The core ideas of teaching- explanation, reasoning, finding
things out, questioning, content, evidence, credible authority not patronizing
authoritarianism-are contrary to the cognitive style of PowerPoint. And
the ethical values of teachers differ from those engaged in marketing.
To me, this informs much of the essay, and its contexts. For some reason, I remembered a presentation I watched two years ago on presentations. How does this presentation, and what it has to say, fit into Tufte's framework?
The easiest explanation is that Steve Jobs is marketing. Which tells us that much of Tufte's argument applies within certain contexts, specifically teaching and information-presenting. (The points of overlap are interesting, however. Both the slideshow and Tufte are opposed to bullet points, for one thing. Both make the claim that "the average Powerpoint slideshow has 40 words," from apparently disparate sources.)
Tufte is opposed to oversimplified explanations for complicated issues. He makes the point that people have no trouble reading sports box scores, or stock quotes, for instance. Why is it so insisted-upon that Powerpoint presentations be so limited in their scope and meaning as to "approach dementia"?
I think it's a combination of things. I think we've gotten lazy. Not lazy in the "I really don't want to go to class today"-lazy, but lazy, ethically. We don't want to have to make hard decisions about the information we're presenting, and we certainly don't want to have to engage with other people about the limited scopes of what we're saying. We would rather manage, massage, and market a message than actually deliver useful information or knowledge. As Technical Communication Majors, as Rhetors, however, we have a responsibility to face those challenges--some of us will have the opportunity and the power to do so. Others will keep marketing. If you're in the latter group, remember--no bullet points!
Add a comment