfaction of how we market (or over-market) everything, when his very own article title was subject to the same type of spin. And yes, I wouldn't be so surprised if it was Wired's addition as well (although I'm not as convinced as you by looking at the blend of humor he uses in the article as well as his website), but nonetheless it would still be ironic to have that title against that particular point in the article. I'm not suggesting the title is contrary to the content of the article... it's just ironic in the case on which I commented.
You're right, "PowerPoint is Evil" is not an attention-getting title for 95% of the world. But "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" is an attention-getting title for far, far less than that. |
| #14 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 8/20/2003 2:31:34 PM |
|
sodajerk: "...because it's the precious Microsoft product you guys are getting your panties in a bunch." Classic and so true. That's one of the reasons I find this site so fascinating (and occasionally entertaining).
My two favorite quotes from the article (validated from having suffered through too many poor presentations): "Chartjunk is a clear sign of statistical stupidity." and "Thus PowerPoint presentations too often resemble a school play -very loud, very slow, and very simple." (Bah! School plays are much better, it's your own kids up there!) I personally have never used PowerPoint (or any other slide software) for a presentation. I prefer to have the audience focused on me and the material I am presenting. For those occasions where data is presentated I try to limit the handout to a one page summary for executives and no more than a few pages for managers. I do occasionally use whiteboards to bring the audience into the material in stages, to assist in comprehension and facilitate discussion. Personally, I think many folks would greatly benefit from not having PowerPoint during their presentations... |
| #15 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 2:50:31 PM |
|
"I never attacked the author." My own word choice--I think you did; you implied that the author wasn't aware of his own hypocrisy... I think he's not only NOT a hypocrite but would be aware of it as well. i.e if there is irony, it is dramatic irony and on him, which would mean he is either a hypocrite or ignorant.
"I never said he was against commercialism." You said: "Funny, while criticizing how we now turn everything into a marketing pitch" -- he actually said: "PowerPoint presentation elevates format over content, betraying an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch." I didn't say you said he was against commercialism. I said he spoke against commercialism without content. i.e. I was pointing out that you were both simplifying his statement and misinterpreting it in order to find some irony. Maybe you should have said he was against commercialism, that way you would have been closer to being on point. "I never called anyone "dumbasses" (lest you think I'm "inflamed")." No, but I am. And I do so without being inflamed. How the hell do you reconcile "You're right, "PowerPoint is Evil" is not an attention-getting title for 95% of the world." with "when his very own article title was subject to the same type of spin." You concede the title isn't catchy or interesting to 95% of the world. You concede that he isn't solely speaking against marketing or commercialism. You concede the title conveys its purpose beyond being a PLOY. You concede that he probably did not create this title. And you still believe there is irony and that: "Funny, while criticizing how we now turn everything into a marketing pitch, the writer himself uses a marketing ploy to get attention for an article that is really more about poor presenting rather than PowerPoint itself." wasn't a little bit of a defense mechanism for a spastic MS devotee? Uh, huh. "but nonetheless it would still be ironic to have that title against that particular point in the article. I'm not suggesting the title is contrary to the content of the article... it's just ironic in the case on which I commented." Actually you specifically called out the author as the source of this "irony", called out the connection between the title and the content (which you misinterpret), and bely the fact that you expected the article to be about "PowerPoint itself." Dumbass. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 15:07. |
| #16 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 3:30:07 PM |
|
Just like how you can claim that you're not inflamed while swearing at me, I'm saying that I'm not calling the author a hypocrite while pointing out the irony of the title with one particular point in the article.
"I didn't say you said he was against commercialism." Then why did you need to say to me, "Tufte has nothing against commercialism..."? I'm not sure what's so tough to reconcile--5% of the world is still a huge number, especially considering the majority of the world doesn't have a computer. Even if it's a lower percentage, it's certainly gathers a great deal more attention than "Cognitive Style of PowerPoint." I'm not really sure how those are concessions (save for him creating/not creating the title), since I never said differently. As for creating the title, I acknowledge that it's possible that he didn't write it. But as far as that goes, even if he didn't create it, hopefully he had a chance to review it before his article was published in Wired. It's clear in the summary of his article: "The practical conclusions are clear. PowerPoint is a competent slide manager and projector. But rather than supplementing a presentation, it has become a substitute for it." So, yes, the article is more about poor presenting than on PowerPoint itself. That's not a rally-behind-MS comment, unless you assume that before you read it. I don't see how that's a misinterpretation of the content, either--those are his direct words. So, yes, it's "funny"/ironic. If you don't get the joke, don't lose sleep over it. |
| #17 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 8/20/2003 3:47:51 PM |
|
For the vast majority of people, PowerPoint is a visual crutch on which their broken presentation supports itself.
It's just like that kid in school who had a really crappy report, but he put that little plastic cover on it, slapped a pretty clip art cover sheet on, and handed it in triumphantly. I personally like PowerPoint. I can do a lot of stuff that actually adds to a presentation with it, but the vast majority of people abuse it like crack. Of course this isn't PowerPoint's fault, but I'm pretty sure the article was meant to be funny. |
| #18 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 5:07:25 PM |
|
" I'm saying that I'm not calling the author a hypocrite while pointing out the irony of the title with one particular point in the article. "
IF it is ironic, it is dramatic irony. The message you think you receive is not apparent to either the mag or the author. Hence, you are saying that the author is either ignorant or is aware of it and is simply being hypocritical for the sake of the irony. So, yes, you are in one way or the other insulting him. "Then why did you need to say to me, "Tufte has nothing against commercialism..."?" Because it was relevent unlike your comments and was a part of my point. What about that statement tells you I said: "bluvg says Tufte is against commercialism." You certainly said he was against marketing and in such a way as to suggest that this was an unqualified comment without any conditions (like good, directed marketing with well-intented content, etc..) "I'm not sure what's so tough to reconcile--5% of the world is still a huge number." WEAK! WEAK! Don't trip over yourself backpedaling. "I never said differently" Sure, you did. You attributed it to the author and you treated it as if it was the biggest hitbait ever when now you concede that only pathetic softies would give a sh1t. "So, yes, the article is more about poor presenting than on PowerPoint itself." No sh1t... you pointing it out in the first place showed what preconceptions you had. "I don't see how that's a misinterpretation of the content, either--those are his direct words." But that wasn't your interpretation, dumbass. You just quoted that now. I'm speaking of the anti-marketing interpretation which is not in the piece whatsoever. "Funny, while criticizing how we now turn everything into a marketing pitch, the writer himself uses a marketing ploy to get attention for an article that is really more about poor presenting rather than PowerPoint itself." "That's not a rally-behind-MS comment, unless you assume that before you read it." Your comment sounds like it is a rally-behind-MS comment and like you assumed that before you read it and like you were attempting to make the author look bad. "So, yes, it's "funny"/ironic." No, it's not. It's a pathetic attempt at a stupid joke from a twitchy softy. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 17:13. |
| #19 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 8/20/2003 5:07:40 PM |
| I love PowerPoint, but I sure do get pissed off when people in my engineering classes do thier projects on it, and they add bunches of ugly animations, sound effects, etc... they have no style or substance and are utter crap. |
| #20 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 5:36:09 PM |
| Sodajerk, you're going to believe whatever you want no matter what I say. You can put all the words in my mouth that you want, and mischaracterize everything I said all you want, but I know what I meant. You claim that I'm the one who is twitchy and spastic, but I'm not the one calling people names and swearing at them. When you get appointed judge and jury of everyone's comments, let me know. |
| #21 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 5:59:44 PM |
|
Sure, buddy.
... if you let me know when you expect me to give a sh1t. (What's so twitchy and spastic about swearing?) |
| #22 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 8/20/2003 6:37:41 PM |
|
Me: "[The author was] criticizing how we now turn everything into a marketing pitch"
Sodajerk's interpretation: "You certainly said he was against marketing and in such a way as to suggest that this was an unqualified comment without any conditions (like good, directed marketing with well-intented content, etc..)" I think not every computer needs a CD burner. By your reasoning, I'm against CD burners, without condition. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I was saying the author was against marketing. That's quite a stretch. "5% of the world is still a huge number." Yes, of course it is. But that's not the point--one title gets a lot more attention than the other. How that's backpedaling, I don't know. "So, yes, the article is more about poor presenting than on PowerPoint itself." No sh1t... you pointing it out in the first place showed what preconceptions you had. No, as I stated already, that wasn't my preconception. It contrasts the title, which is apparent in my original post. "I'm speaking of the anti-marketing interpretation which is not in the piece whatsoever." Nor was it in my posts. That was your spin on what I said, as above. This post was edited by bluvg on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 18:50. |
| #23 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 8:04:59 PM |
|
your an idiot bluvg.
How is this "we now turn everything into a marketing pitch" to this "I think not every computer needs a CD burner." The fomer is not qualified. EVERYTHING. The latter is. NOT EVERY. Dumbass. "I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I was saying the author was against marketing." Easy, by no means did you qualify it. By no means did you pick up on the form without content aspect. If you don't like that turn of phrase, how bout: you over generalized to the point of missing the point that the content is significant, if content is present, the form itself is not bad. "How that's backpedaling, I don't know." Let's see: one could basically presume that more than 5% of the world would be interested in a story in the first place, dumbass. Secondly, the whole world? Little bit of hperbole to beef up the fact that no one gives a sh1t about protecting MS's "good" name but fools like you. Let's try -- 5% of the English speaking world, that reads Wired, that has web access,etc.. It certainly is backpedaling: by no means, does 5% represent a firestorm of page hits, dumb ass. The headline "Vague Limits Vex Music Traders" attracts more than 5% "of the world." Ha, ha, ha. "No, as I stated already, that wasn't my preconception." It sounds like it. Arnold said today,"Warren Buffett and George Shultz are not a photo opportunity." Do I buy it? Didn't he say that exactly because it's 100% true. "Nor was it in my posts. That was your spin on what I said, as above." No, it wasn't. It was your whole point. When he doesn't say anything at all against marketing. Dumbass. |
| #24 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 8/20/2003 9:29:36 PM |
|
Powerpoint is evil
http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/ |
| #25 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 8/20/2003 11:21:42 PM |
|
Ahh, a sense of humor.
Nice post, soda. Although isn't it ironic that it's you who's saying that PowePoint is.... Blaaah... Ha, ha, ha!!! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 223 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:55:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
