<strong>If keynote is the first of a serie of Office apps then I think its a shame they started with the least useful app. People thought computers would make the world use much less paper but they forgot to ban the printer. And people thought that the computer would speed thigs up and make everyone more productive but they forgot what the combination of marketing-type people on all levels and Powerpoint can do to a company.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not sure if you caught the MacWorld SF Keynote but the program Keynote has been used in all of Steve's keynotes in 2002 as "a very underpaid beta tester." It is likely that Apple did not have the people or resources to start developing the word processor or excel killer...
So you are saying that a powerpoint type program is useful because CEOs of big companies are using them when making public announcements?
I´m all for giving Steveo his very own program but that doesn´t change the fact that the devil gave us presentation programs. Hell. I make a living by producing slide show presentations of things that could much more effectively be presented in a normal wordprosessing document.
Presentation software is right up Apple's alley since it's the looks that matter so much. I think that's why Apple did that first. Sales depend so much on just looking good to the client or even your peers. Sure you can do the same thing in a word document or even HTML, but would it (or could it) look the best? This is at least how I approach presentations, with or without software slide shows.
I'm not clear on what your beef is about presentation software. Seems like it's more about the evils of sales and persuasion than the software itself.
Presentation software presents less - much less - while seeming to deliver more. It is not only a method for some speakers to dish out half-baked ideas in a fancy package, but is an evil tool that actually sucks the meaning out of presentations that would provide some substance. The audience goes into a state something like a trance as they focus on the screen, instead of the speaker.
But people do love it. Where I work, it is almost impossible to deliver a presentation without being asked to use it. Indeed, I have been told that it is not considered professional to give a talk without it.
I had a prof who thought the same thing, in a grad class no less. I consider the notion flatly idiotic. If nothing else, Humanities types gather round to talk about something, and I find that nothing kills a "talk" faster than a TV type graphic for everyone to zone out with.
You can do powerful stuff too, but unless you're presenting something expressly visual why use the medium just for the sake of using it? Present art, photos, film, audio? Yes by all means talk around it, or through it, if it pertains to the subject, but just to throw up a few bullets? Come on. At first I knew of this phenomena amongst business profs, and noticed it creeping into psyc and edu, but it's spreading. The day an English prof walks in with this set of expectations, I quit.
I have to admit that as a newbie prof, I use it to remind *myself* where I am in the talk, what's coming up next, etc. Works better than lecture notes on the podium.
Of course, I use it as sparse reminders, without real content. For *that*, they have to be listening and taking notes. (Heck, I was nice - I handed out the PP slides, 3 per sheet, as class notes, with three slots for them to jot notes. Was a ready-made outline for them to fill in with real content. If they *just* followed the outline during studying, they could probably squeak by with a C. Maybe.)
If I were more creative, or had more experience with the material, I'm sure I'd do it differently. It wasn't unusual for me to have only about 8-10 slides for a 50 minute talk though. I prefer discussion.
<strong>Presentation software presents less - much less - while seeming to deliver more. It is not only a method for some speakers to dish out half-baked ideas in a fancy package, but is an evil tool that actually sucks the meaning out of presentations that would provide some substance. The audience goes into a state something like a trance as they focus on the screen, instead of the speaker.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If your audience goes into a trance while they look at the screen then there is something distinctly wrong with your presenting techniques not the presentation software.
The flexibility and helpfulness Powerpoint offers has been priceless for me though. Seamless slide transitions and no hassles with presenting diagrams or graphic representations for everybody to see. Not to mention cost savings.
When properly utilised presentation software should really help make your point by allowing you to present it in a far more orderly and professional manner.
That said far too many people go nuts on effects and if there is no substance to your presentation or the presenter is boring it won't matter whether the software is there or not. The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.
<strong>Of course, I use it as sparse reminders, without real content. For *that*, they have to be listening and taking notes. (Heck, I was nice - I handed out the PP slides, 3 per sheet, as class notes, with three slots for them to jot notes. Was a ready-made outline for them to fill in with real content. If they *just* followed the outline during studying, they could probably squeak by with a C. Maybe.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
At the university where I spent time last year they've moved away from forcing people to take notes for one simple fact, they normally don't listen. Sure they listen and take notes but they kept finding students didn't really understand what was said because they were so frantically taking notes. It's like tutoring sometimes. If you read it in a textbook it doesn't quite have the same sense or effect as if you actually watch someone explain it.
Notes, even just powerpoint slides (often just looking at slides with abbreviated points will help you recall a talk significantly better) with referenced page numbers, and giving students the opportunity to listen they found worked a lot better.
Another technique I saw used was they handed out basically all the notes but left gaps so people had to pay attention in particular areas.
That said that was the engineering department where a lot of what you do is fact based and not interpretive. Needs vary from department to department but I'm always inclined to say give the students a break, mainly because I remember I was always a horribly slow writer
[quote]People thought computers would make the world use much less paper but they forgot to ban the printer.<hr></blockquote>
When people originally referred to the paperless office they were referring to the storage of data. Computers have completely revolutionised this area thanks to the miracle of relational databases. Card indexes, filing cabinets etc. have taken a beating that they're not going to recover from.
On the other hand, paper as a medium for conveying information, that you can interact with on a tactile level, is unbeatable and will remain so for many years to come.
Print it, score things out, hand it round, doodle on it, make notes in the margin, the functionality is endless and its user interface is unparalleled.
[quote]The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.<hr></blockquote>
Tools aren't neutral, especially one as complex as presentation software.
You might be thinking of technologies which are often argued to be neutral until they are used for some end.
Think about how the design of a tool allows you to easily achieve some ends but makes others difficult.
Apple's iApps for example are aimed at the beginner and make easy tasks easy but limit the more experienced as you can discover by listening to the complaints of those on this forum.
Powerpoint is not designed to produce good presentations, by any reasonable definition of the term, as that is not what the people want.
<strong>Tools aren't neutral, especially one as complex as presentation software.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tools are always neutral. The design might be more condusive to one method of use but ultimately the tool has no favourtism only the programmer behind it. A tool is an inanimate object after all whether it be software or a hammer.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>Apple's iApps for example are aimed at the beginner and make easy tasks easy but limit the more experienced as you can discover by listening to the complaints of those on this forum.
Powerpoint is not designed to produce good presentations, by any reasonable definition of the term, as that is not what the people want.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That isn't the fault of Powerpoint as much as lack of knowledge on the users part. There is the ability to produce very good presentations with powerpoint if you actually know what you are doing. To say otherwise is akin to saying a hammer is a bad tool because whenever I hit a nail it bends over and doesn't go straight. That isn't a fault of the hammer but of the user.
Presenting is one of the hardest tasks for most people and most people don't do it well. Throw complexities and options at people in the form of a more unintuitive app and people will just mangle the presentation even worse than normal because they don't really understand what they are doing with the tools available.
It's why a beginner is better served by simple applications while a professional can deal with the options provided by more high end applications.
Tools are always neutral. The design might be more condusive to one method of use but ultimately the tool has no favourtism only the programmer behind it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you claiming that someone given the task of getting coconuts from a tall tree wouldn't be influenced by being given different tools? For example some TNT, a chainsaw or a slingshot.
In what sense are they neutral? They infuence what you can and can't do easily, what you can't do at all, they even influence how you think about the problem.
Have you never heard the Maslow quote:
[quote]If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail.<hr></blockquote>
Note I'm not blaming MSFT, their software eventually does roughly what people want, the problem is people generally have no idea what they need. This is especially true in the case of PowerPoint presentations.
Give people PowerPoint to produce a presentation and they will create a powerpoint presentation but most of the emphasis will be on powerpoint, not presentation.
And the reason for this is that people don't know how to create presentations, and PowerPoint doesn't help them (note: Keynote seems to suffer from the same problems).
If your audience goes into a trance while they look at the screen then there is something distinctly wrong with your presenting techniques not the presentation software.<hr></blockquote>
Nothing in my message indicated that I was despairing about my own presentations or their reception by audiences. I don't think that I mentioned my own presentation methods. Clearly, my comment was directed at the effect of presentation software in general. (Indeed, this effect is easier to evaluate as a member of a audience, rather than a presenter.) Your unsupported comment about my own presentations was something of an unjustified personal slam.
[quote]When properly utilised presentation software should really help make your point by allowing you to present it in a far more orderly and professional manner.
That said far too many people go nuts on effects and if there is no substance to your presentation or the presenter is boring it won't matter whether the software is there or not. The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.<hr></blockquote>
I was an early enthusiast about presentation software. This enthusiasm soon waned, however, as I saw how it was being used and received. You may argue that the tool is neutral, but what I see is a tool that is being very, very much misused.
As I indicated earlier, my own view is that presentation software often detracts from presentations that would otherwise be of substance. The 'trance' effect that comes into play when an audience stares at a screen has been well-documented in studies of television viewers.
My greatest complaint is not about presentations which go "nuts on effects" but about presentations which become nothing more than a monotonous stream of slides with bullet points. Unfortunatly, this happens all too often.
I agree with Matsu: "Unless you're presenting something expressly visual why use the medium just for the sake of using it? Present art, photos, film, audio? Yes by all means talk around it, or through it, if it pertains to the subject, but just to throw up a few bullets? Come on."
Presentation software should be used sparingly and with a purpose, not as the default. If you want to show the audience something in particular, then go ahead. Otherwise, give us all a break.
Comments
<strong>If keynote is the first of a serie of Office apps then I think its a shame they started with the least useful app. People thought computers would make the world use much less paper but they forgot to ban the printer. And people thought that the computer would speed thigs up and make everyone more productive but they forgot what the combination of marketing-type people on all levels and Powerpoint can do to a company.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not sure if you caught the MacWorld SF Keynote but the program Keynote has been used in all of Steve's keynotes in 2002 as "a very underpaid beta tester." It is likely that Apple did not have the people or resources to start developing the word processor or excel killer...
I´m all for giving Steveo his very own program but that doesn´t change the fact that the devil gave us presentation programs. Hell. I make a living by producing slide show presentations of things that could much more effectively be presented in a normal wordprosessing document.
I'm not clear on what your beef is about presentation software. Seems like it's more about the evils of sales and persuasion than the software itself.
But people do love it. Where I work, it is almost impossible to deliver a presentation without being asked to use it. Indeed, I have been told that it is not considered professional to give a talk without it.
Then again, people also love television.
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Chinney ]
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Chinney ]</p>
You can do powerful stuff too, but unless you're presenting something expressly visual why use the medium just for the sake of using it? Present art, photos, film, audio? Yes by all means talk around it, or through it, if it pertains to the subject, but just to throw up a few bullets? Come on. At first I knew of this phenomena amongst business profs, and noticed it creeping into psyc and edu, but it's spreading. The day an English prof walks in with this set of expectations, I quit.
Of course, I use it as sparse reminders, without real content. For *that*, they have to be listening and taking notes.
If I were more creative, or had more experience with the material, I'm sure I'd do it differently. It wasn't unusual for me to have only about 8-10 slides for a 50 minute talk though. I prefer discussion.
[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
<strong>Presentation software presents less - much less - while seeming to deliver more. It is not only a method for some speakers to dish out half-baked ideas in a fancy package, but is an evil tool that actually sucks the meaning out of presentations that would provide some substance. The audience goes into a state something like a trance as they focus on the screen, instead of the speaker.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If your audience goes into a trance while they look at the screen then there is something distinctly wrong with your presenting techniques not the presentation software.
The flexibility and helpfulness Powerpoint offers has been priceless for me though. Seamless slide transitions and no hassles with presenting diagrams or graphic representations for everybody to see. Not to mention cost savings.
When properly utilised presentation software should really help make your point by allowing you to present it in a far more orderly and professional manner.
That said far too many people go nuts on effects and if there is no substance to your presentation or the presenter is boring it won't matter whether the software is there or not. The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.
<strong>Of course, I use it as sparse reminders, without real content. For *that*, they have to be listening and taking notes.
At the university where I spent time last year they've moved away from forcing people to take notes for one simple fact, they normally don't listen. Sure they listen and take notes but they kept finding students didn't really understand what was said because they were so frantically taking notes. It's like tutoring sometimes. If you read it in a textbook it doesn't quite have the same sense or effect as if you actually watch someone explain it.
Notes, even just powerpoint slides (often just looking at slides with abbreviated points will help you recall a talk significantly better) with referenced page numbers, and giving students the opportunity to listen they found worked a lot better.
Another technique I saw used was they handed out basically all the notes but left gaps so people had to pay attention in particular areas.
That said that was the engineering department where a lot of what you do is fact based and not interpretive. Needs vary from department to department but I'm always inclined to say give the students a break, mainly because I remember I was always a horribly slow writer
[quote]People thought computers would make the world use much less paper but they forgot to ban the printer.<hr></blockquote>
When people originally referred to the paperless office they were referring to the storage of data. Computers have completely revolutionised this area thanks to the miracle of relational databases. Card indexes, filing cabinets etc. have taken a beating that they're not going to recover from.
On the other hand, paper as a medium for conveying information, that you can interact with on a tactile level, is unbeatable and will remain so for many years to come.
Print it, score things out, hand it round, doodle on it, make notes in the margin, the functionality is endless and its user interface is unparalleled.
[quote]The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.<hr></blockquote>
Tools aren't neutral, especially one as complex as presentation software.
You might be thinking of technologies which are often argued to be neutral until they are used for some end.
Think about how the design of a tool allows you to easily achieve some ends but makes others difficult.
Apple's iApps for example are aimed at the beginner and make easy tasks easy but limit the more experienced as you can discover by listening to the complaints of those on this forum.
Powerpoint is not designed to produce good presentations, by any reasonable definition of the term, as that is not what the people want.
<strong>Tools aren't neutral, especially one as complex as presentation software.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tools are always neutral. The design might be more condusive to one method of use but ultimately the tool has no favourtism only the programmer behind it. A tool is an inanimate object after all whether it be software or a hammer.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>Apple's iApps for example are aimed at the beginner and make easy tasks easy but limit the more experienced as you can discover by listening to the complaints of those on this forum.
Powerpoint is not designed to produce good presentations, by any reasonable definition of the term, as that is not what the people want.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That isn't the fault of Powerpoint as much as lack of knowledge on the users part. There is the ability to produce very good presentations with powerpoint if you actually know what you are doing. To say otherwise is akin to saying a hammer is a bad tool because whenever I hit a nail it bends over and doesn't go straight. That isn't a fault of the hammer but of the user.
Presenting is one of the hardest tasks for most people and most people don't do it well. Throw complexities and options at people in the form of a more unintuitive app and people will just mangle the presentation even worse than normal because they don't really understand what they are doing with the tools available.
It's why a beginner is better served by simple applications while a professional can deal with the options provided by more high end applications.
<strong>
Tools are always neutral. The design might be more condusive to one method of use but ultimately the tool has no favourtism only the programmer behind it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you claiming that someone given the task of getting coconuts from a tall tree wouldn't be influenced by being given different tools? For example some TNT, a chainsaw or a slingshot.
In what sense are they neutral? They infuence what you can and can't do easily, what you can't do at all, they even influence how you think about the problem.
Have you never heard the Maslow quote:
[quote]If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail.<hr></blockquote>
Note I'm not blaming MSFT, their software eventually does roughly what people want, the problem is people generally have no idea what they need. This is especially true in the case of PowerPoint presentations.
Give people PowerPoint to produce a presentation and they will create a powerpoint presentation but most of the emphasis will be on powerpoint, not presentation.
And the reason for this is that people don't know how to create presentations, and PowerPoint doesn't help them (note: Keynote seems to suffer from the same problems).
If your audience goes into a trance while they look at the screen then there is something distinctly wrong with your presenting techniques not the presentation software.<hr></blockquote>
Nothing in my message indicated that I was despairing about my own presentations or their reception by audiences. I don't think that I mentioned my own presentation methods. Clearly, my comment was directed at the effect of presentation software in general. (Indeed, this effect is easier to evaluate as a member of a audience, rather than a presenter.) Your unsupported comment about my own presentations was something of an unjustified personal slam.
[quote]When properly utilised presentation software should really help make your point by allowing you to present it in a far more orderly and professional manner.
That said far too many people go nuts on effects and if there is no substance to your presentation or the presenter is boring it won't matter whether the software is there or not. The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.<hr></blockquote>
I was an early enthusiast about presentation software. This enthusiasm soon waned, however, as I saw how it was being used and received. You may argue that the tool is neutral, but what I see is a tool that is being very, very much misused.
As I indicated earlier, my own view is that presentation software often detracts from presentations that would otherwise be of substance. The 'trance' effect that comes into play when an audience stares at a screen has been well-documented in studies of television viewers.
My greatest complaint is not about presentations which go "nuts on effects" but about presentations which become nothing more than a monotonous stream of slides with bullet points. Unfortunatly, this happens all too often.
I agree with Matsu: "Unless you're presenting something expressly visual why use the medium just for the sake of using it? Present art, photos, film, audio? Yes by all means talk around it, or through it, if it pertains to the subject, but just to throw up a few bullets? Come on."
Presentation software should be used sparingly and with a purpose, not as the default. If you want to show the audience something in particular, then go ahead. Otherwise, give us all a break.