<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Yes, dear, Powerpoint really is evil</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.nyerm.com/2003/12/17/yes-dear-powerpoint-really-is-evil/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.nyerm.com/2003/12/17/yes-dear-powerpoint-really-is-evil/</link>
	<description>Life goes by pretty fast</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:57:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lonnon</title>
		<link>http://blog.nyerm.com/2003/12/17/yes-dear-powerpoint-really-is-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-46451</link>
		<dc:creator>Lonnon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nyerm.com/2003/12/17/yes-dear-powerpoint-really-is-evil/#comment-46451</guid>
		<description>I don't think that Powerpoint creates faulty logic. I don't even think Powerpoint _creates_ bad presentation design. It does _encourage_ bad presentation design, though. Powerpoint tends to seduce the unwary, or the lazy, into thinking that tossing a few slides together and reading from them constitutes an effective way to communicate.

As I stated in my entry, I do think that Powerpoint can be used for effective presentations, if used correctly by someone willing to learn the craft of public speaking. However, it's been my experience that far more people use Powerpoint badly than use it effectively.

I'll concede that I'm double-counting evidence here. However, I'm primarily using Clive's article as a lead-in for personal opinion and experience on the subject of Powerpoint, not as definitive proof of the quality or utility of Powerpoint. I ran across the article, and it compelled me to write down a chunk of my own thoughts that I've had in my head for some time now. My writing here isn't particularly rigorous; it's a rant, pure and simple.

It's true that Thompson's article doesn't present much more than a rewrite of opinions expressed by Tufte. However, it's an excellent summary of Tufte's thoughts on the matter. I don't think that restating someone else's opinion is a bad thing, particularly when you agree with that opinion.

I also have a great deal of respect for the words and ideas of Edward Tufte. His thoughts on information design resonate well with my own views, so I tend to give his arguments a lot of weight. Then again, I didn't need help from either Thompson or Tufte to create my personal dislike for Powerpoint.

"Powerpoint is evil" is, perhaps, too strongly worded. However, I like hyperbole; it makes for more interesting writing and keeps me from falling asleep at the keyboard.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that Powerpoint creates faulty logic. I don&#8217;t even think Powerpoint <em>creates</em> bad presentation design. It does <em>encourage</em> bad presentation design, though. Powerpoint tends to seduce the unwary, or the lazy, into thinking that tossing a few slides together and reading from them constitutes an effective way to communicate.</p>
<p>As I stated in my entry, I do think that Powerpoint can be used for effective presentations, if used correctly by someone willing to learn the craft of public speaking. However, it&#8217;s been my experience that far more people use Powerpoint badly than use it effectively.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll concede that I&#8217;m double-counting evidence here. However, I&#8217;m primarily using Clive&#8217;s article as a lead-in for personal opinion and experience on the subject of Powerpoint, not as definitive proof of the quality or utility of Powerpoint. I ran across the article, and it compelled me to write down a chunk of my own thoughts that I&#8217;ve had in my head for some time now. My writing here isn&#8217;t particularly rigorous; it&#8217;s a rant, pure and simple.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s true that Thompson&#8217;s article doesn&#8217;t present much more than a rewrite of opinions expressed by Tufte. However, it&#8217;s an excellent summary of Tufte&#8217;s thoughts on the matter. I don&#8217;t think that restating someone else&#8217;s opinion is a bad thing, particularly when you agree with that opinion.</p>
<p>I also have a great deal of respect for the words and ideas of Edward Tufte. His thoughts on information design resonate well with my own views, so I tend to give his arguments a lot of weight. Then again, I didn&#8217;t need help from either Thompson or Tufte to create my personal dislike for Powerpoint.</p>
<p>&#8220;Powerpoint is evil&#8221; is, perhaps, too strongly worded. However, I like hyperbole; it makes for more interesting writing and keeps me from falling asleep at the keyboard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross O'Brien</title>
		<link>http://blog.nyerm.com/2003/12/17/yes-dear-powerpoint-really-is-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-46450</link>
		<dc:creator>Ross O'Brien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.nyerm.com/2003/12/17/yes-dear-powerpoint-really-is-evil/#comment-46450</guid>
		<description>Please. Powerpoint doesn't create faulty logic; faulty logicians do. Not to mention less-than-critical thinkers and writers who inappropriately double-count their sources in order to present compelling 'evidence' for their arguments. This would include Clive Thompson, for he cites NASA and Edward Tufte as his evidence that PowerPoint is evil--yet the Tufte volume that Thompson references is essentially a critique of NASA's faulty usage of PowerPoint, so he's only really using Tufte's argument as evidence. Check that--he's essentially REWRITING Tufte's argument as presenting it as his own. Which would therefore place you in that category of misleading evidence double-counters as well, for you claim that Thompson's "compelling argument" is "backed up" by Tufte's research--when it simply IS Tufte's research.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please. Powerpoint doesn&#8217;t create faulty logic; faulty logicians do. Not to mention less-than-critical thinkers and writers who inappropriately double-count their sources in order to present compelling &#8216;evidence&#8217; for their arguments. This would include Clive Thompson, for he cites <span class="caps">NASA </span>and Edward Tufte as his evidence that PowerPoint is evil&#8211;yet the Tufte volume that Thompson references is essentially a critique of <span class="caps">NASA&#8217;</span>s faulty usage of PowerPoint, so he&#8217;s only really using Tufte&#8217;s argument as evidence. Check that&#8211;he&#8217;s essentially <span class="caps">REWRITING</span> Tufte&#8217;s argument as presenting it as his own. Which would therefore place you in that category of misleading evidence double-counters as well, for you claim that Thompson&#8217;s &#8220;compelling argument&#8221; is &#8220;backed up&#8221; by Tufte&#8217;s research&#8211;when it simply IS Tufte&#8217;s research.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
