Perceptions of Clarity and Attractiveness in PowerPoint Graph Slides

CONTROVERSY ABOUT POWERPOINT SLIDE DESIGN Particularly since the 2003 publication of Edward R. Tufte’s The cognitive style of PowerPoint, a critique of PowerPoint and similar presentation software, technical communicators have discussed the merits and pitfalls of conveying information via projected slides during presentations. Tufte argues that PowerPoint leads presenters to simplify their messages and to generate slides that hinder meaning, rather than support and enhance it. Specifically, in relation to PowerPoint slide design, Tufte claims that PowerPoint leads to “conspicuous decoration” and “a preoccupation with format not content” (4). Even more specifically, in relation to slides that display graphs, he says that PowerPoint leads communicators to create graphs that convey little but are “smarmy” and “incoherent,” and that display “thin data-density, chartjunk, encoded legends,” and “meaningless color ” (16). He goes on to say that designers who use PowerPoint’s default design settings generate graphs that cause an audience to conclude that the presenter does not “know much about data and evidence” (16). Other experts, such as presentation experts and experts in presentation software, have made similar claims. For example, Munter and Russell (2002) echo Tufte in saying that “Chartjunk temptations are built into presentation software packages” (75). Also focusing on the inadequacies of default graph settings, Finkelstein (2003) says that “Rarely is the default version of the chart acceptable for a slide. Sometimes the labels aren’t readable. Perhaps the scale of the axes is not appropriate” (225). In responding to Tufte, Doumont (2005) says that Tufte’s fault-finding is justified insofar as many people, when designing slides for their presentations, include unneeded information and use too many colors and decorations (68). However, Doumont argues that Tufte’s criticism lacks nuance. In regard to Tufte’s criticism of PowerPoint’s ability to display only simple graphs, Doumont points out that even a simple graph can foster communication, given the right situation: “graphs are a useful alternative to long text passages on slides” (66). Specifically, he says, “a truly visual graph is not processed sequentially, so it does not compete for the same intellectual resources as text” (66, see also Paivio 1986, 53). Here Doumont alludes to dualcoding theory, which posits that verbal and visual information can be cognitively processed simultaneously because they rely on two different cognitive resources (Clark and Paivio 1991; Paivio 1986). Thus, argues Doumont, Tufte does not acknowledge the benefit of using graphs to enhance an audience’s cognitive processing of the presenter’s message. In light of recent debates about the use of PowerPoint during academic and business presentations (such as Keller 2003; Norvig 2004; Thompson 2003), particularly the discussions arising in regard to effective design of PowerPoint slides (for example, Doumont 2005; Manning and Amare 2006), studies that investigate people’s perceptions of slide design are needed. In addition, there is little but workplace anecdotes to back up Tufte’s assertion that PowerPoint slides convey minimal substantive information. Indeed, several studies of instructors’ use of PowerPoint during lectures showed that PowerPoint presentations improved