In ways, I do agree with Tufte's argument about Power Point, but I believe he's taking the whole thing too seriously.
To me, if I were to look at a white, blank page, filled with words or letters, like in a Word document, I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up dulling to sleep. I believe that Power Point helps grasp the audiences' attention, and get them more focused about the topic in hand.
It also provides a better visual to the viewer. Say you were reading about the Civil War. Sure, maybe you may be interested in it, but it wouldn't hurt to see a picture of an event related to that, wouldn't it? It would gain attention about what it's about, and perhaps gain more understanding about the information that's related to that.
If graphical representation wasn't required, then many of the school's textbooks wouldn't have them. We need them! An art-learning book for example: to learn about how to draw certain forms of lines, or learn about a particular piece of artwork... pictures can help with that.
In all, I understand where Tufte's argument's going, but I'm far from saying that the program is evil, especially that helps many of us out, from doing speeches to a class, to having a laugh. It's the attention we want to have, and sometimes plain, old text doesn't cut it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well argued, Joe. It may not be fair to write off PPoint altogether (as Tufte seems to be doing).
ReplyDeleteI would maintain that in the case of a beautifully eloquent speech like the Gettysburg Address, PPoint may not "cut it." It really depends on the presenter and situation.