Stop your presentation before it kills again!
Sometimes the best presentation is... no presentation. Ditch the slides completely. Put the projector in the closet, roll the screen back up, and turn the damn lights back on!
Especially if the slides are bullet points. Or worse... paragraphs.
The second you dim the lights and go into "presentation mode" is the moment you move from a two-way conversation to a one-way lecture/broadcast. It's hard to be interactive when you're behind your laptop, at a podium, watching your slides on the small screen.
Then there's the phenomenon of "talking to the slides", where the speaker is constrained into following a script. Although some can do it, most presenters (including me) aren't capable of dynamically reconfiguring their slides to customize in realtime for a particular audience. So the speaker just forges on, slide after slide, saying what's already ON the slide, regardless of what he learned about the group. Then again, asking the attendees for feedback is dangerous when you're following a script, since it's tough to really incorporate anything they say.
But given how many people hate slide presentations, why is it universally assumed that where there is "a talk", there's PowerPoint (or its much cooler cousin, Apple's KeyNote)? Conference coordinators rarely ask speakers if they'll be projecting slides. They send out the slide templates, then start demanding your slides several weeks before the show. Saying you don't have slides is like saying you'll give your talk naked. "You mean... you're going out there with nothing???"
I know the arguments in favor of slides:
Visuals are more memorable than words alone.
True. There's almost nobody in the computer book business that believes that as much as we do. But bullet points are still the prevailing content of most slides, and they usually add nothing unless the speaker truly sucks, or has such a dramatically hard-to-parse accent that it's the only way you can get the info.
You have no choice when you're presenting something that must be shown.
There are times when the very content you're speaking on directly relates to something you need or want to show. A screen shot, a design, a building, an animation, etc. Often you need to show quantitative data in a chart or graph. These are completely valid reasons, and slides might indeed be the best way. But they aren't the only way to show that data. Handouts and giant poster boards (for small rooms and a small number of items to show) can often work better.
But yes, there are definitely times you need slides, and at the end of this post I'll mention where you might look for info on making kick-ass presentations.
It keeps the speaker and presentation on track.
I'm sure you all realize what a lame-ass excuse that is, but I've heard it enough times to know some folks believe it. I won't even go there.
Now, I'm not an expert on presentations, and not a particularly good presenter myself, so take this with a grain of salt. But I am applying what we've learned over the years about the brain and learning, so this isn't just a wild guess either. Here's the recommendation I used to give our Java instructors:
The Do You Need Slides Test
1) Is what you're showing absolutely dependent on the learners seeing something you cannot simply describe in words?
-- If YES, is the room small enough to use a flipchart, white board, or posters?
-- If the room or audience size is too large, can you use handouts?
2) If NO (your content does not require visuals), then what are you trying to achieve with the slides?
-- If you think it's because the attendees want slides, think again. Expect them? Yes. Need them? No.
-- If you think it's to help you stay on track, find another way! Use note cards. They're far easier to rearrange at a moment's notice, especially if you can keep your talk more modular/fine-grained.
-- If it's to keep the attendees awake and alert and add emotional hooks and increase memorability or understanding, then you've got a point. But in that case, you need to apply the other test:
The "Do My Slides Suck" Test
1) Do your slides contain mostly bullet points?
2) Do you have more than 12-15 words on a slide?
3) Do your slides add little or no new info beyond what you can say in words?
4) Are your slides, in fact, not memorable?
5) Are your slides emotionally empty?
6) Do your slides fail to encourage a deeper connection to or understanding of the topic?
7) Do your slides distort the data? (That's a whooooole different thing I'm not addressing now)
8) Do your slides encourage cognitive weakness? (refer to Tufte)
A "Yes" to any of those could be a huge red flag that something's wrong.
If you're still committed to slides, or if you're certain you need them, here's my favorite overall recommendation:
Put each slide on trial for its life. Ask it to defend itself. Show no mercy.
Make it beg, make it plead, make it sell itself.
If it doesn't convince you, kill it. And if there aren't enough left to justify using slides, just say no.
The best presenters, in my opinion, get the best of both worlds. They can dynamically shift between "lights dimmed slide mode" and "lights up, let's talk" mode without blinking. They don't let the slides constrain them to a script, and they don't let the slide equipment keep them trapped behind the invisible wall that separates them from the participants. They can rearrange their slides in realtime. Their slides rock!
But right now, I'm too slow and clumsy and don't present often enough to ever get that good, so I choose (most of the time) the path of interaction. But when I do need slides, I know exactly who I'm looking to for help-- I love the guys at Missing Link!
And although I haven't read it yet, I reckon Cliff Atkinson's book is probably quite good, because his Beyond Bullets blog on this is great. And Seth Godin, as always, has good and strong advice (no more than 6, yes 6, words per slide!) And if you're displaying critical data, for the love of all that's good and right in the world, follow Tufte's advice unless you're a skilled information designer.
Having said all this, I did see a spectacular use of Power Point at Rochester's Eastman House museum, where I was lucky enough to catch David Byrne (from Talking Heads) art installation, Envisioning Emotional Epistemological Information, which you can also get in a book/DVD combo.
I'll leave you with Tufte's fateful words, "Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely." Be careful out there... someone could get hurt.
Posted by Kathy on June 8, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stop your presentation before it kills again!:
Tracked on Jun 9, 2005 2:09:49 AM
» Milyen a jó elõadás? from ÁghyBlog
Tracked on Jun 9, 2005 5:25:23 AM
Tracked on Jun 9, 2005 8:07:40 AM
» Creating Passionate Users: Stop your presentation before it kills again! from Rickey Whitworth
Tracked on Jun 9, 2005 8:35:03 AM
» Tuer la présentation from Foire aux idees
Excellent billet de Creating Passionate Users, sur l'omniprésence néfaste des PowerPoint dans les présentations. Sometimes the best presentation is... no presentation. Ditch the slides completely. Put the projector in the closet, roll the screen b... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 9, 2005 12:05:33 PM
Tracked on Jun 9, 2005 9:06:14 PM
Tracked on Jun 10, 2005 9:00:34 AM
» Better Presentations from J. Michael Arrington
Powerpoint is a big part of my life right now as Keith and I get out there and discuss edgeio with investors, potential employees (we have 4 now) and others. Mason Cole points to a worthwile essay on making better presentations (suggesting to often dit... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 10, 2005 12:44:45 PM
» Death by Powerpoint from achievable ends
I was visiting an organization that was begun by a friend of ours. He did a presentation on how it came together. The story was incredible. The Powerpoint presentation was enough to make a man ill. Every transition between slides [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 10, 2005 7:10:55 PM
» Is it good idea to use presentation slides, or not? from lifehack.org
Over at Creating Passionate Users posted up a very interesting topic on Stop your presentation before it kills again!. Kathy Sierra suggested her opinions on why we shouldn’t need slides if your slides suck, or how we can improve our slides if w... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 11, 2005 9:15:03 AM
» This what I’m talking about… from mattrutherford.com
Everyone that I have ever worked with should read this article over at ‘Creating Passionate Users’. I have long advocated the powerpoint and other linear presentation forms stifle the creativity of a presenter and hide the real messages. E... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 11, 2005 12:47:52 PM
» They don't call them "bullet points" for nothing... from life (over IP)
Kathy Sierra of Creating Passionate Users (via lifehack.org) takes aim at bad presentation slides: Sometimes the best presentation is... no presentation. Ditch the slides completely. Put the projector in the closet, roll the screen back up, and turn t... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 11, 2005 9:19:10 PM
» Kathy Sierra "Gets It" - Why PowerPoint should not be everything to everyone from greg hughes - dot - net
Tracked on Jun 12, 2005 2:49:09 PM
» Kathy Sierra "Gets It" - Why PowerPoint should not be everything to everyone from greg hughes - dot - net
Tracked on Jun 12, 2005 2:50:57 PM
Tracked on Jun 13, 2005 3:01:31 AM
Tracked on Jun 13, 2005 8:16:59 AM
» "The Pros and Cons of PowerPoint Presentations" from Stark County Law Library Blawg
Sabrina posts: “Two postings, via Hot Links, that offer useful comments on best practices for PowerPoint presentations, as well as [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 13, 2005 9:18:24 AM
Tracked on Jun 14, 2005 10:14:02 AM
Tracked on Jun 14, 2005 10:20:48 AM
Tracked on Jun 14, 2005 7:45:32 PM
» Slideshow suicide from The J Spot
Do you really need a slideshow? Kathy Sierra writes on what you need to know before resorting to that all-too-required Powerpoint (or KeyNote) slideshow the next time you find the need to impress. I... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 14, 2005 7:50:29 PM
Tracked on Jun 16, 2005 3:31:02 AM
Tracked on Jun 19, 2005 7:47:09 PM
Tracked on Jun 19, 2005 7:53:39 PM
» Presentations: Not as effective as you might think from Mert Nuhoglu's Weblog
Powerpoint has made a big impact on meetings, conferences and even on lectures. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 20, 2005 8:00:16 AM
» They do not call them bullet points for nothing! from Imprint - WELS Web Log - Blog
Most of us have been subjected to or subjected others to PowerPoint presentations. For those of you not familiar with this software application, it is a tool (made be Microsoft) used by presenters to help them communicate a message to their audience vi... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 22, 2005 2:00:05 PM
» Powerpoint-Orgien from Studying E-Business
Stop your presentation before it kills again! schimpft Kathy im Blog "Creating Passionate Users". Dem kann ich mich nur anschließen. Powerpoint aus Gewohnheit einzusetzen ist einfach keine gute Idee. Manchmal wünsche ich mir, wir hätten nicht in jed... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 29, 2005 3:46:31 AM
Tracked on Jul 11, 2005 5:51:15 AM
Tracked on Jul 14, 2005 2:30:10 PM
Tracked on Aug 10, 2005 1:29:52 PM
» End PowerPoint Co-Dependency - redux from Mary's Blog
This is one of my frequent – um – rants. We often talk a great game – “building personal relationships” “Listening more than talking.” etc. – and then when we actually get the folks in the room, wha... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 16, 2005 12:54:48 PM
» Making PowerPoint palatable from Sound and Fury
Update:Here's another vote for ditching the slides: https://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/06/kill_your_prese.html Others [edwardtufte.com] have written extensively on using something other than presentation software for a prese... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 9, 2005 2:12:33 PM
» PowerPoint Kills from iain tait | crackunit.com
Im not someone that believes PowerPoint is inherently evil, its not. It has some flaws (as does most software), but I reckon the thing that hurts it the most is the use of templates. The whole thing is set up with bullet points as the de... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 19, 2006 4:30:57 AM
» How Not to Give a Presentation from Coding Horror
I hold presenters to relatively high standards. They get paid to present to large groups because they're ostensibly good communicators. I cannot believe the beginner mistakes some of the presenters are making at VSLive. Based on my experience over... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 1, 2006 1:22:45 AM
» How Not to Give a Presentation from Coding Horror
I hold presenters to relatively high standards. They get paid to present to large groups because they're ostensibly good communicators. And I cannot believe the beginner mistakes some of the presenters are making here at VSLive. Based on my... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 1, 2006 1:29:31 AM
Tracked on Mar 26, 2006 2:29:15 AM
» https://lozanotek.com/archive/0001/01/01/8476.aspx from Javier G. Lozano
Tracked on Mar 26, 2006 5:13:07 PM
» Readings on Presentation Skills from HCI I: Human Factors Winter 06-07
A significant portion of your grade in this class will be based on how well you present your work. Presentation skills are important not just for your grade in this class, but also for your success in the business world.... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 3, 2006 4:44:12 PM
And after ditching the slides go back and study the classics: https://www.thecontrarypublicspeaker.com/
P.S.: Is "Head first Ruby" already in the making?
Posted by: Stephan H. Wissel | Jun 9, 2005 1:26:19 AM
Excellent advice. I taught people public speaking for years and whenever the subject of powerpoint came up I made the same point: The audience can listen to you or examine what is on the slide. They can't do both.
The objective of a talk is to get information across. The question the speaker has to ask is "does this slide emphasis my point or dilute it?". If the slide doesn't add new information then the only thing it will do is distract from what you are saying.
Posted by: Chris Tregenza | Jun 9, 2005 3:02:13 AM
Thank you, Kathy! I'm going to share this post - and the Wired article - with everyone I know.
I can't count the number of PP 'presentations' that I have to sit through. Some of them are so densely packed with text that you couldn't read it if you had to. No pictures, no charts or graphs, no comic relief - just words, words, and more words.
Thanks for the info and thanks again for continually helping me to discover that I rule!
Posted by: Chris Young | Jun 9, 2005 6:50:12 AM
PowerPoint is like a drug--one becomes dependent on it because it's so easy to make something that looks better than chalk on a board. However, handled right, and by a gifted artistic designer, the slides can be a delight--nary a bullet point in sight.
I wish I could find an audience who would chant -- "We want shallow and boring!!!" I'd stand there with my PowerPoint like a GOD!! But the rotten bastards want enlightenment, passionate ideas, and depth.
I'm looking for a methadone alternative to PowerPoint. (Unfortunately it's preparation, hard work, and creative thinking.) It's soooo much easier with PP, which I guess reminds me exactly what typical PowerPoint presentations really are....
Posted by: Bill Sanders | Jun 9, 2005 4:10:46 PM
One of the presenters at Apple's developer conference this week said "Well, you can read this slide yourselves" AND THEN immediately MOVED ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE! [He didn't give us time to read it!]
Posted by: keith ray | Jun 9, 2005 9:45:11 PM
No one at the AYE conference uses PowerPoint at that conference... the sessions are too interactive for that. Check out their wiki page:
Posted by: keith ray | Jun 9, 2005 9:47:59 PM
Hey Keith, thanks so much for this fantastic link!
I especially loved the one about the speaker who didn't use slides, and people came up afterwards to express "sympathy for the loss of your slides." : )
Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Jun 10, 2005 11:02:56 AM
There's a lot of good sense here - but the reliance on Tufte's arguments undermines the wider case. Your argument is, as I read it, that PP is a tool which requires greater expertise and thoughtfulness to use than it often gets. Tufte's argument is that in some ill-defined sense PP is intrinsically wrongheaded.
Donald Norman has just published a neat essay In Defense of Powerpoint - https://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/in_defense_of_powerp.html - which is mainly aimed at debunking Tufte, but is well worth reading in its own right.
"Is PowerPoint bad? No, in fact, it is quite a useful tool. Boring talks are bad. Poorly structured talks are bad. Don't blame the problem on the tool."
Posted by: marek | Jun 11, 2005 6:31:17 AM
My biggest complaints against using slides (or just about anything else that requires screen projection) is that it dramatically increases the chance of having a one-way broadcast rather than a two-way interactive conversation. Anything that keeps the lights dimmed (although this isn't always the case with the right lighting and equipment, of course), and the presenter separated from the participants and tied to a script *can* (not always) be a bad thing. Teachers sometimes use it as a crutch. Presenters sometimes use it as a crutch. The participants suffer.
I'm for conversation and interactivity and participation -- the things that slides usually make more difficult. This isn't appropriate for every talk/presentation, of course; many talks are meant to be information briefings -- where the most important thing is simply to transmit facts and data from one person's head and into the heads of the attendees, and others are purely presentation either for entertainment or demonstration. Or sometimes the forum is simply too large to have any meaningful form of interaction anyway.
So no, I don't believe PowerPoint -- or any other slide or visual presentation tool -- is inherently bad. I'm working on a video and animation right now to accompany a workshop I'm doing later in the year. But somewhere along the line we lost track of what it means to "talk", when talks became equated with slides, and slides became associated with bullet points.
If the goal is to teach, a two-way conversation can be a lot more powerful. If the presenter needs help with public speaking or teaching skills, that won't be fixed with slides, but will most likely be *hurt* by slides as the presenter stays behind the protective barrier and might as well have pre-recorded the talk alone in a studio.
I don't blame the tool, but I *do* blame the current wisdom that says talks must have slides. The default should be *no slides*, where slides are used only when necessary and appropriate and to add value. Amazing things can happen when the wall between speaker and participant goes away : )
Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Jun 11, 2005 12:20:36 PM
On the topics of tools, it could definitely be argued that the choice of tool actually does affect the result and, if you decide to use PowerPoint (or Keynote for that matter), you more or less automatically adopt the typical "slide aesthetic" because it's the path of least resistance.
I also find the introductory line "Sometimes the best presentation is... no presentation" amusing. It is indeed telling that when we say "presentation" we really mean "computer-designed slides projected on a board behind the speaker" :-).
A lof good tips here, thanks!
Posted by: Marcus Wilert | Jun 14, 2005 2:57:36 AM
One of my favorite articles is The Fresh Fish Rule by Khalid Aziz https://www.presentersuniversity.com/visuals_fish.php. It's not about PowerPoint, but about visuals and worth the very short time it takes to read it.
Posted by: Lisa Lindgren | Jul 6, 2005 6:35:32 PM
The problem with "no slides, just talk" presentations is that there are lots of people who don't learn simply through auditory stimuli. Visual or kinesthetic learners get left behind.
And, don't blame the tool for being a bad presenter. Certainly there's best and worst practices, but getting rid of PowerPoint is pretty unlikely to address issues that you list.
You can't switch easily between one-way presenting and discussion? Practice! Take a class. You can't re-jigger your flow to suit your audience on the fly? Practice!! If you can't be a flexible communicator using PPT, index cards aren't going to help you either.
Many of the criticisms levelled here (and by Tufte) have a lot to do with bad information design/presentation executed in PPT. If you have to present and you know this isn't a strong suit, work with a visual designer/writer.
And, include extra-presentation material too: exercises, small-group break-outs, and structured discussions. This way you hit every kind of thinker/learner.
Posted by: gretchen | Aug 10, 2005 3:58:23 PM
Bad slides don't kill audiences, bad speakers bore them to death!
Posted by: Anna Martelli Ravenscroft | Aug 12, 2005 1:25:29 PM
Plays right to one of my favorite - ur - rants. "End PowerPoint Co-Dependency!" One of the most successful presentations I ever gave while still in big, bad Corporate America was when the multi-media, dancing baby, dog and pony show died a horrible death and I had to - good golly - actually talk to the room full of prospects. Oh dear!
Posted by: Mary Schmidt | Aug 16, 2005 12:45:08 PM
I always tell any cow orker who has to give a presentation to check out "Conference Presentation Judo" from MJD.
It certainly changed my life.
Posted by: Charles Miller | Aug 18, 2005 7:41:10 AM
To all the presentation specialist out there viewing. I recently experimented with this program called Visual Manager Live (https://www.vmlpro.com) to see if it would make a difference in my presentations. I must tell you the program is like nothing I have ever used before. It does everything I could imagine a presentation tool to do. It works with all Power Point presentation documents, as well as any document you can open on your computer. I Love it.
There is a free download of the program at (https://www.vmlpro.com)
Just a suggestion!
Posted by: Presentation Guru | Oct 29, 2005 10:14:02 AM
Great! I'm planning on giving a presentation in the near future on how to give good presentations... I've summarized your article into 5 essential bullet points and plan to include them in my PowerPoint slide deck.
Posted by: mike h | Mar 27, 2006 7:41:08 AM
Can a software package edit our thoughts
Before there were presentations, there were conversations, which were a little like presentations but used fewer bullet points, and no one had to dim the lights. A woman we can call Sarah Wyndham, a defense-industry consultant living in Alexandria, Virginia, recently began to feel that her two daughters weren't listening when she asked them to clean their bedrooms and do their chores. So, one morning, she sat down at her computer, opened Microsoft's PowerPoint program, and typed:
An approach for positive change to the
Wyndham family team
On a new page, she wrote:
Lack of organization leads to confusion and frustration among all family members.
Disorganization is detrimental to grades and to your social life.
Disorganization leads to inefficiencies that impact the entire family.
Instead of pleading for domestic harmony, Sarah Wyndham was pitching for it. Soon she had eighteen pages of large type, supplemented by a color photograph of a generic happy family riding bicycles, and, on the final page, a drawing key-the key to success. The briefing was given only once, last fall. The experience was so upsetting to her children that the threat of a second showing was enough to make one of the Wyndham girls burst into tears.
PowerPoint, which can be found on two hundred and fifty million computers around the world, is software you impose on other people. It allows you to arrange text and graphics in a series of pages, which you can project, slide by slide, from a laptop computer onto a screen, or print as a booklet (as Sarah Wyndham did). The usual metaphor for everyday software is the tool, but that doesn't seem to be right here. PowerPoint is more like a suit of clothes, or a car, or plastic surgery. You take it out with you. You are judged by it-you insist on being judged by it. It is by definition a social instrument, turning middle managers into bullet-point dandies.
But PowerPoint also has a private, interior influence. It edits ideas. It is, almost surreptitiously, a business manual as well as a business suit, with an opinion-an oddly pedantic, prescriptive opinion-about the way we should think. It helps you make a case, but it also makes its own case: about how to organize information, how much information to organize, how to look at the world. One feature of this is the AutoContent Wizard, which supplies templates-"Managing Organizational Change" or "Communicating Bad News," say-that are so close to finished presentations you barely need to do more then add your company logo. The "Motivating a Team" template, for example, includes a slide headed "Conduct a Creative Thinking Session":
Ask: In what ways can we...?
-Assess the situation. Get the facts.
-Generate possible solutions with green light, nonjudgmental thinking.
-Select the best solution.
The final injunction is "Have an inspirational close."
It's easy to avoid these extreme templates-many people do-as well as embellishments like clip art, animations, and sound effects. But it's hard to shake off AutoContent's spirit: even the most easygoing PowerPoint template insists on a heading followed by bullet points, so that the user is shepherded toward a staccato, summarizing frame of mind, of the kind parodied, for example, in a PowerPoint Gettysburg Address posted on the Internet:"Dedicate portion of field-fitting!"
Because PowerPoint can be an impressive antidote to fear-converting public-speaking dread into moviemaking pleasure-there seems to be no great impulse to fight this influence, as you might fight the unrelenting animated paperclip in Microsoft Word. Rather, PowerPoint's restraints seem to be soothing-so much so that where Microsoft has not written rules, businesses write them for themselves. A leading U.S. computer manufacturer has distributed guidelines to its employees about PowerPoint presentations, insisting on something it calls the "Rules of Seven": "Seven (7) bullets or lines per page, seven (7) words per line."
Today, after Microsoft's decade of dizzying growth, there are great tracts of corporate America where to appear at a meeting without PowerPoint would be unwelcome and vaguely pretentious, like wearing no shoes. In darkened rooms at industrial plants and ad agencies, at sales pitches and conferences, this is how people are communicating: no paragraphs, no pronouns-the world condensed into a few upbeat slides, with seven or so words on a line, seven or so lines on a slide. And now it's happening during sermons and university lectures and family arguments, too. A New Jersey PowerPoint user recently wrote in an online discussion, "Last week I caught myself planning out (in my head) the slides I would need to explain to my wife why we couldn't afford a vacation this year." Somehow, a piece of software designed, fifteen years ago, to meet a simple business need has become a way of organizing thought at kindergarten show-and-tells. "Oh, Lord," one of the early developers said to me. "What have we done?"
Forty years ago, a workplace meeting was a discussion with your immediate colleagues. Engineers would meet with other engineers and talk in the language of engineering. A manager might make an appearance-acting as an interpreter, a bridge to the rest of the company-but no one from the marketing or production or sales department would be there. Somebody might have gone to the trouble of cranking out mimeographs-that would be the person with purple fingers.
But the structure of American industry changed in the nineteen-sixties and seventies. Clifford Nass, who teaches in the Department of Communication at Stanford, says, "Companies weren't discovering things in the laboratory and then trying to convince consumers to buy them. They were discovering-or creating-consumer demand, figuring out what they can convince consumers they need, then going to the laboratory and saying, 'Build this!' People were saying, 'We can create demand. Even if demand doesn't exist, we know how to market this.' SpaghettiOs is the great example. The guy came up with the jingle first: 'The neat round spaghetti you can eat with a spoon.: And he said, 'Hey! Make spaghetti in the shape of small circles!'"
As Jerry Porras, a professor of organizational behavior and change at Stanford Graduate School of Business, says, "When technologies no longer just drove the product out but the customer sucked it out, then you had to know what the customer wanted, and that meant a lot more interaction inside the company." There are new conversations: Can we make this? How do we sell this if we make it? Can we do it in blue?
America began to go to more meetings. By the early nineteen-eighties, when the story of PowerPoint starts, employees had to find ways to talk to colleagues from other departments, colleagues who spoke a different language, brought together by SpaghettiOs and by the simple fact that technology was generating more information. There was more to know and, as the notion of a job for life eroded, more reason to know it.
In this environment, visual aids were bound to thrive. In 1975, fifty thousand overhead projectors were sold in America. By 1985, that figure had increased to more than a hundred and twenty thousand. Overheads, which were developed in the mid-forties for use by the police, and were then widely used in bowling alleys and schools, did not fully enter business life until the mid seventies, when a transparency film that could survive the heat of a photocopier became available. Now anything on a sheet of paper could be transferred to an overhead slide. Overheads were cheaper than the popular alternative, the 35-mm slide (which needed graphics professionals), and they were easier to use. But they restricted you to your typewriter's font-rather, your secretary's typewriter's font-or your skill with Letraset and a felt-tipped pen. A businessman couldn't generate a handsome, professional-looking font in his own office.
In 1980, though, it was clear that a future of widespread personal computers-and laser printers and screens that showed the very thing you were about to print-was tantalizingly close. In the Mountain View, California, laboratory of Bell-Northern Research, computer-research scientists had set up a great mainframe computer, a graphics workstation, a phototypesetter, and the earliest Canon laser printer, which was the size of a bathtub and took six men to carry into the building-together, a cumbersome approximation of what would later fit on a coffee table and cost a thousand dollars. With much trial and error, and jogging from one room to another, you could use this collection of machines as a kind of word processor.
Whitfield Diffie had access to this equipment. A mathematician, a former peacenik, and an enemy of exclusive government control of encryption systems, Diffie had secured a place for himself in computing legend in 1976, when he and a colleague, Martin Hellman, announced the discovery of a new method of protecting secrets electronically-public-key cryptography. At Bell-Northern, Diffie was researching the security of telephone systems. In 1981, preparing to give a presentation with 35-mm. slides, he wrote a little program, tinkering with some graphics software designed by a B.N.R. colleague, that allowed you to draw a black frame on a piece of paper. Diffie expanded it so that the page could show a number of frames, and text inside each frame, with space for commentary around them. In other words, he produced a storyboard-a slide show on paper-that could be sent to the designers who made up the slides, and that would also serve as a script for his lecture. (At this stage, he wasn't photocopying what he had produced to make overhead transparencies, although scientists in other facilities were doing that.) With a few days' effort, Diffie had pointed the way to PowerPoint.
Diffie has long gray hair and likes to wear English suits. Today, he works for Sun Microsystems, as an internal consultant on encryption matters. I recently had lunch with him in Palo Alto, and for the first time he publicly acknowledged his presence at the birth of PowerPoint. It was an odd piece of news: as if Lenin had invented the stapler. Yes, he said, PowerPoint was "based on" his work at B.N.R. This is not of great consequence to Diffie, whose reputation in his own field is so high that he is one of the few computer scientists to receive erotically charged fan mail. He said he was "mildly miffed" to have made no money from the PowerPoint connection, but he has no interest in beginning a feud with an old friend. "Bob was the one who had the vision to understand how important it was to the world," he said. "And I didn't."
Bob is Bob Gaskins, the man who has to take final responsibility for the drawn blinds of high-rise offices around the world and the bullet points dashing across computer screens inside. His account of PowerPoint's parentage does not exactly match Diffie's, but he readily accepts his former colleague as "my inspiration." In the late nineteen-seventies and early eighties, Gaskins was B.N.R.'s head of computer-science research. A former Berkeley Ph.D. student, he had a family background in industrial photographic supplies and grew up around overhead projectors and inks and gels. In 1982, he returned for a six-month overseas business trip and, with a vivid sense of the future impact of the Apple Macintosh and of Microsoft's Windows (both of which were in development), he wrote a list of fifty commercial possibilities-Arabic typesetting, menus, signs. And then he looked around his own laboratory and realized what had happened while he was away: following Diffie's lead, his colleagues were trying to make overheads to pitch their projects for funding, despite the difficulties of using the equipment. (What you saw was not at all what you got.) "Our mainframe was buckling under the load," Gaskins says.
He now had his idea: a graphics program that would work with Windows and the Macintosh, and that would put together, and edit, a string of single pages, or "slides." In 1984, he left B.N.R., joined an ailing Silicon Valley software firm, Forethought, in exchange for a sizeable share of the company, and hired a software developer, Dennis Austin. They began work on a program called Presenter. After a trademark problem, and an epiphany Gaskins had in the shower, Presenter became PowerPoint.
Gaskins is a precise, bookish man who lives with his wife in a meticulously restored and furnished nineteenth-century house in the Fillmore district of San Francisco. He has recently discovered an interest in antique concertinas. When I visited him, he was persuaded to play a tune, and he gave me a copy of a forthcoming paper he had co-written:"A Wheatstone Twelve-Sided 'Edeophone' Concertina with Pre-MacCann Chromatic Duet Fingering." Gaskins is skeptical about the product that PowerPoint has become-AutoContent and animated fades between slides-but he is devoted to the simpler thing that it was, and he led me through a well-preserved archive of PowerPoint memorabilia, including the souvenir program for the PowerPoint reunion party, in 1997, which had a quiz filled with in-jokes about font size and programming languages. He also found an old business plan from 1984. One phrase-the only one in italics- read, "Allows the content-originator to control the presentation." For Gaskins, that had always been the point: to get rid of the intermediaries-graphic designers-and never mind the consequences. Whenever colleagues sought to restrict the design possibilities of the program (to make a design disaster less likely), Gaskins would overrule them, quoting Thoreau:"I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."
PowerPoint 1.0 went on sale in April, 1987-available only for the Macintosh, and only in black-and-white. It generated text-and-graphics pages that a photocopier could turn into overhead transparencies. (This was before laptop computers and portable projectors made PowerPoint a tool for live electronic presentations. Gaskins thinks he may have been the first person to use the program in the modern way, in a Paris hotel in 1992-which is like being the first person ever to tap a microphone and say, "Can you hear me at the back?") The Macintosh market was small and specialized, but within this market PowerPoint-the first product of its kind-was a hit. "I can't describe how wonderful it was," Gaskins says. "When we demonstrated at trade shows, we were mobbed." Shortly after the launch, Forethought accepted an acquisition offer of fourteen million dollars from Microsoft. Microsoft paid cash and allowed Bob Gaskins and his colleagues to remain partly self-governing in Silicon Valley, far from the Microsoft campus, in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft soon regretted the terms of the deal; PowerPoint workers became known for a troublesome independence of spirit (and for rewarding themselves, now and then, with beautifully staged parties-caviar, string quartets, Renaissance-period fancy dress).
PowerPoint had been created, in part, as a response to the new corporate world of interdepartmental communication. Those involved with the program now experienced the phenomenon at first hand. In 1990, the first PowerPoint for Windows was launched, alongside Windows 3.0. And PowerPoint quickly became what Gaskins calls "a cog in the great machine." The PowerPoint programmers were forced to make unwelcome changes, partly because in 1990 Word, Excel, and PowerPoint began to be integrated into Microsoft Office-a strategy that would eventually make PowerPoint invincible-and partly in response to market research. AutoContent was added in the mid-nineties, when Microsoft learned that some would-be presenters were uncomfortable with a blank PowerPoint page-it was hard to get started. "We said, 'What we need is some automatic content!'" a former Microsoft developer recalls, laughing. "'Punch the button and you'll have a presentation.'" The idea, he thought, was "crazy." And the name was meant as a joke. But Microsoft took the idea and kept the name-a rare example of a product named in outright mockery of its target customers.
Gaskins left PowerPoint in 1992, and many of his colleagues followed soon after. Now rich from Microsoft stock, and beginning the concertina-collecting phase of their careers, they watched as their old product made its way into the heart of American business culture. By 1993, PowerPoint had a majority share of the presentation market. In 1995, the average user created four and a half presentations a month. Three years later, the monthly average was nine. PowerPoint began to appear in cartoon strips and everyday conversation. A few years ago, Bob Gaskins was at a presentations-heavy conference in Britain. The organizer brought the proceedings to a sudden stop, saying, "I've just been told that the inventor of PowerPoint is in the audience-will he please identify himself so we can recognize his contribution to the advancement of science?" Gaskins stood up. The audience laughed and applauded.
Cathleen Belleville, a former graphic designer who worked at PowerPoint as a product planner from 1989 to 1995, was amazed to see a clip-art series she had created become modern business icons. The images were androgynous silhouette stick figures (she called them Screen Beans), modelled on a former college roommate: a little figure clicking its heels; another with an inspirational light bulb above its head. One Screen Bean. the patron saint of PowerPoint-a figure that stands beneath a question mark, scratching its head in puzzlement-is so popular that a lawyer at a New York firm who has seen many PowerPoint presentations claims never to have seen one without the head-scratcher. Belleville herself has seen her Beans all over the world, reprinted on baseball caps, blown up fifteen feet high in a Hamburg bank. "I told my mom, 'You know, my artwork is in danger of being more famous than the "Mona Lisa."'" Above the counter in a laundromat on Third Avenue in New York, a sign explains that no responsibility can be taken for deliveries to doorman buildings. And there, next to the words, is the famous puzzled figure. It is hard to understand the puzzlement. Doorman? Delivery? But perhaps this is simply how a modern poster clears its throat: Belleville has created the international sign for "sign."
According to Microsoft estimates, at least thirty million PowerPoint presentations are made every day. The program has about ninety-five per cent of the presentations-software market. And so perhaps it was inevitable that it would migrate out of business and into other areas of our lives. I recently spoke to Sew Meng Chung, a Malaysian research engineer living in Singapore who got married in 1999. He told me that, as his guests took their seats for a wedding party in the Goodwood Park Hotel, they were treated to a PowerPoint presentation: a hundred and thirty photographs-one fading into the next every four or five seconds, to musical accompaniment. "They were baby photos, and courtship photos, and photos taken with our friends and family," he told me.
I also spoke to Terry Taylor, who runs a Web site called eBibleTeacher.com, which supplies materials for churches that use electronic visual aids. "Jesus was a storyteller, and he gave graphic images," Taylor said. "He would say, 'Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow,' and all indications are that there were lilies in the field when he was talking, you know. He used illustrations." Taylor estimates that fifteen per cent of American churches now have video projectors, and many use PowerPoint regularly for announcements, for song lyrics, and to accompany preaching. (Taylor has seen more than one sermon featuring the head-scratching figure.) Visitors to Taylor's site can download photographs of locations in the Holy Land, as well as complete PowerPoint sermons-for example,"Making Your Marriage Great":
Find out what you are doing to harm your marriage and heal it.
You name it!
When PowerPoint is used to flash hymn lyrics, or make a quick pitch to a new client, or produce an eye-catching laundromat poster, it's easy to understand the enthusiasm of, say, Tony Kurz, the vice-president for sales and marketing of a New York-based Internet company, who told me, "I love PowerPoint. It's a brilliant application. I can take you through at exactly the pace I want to take you." There are probably worse ways to transmit fifty or a hundred words of text, or information that is mainly visual-ways that involve more droning, more drifting. And PowerPoint demands at least some rudimentary preparation: a PowerPoint presenter is, by definition, not thinking about his or her material for the very first time. Steven Pinker, the author of "The Language Instinct" and a psychology professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says that PowerPoint can give visual shape to an argument. "Language is a linear medium: one damn word after another," he says. "But ideas are multidimensional...When properly employed, PowerPoint makes the logical structure of an argument more transparent. Two channels sending the same information are better than one."
Still, it's hard to be perfectly comfortable with a product whose developers occasionally find themselves trying to suppress its use. Jolene Rocchio, who is a product planner for Microsoft Office (and is upbeat about PowerPoint in general,) told me that, at a recent meeting of a nonprofit organization in San Francisco, she argued against a speaker's using PowerPoint at a future conference. "I said, 'I think we just need her to get up and speak.'" On an earlier occasion, Rocchio said, the same speaker had tried to use PowerPoint and the projector didn't work, "and everybody was, like, cheering. They just wanted to hear this woman speak, and they wanted it to be from her heart. And the PowerPoint almost alienated her audience."
This is the most common complaint about PowerPoint. Instead of human contact, we are given human display. "I think that we as a people have become unaccustomed to having real conversations with each other, where actually give and take to arrive at a new answer. We present to each other, instead of discussing," Cathy Belleville says. Tad Simons, the editor of the magazine "Presentations" (whose second-grade son used PowerPoint for show-and-tell), is familiar with the sin of triple delivery, where precisely the same text is seen on the screen, spoken aloud, and printed on the handout in front of you (the "leave-behind," as it is known in some circles). "The thing that makes my heart sing is when somebody pressed the 'B' button and the screen goes black and you can actually talk to the person," Simons told me.
In 1997, Sun Microsystems' chairman and C.E.O., Scott McNealy, "banned" PowerPoint (a ban widely disregarded by his staff). The move might have been driven, in part, by Sun's public-relations needs as a Microsoft rival, but, according to McNealy, there were genuine productivity issues. "Why did we ban it? Let me put it this way: If I want to tell my forty thousand employees to attack, the word 'attack' in ASCII is forty-eight bits. As a Microsoft Word document, it's 90,112 bits. Put that same word in a PowerPoint slide and it becomes 458,048 bits. That's a pig through the python when you try to send it over the Net." McNealy's concern is shared by the American military. Enormously elaborate PowerPoint files (generated by presentation-obsessives--so- called PowerPoint Rangers) were said to be clogging up the military's bandwidth. Last year, to the delight of many under his command, General Henry H. Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued an order to U.S. bases around the world insisting on simpler presentations.
PowerPoint was developed to give public speakers control over design decisions. But it's possible that those speakers should be making other, more important decisions. "In the past, I think we had an inefficient system, where executives passed all of their work to secretaries," Cathy Belleville says. "But now we've got highly paid people sitting there formatting slides-spending hours formatting slides-because it's more fun to do that than concentrate on what you're going to say. It would be much more efficient to offload that work onto someone who could do it in a tenth of the time, and be paid less. Millions of executives around the world are sitting there going, 'Arial? Times Roman? Twenty-four point? Eighteen point?'"
In the glow of a PowerPoint show, the world is condensed, simplified, and smoothed over--yet bright and hyperreal--like the cityscape background in a PlayStation motor race. PowerPoint is strangely adept at disguising the fragile foundations of a proposal, the emptiness of a business plan; usually, the audience is respectfully still (only venture capitalists dare to dictate the pace of someone else's slide show), and, with the visual distraction of a dancing pie chart, a speaker can quickly move past the laughable flaw in his argument. If anyone notices, it's too late--the narrative presses on.
Last year, three researchers at Arizona State University, including Robert Cialdini, a professor of psychology and the author of "Influence: Science and Practice," conducted an experiment in which they presented three groups of volunteers with information about Andrew, a fictional high-school student under consideration for a university football scholarship. One group was given Andrew's football statistics typed on a piece of paper. The second group was shown bar graphs. Those in the third group were given a PowerPoint presentation, in which animated bar graphs grew before their eyes.
Given Andrew's record, what kind of prospect was he? According to Cialdini, when Andrew was PowerPointed, viewers saw him as a greater potential asset to the football team. The first group rated Andrew four and a half on a scale of one to seven; the second rated him five; and the PowerPoint group rated him six. PowerPoint gave him power. The experiment was repeated, with three groups of sports fans that were accustomed to digesting sports statistics; this time, the first two groups gave Andrew the same rating. But the group that saw the PowerPoint presentation still couldn't resist it. Again, Andrew got a six. PowerPoint seems to be a way for organizations to turn expensive, expert decision-makers into novice decision-makers. "It's frightening," Cialdini says. He always preferred to use slides when he spoke to business groups, but one high-tech company recently hinted that his authority suffered as a result. "They said, 'You know what, Bob? You've got to get into PowerPoint, otherwise people aren't going to respond.' So I made the transfer."
Clifford Nass has an office overlooking the Oval lawn at Stanford, a university where the use of PowerPoint is so widespread that to refrain from using it is sometimes seen as a mark of seniority and privilege, like egg on one's tie. Nass once worked for Intel, and then got a Ph.D. in sociology, and now he writes about and lectures on the ways people think about computers. But, before embarking on any of that, Professor Nass was a professional magician-Cliff Conjure-so he has some confidence in his abilities as a public performer.
According to Nass, who now gives PowerPoint lectures because his students asked him to, PowerPoint "lifts the floor" of public speaking: a lecture is less likely to be poor if the speaker is using the program. "What PowerPoint does is very efficiently deliver content," Nass told me. "What students gain is a lot more information-not just facts but rules, ways of thinking, examples."
At the same time, PowerPoint "lowers the ceiling," Nass says. "What you miss is the process. The classes I remember most, the professors I remember most, were the ones where you could watch how they thought. You don't remember what they said, the details. It was 'What an elegant way to wrap around a problem!' PowerPoint takes that away. PowerPoint gives you the outcome, but it removes the process."
"What I miss is, when I used to lecture without PowerPoint, every now and then I'd get a cool idea," he went on. "I remember once it just hit me. I'm lecturing, and all of a sudden I go, 'God! "The Wizard of Oz"! The scene at the end of "The Wizard of Oz"!'" Nass, telling this story, was almost shouting. (The lecture, he later explained, was about definitions of "the human" applied to computers.) "I just went for it--twenty-five minutes. And to this day students who were in that class remember it. That couldn't happen now: 'Where the hell is the slide?'"
PowerPoint could lead us to believe that information is all there is. According to Nass, PowerPoint empowers the provider of simple content (and that was the task Bob Gaskins originally set for it), but it risks squeezing out the provider of process--that is to say, the rhetorician, the storyteller, the poet, the person whose thoughts cannot be arranged in the shape of an AutoContent slide. "I hate to admit this," Nass said,"but I actually removed a book from my syllabus last year because I couldn't figure out how to PowerPoint it. It's a lovely book called 'Interface Culture,' by Steven Johnson, but it's very discursive; the charm of it is the throwaways. When I read this book, I thought, My head's filled with ideas, and now I've got to write out exactly what those ideas are, and-they're not neat." He couldn't get the book into bullet points; every time he put something down, he realized that it wasn't quite right. Eventually, he abandoned the attempt, and instead of a lecture, he gave his students a recommendation. He told them it was a good book, urged them to read it, and moved on to the next bullet point.
Posted by: Ian Parker | Apr 26, 2006 2:41:12 PM
For all the people who avoid PowerPoint:
Posted by: Alexander Kjerulf | May 23, 2006 2:21:07 AM
Here's your brain. Here's your brain on PowerPoint. Enough said.
Posted by: Uncle Paul | Jun 20, 2006 11:27:43 AM
Excellent article! The fact that everybody uses PowerPoint is reason enough not to use it. People walk into a PowerPoint presentation expecting to be bored to death. Why start a meeting with one huge strike against you? Even really bad PowerPoint content will be more effective if you present it on a flip chart, white board, Etch A Sketh ... anything to make it different!
Posted by: Brad Shorr | Jun 26, 2006 7:17:32 AM
Great and refresh new idea,
We're always stucked in those rules how to present our ideas to sleepy audience, I prefer comunicating with critical and key person to let useful info. flew, purpose it to make everybody understand what I want, what we're concerning,
Posted by: Tiger | Sep 2, 2006 8:16:37 AM
Great and refresh new idea,
We're always stucked in those rules how to present our ideas to sleepy audience, I prefer comunicating with critical and key person to let useful info. flew, purpose it to make everybody understand what I want, what we're concerning,
Posted by: Tiger | Sep 2, 2006 8:16:38 AM
Late to the party and probably lost under Ian's verbal diarrhea, but this post from Guy Kawasaki is excellent. The 10/20/30 rule of powerpoint, more great advice about being kind to your audience (and getting your point across better too):
Posted by: passerby | Sep 5, 2006 9:06:36 AM
Powerpoints do put a barrier between presenter and participant. I always ask for a flip chart when I present.
This is absolutely wonderful!
Posted by: Howard Oliver | Sep 18, 2006 3:28:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.