26 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Edward Tufte rules.

26 Mar 2003 | Tim said...

He gave out a pamphlet with this dissection at his presentation here in Boston a few weeks back. I was so glad when he pointed out the use of a word to mean VERY different things (in this example, the five uses of the words "significant" or "significantly")

Dear lord do I run into stuff like that all time time.

26 Mar 2003 | indi said...

JF - Thanks for posting this topic.

As a Boeing engineer I am quite embarrassed by the slides and appalled at how the information was presented. I am also not very surprised. I have seen quite a few crappy presentations. Fortunately the audience is usually experienced enough to pick it apart and draw out the useful information. It is impossible to tell just from the slides what the full dynamic was during the briefing where this was presented. That's assuming it was actually presented and not just emailed.

26 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

I went to that link this morning and found it incredibly interesting.

However, upon returning this afternoon, I noticed that a few responses at the bottom have now been deleted. It was a post and a few replies critiquing Tufte's approach. It wasn't flaming by any means. The poster had a few good points and stated their case politely, and someone rebutted them quite nicely.

Anyways, they're gone now. Dammit. Once I see that going on, I loose all respect for the site/person.

Still, good read.

26 Mar 2003 | Jim Jones said...

Fortunately the audience is usually experienced enough to pick it apart and draw out the useful information.

indi: Although I am not an engineer, I will say that the Tuftean response to your comment is that if what you say is true, then the author of the slide should not make the reader work so hard to follow the reasoning presented. At the same time, the author should not condescend to the reader either.

upon returning this afternoon, I noticed that a few responses at the bottom have now been deleted.

Darrel: I have to say that I don't find that surprising. Tufte doesn't take criticism very well, constructive or not.

27 Mar 2003 | indi said...

Jim: I agree wholeheartedly. The better presenters have simple clear charts with more detailed backup data when needed. Too many engineers get lost in the details and create what we call "eye charts". Then they proceed to read off of the charts instead of showing they really know the topic.

I think a big issue that involves information design and useability is that these charts are often dual purpose. They are used in a live presentation and then passed on in hardcopy and electronically as a standalone package. It is hard to get the two uses to coexist effectively. Does anyone have any suggestions?

27 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

> Tufte doesn't take criticism very well, constructive or not.

Well, he just dropped a few notches on my respect meter, then.

27 Mar 2003 | Jim Jones said...

indi: As far as the re-purposing of presentations in both hard- and softcopy formats goes, that may be the $64,000 question. I think the only answer is to create two different versions; and that of course is anathema to the workflow of the people who are always hacking around on presentations at the 11th hour.

Here are two resources I can point you to (one is free, the other is relatively cheap):

1. GE has posted their corporate identity documents on the web, and this is their section on presentations (there is a PDF file for download as well):
http://www.ge.com/identity/marketing/presentations.html

2. Seth Godin has a PDF for sale on Amazon for $1.99 called "Really Bad PowerPoint (and How to Avoid It)." I think his best point is that the stuff that goes up on the screen (as opposed to the hardcopy) should be more emotional than intellectual.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005R2F7

27 Mar 2003 | Dave said...

Personally, I would love to see/hear Tufte talk about the War information graphics on most TV stations now. I was watching FOX news (please don't ask why... just flipping around) & the graphics/colors/layout was so awful.

27 Mar 2003 | indi said...

Jim: Thanks for the suggestions!

27 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

As far as the re-purposing of presentations in both hard- and softcopy formats goes, that may be the $64,000 question.

Well, one of Tufte's Mantras is that CRTs are simply not up to snuff when it comes to adequate resolution to present information clearly.

After going to his presentation, I found a new respect for paper. Sometimes you just need to go with the paper.

So, with that said, PDF is great. If they can't read it on screen, it forces them to print it onto paper...a much higher resolution medium.

28 Mar 2003 | indi said...

Darrel: Display resolution is a big problem with technical charts especially. I have been in more than one meeting where the engineer put up an absolutely unreadable tables of tiny numbers with tiny labels and said "I know you can't really read this, I'm just putting up this slide to show how complex the analysis is."

Seriously.

13 Dec 2003 | bali said...

It is hard to get the two uses quite a few crappy presentations

13 Dec 2003 | tour said...

i'd inform the site in bali travel, bali hotel, bali
island information, bali golf

thanks

bali

03 Jan 2004 | Dino said...

Understanding PowerPoint: Special Deliverable #5
is an excellent article on the purpose of Powerpoint presentations.

16 Jan 2004 | Dionisius said...

At WWDC, I listened to Apple representatives make some excellent points about taking the time to build a 100%-compliant Aqua application, and I think all developers need to look beyond the code and listen to what the folks at Apple have to say