Microsoft Poked Me in the Eye

I've always thought there was something fishy about PowerPoint—even Microsoft products in general. Now I've got something to back me up.

I loved Tufte's essay. Period. I find it maddening that people could still use PowerPoint as a credible tool to convey information. It's a format that naturally condenses things (in the vein of Campbell's Condensed Soup) and fills the space with clip art and pixel fades. Thank you that someone finally said this! It must be some sort of hegemonic monopology that causes corporations—even government institutions like NASA—to believe that bullet-point culture is a good thing.

I really don't have many questions. Frankly, I've never liked Power Point. I've used Power Point, and I don't like it. I've been forced to use Power Point, and still I don't like it. When you get down to it, it's just cheesy, and the cheeseness usually outweighs the content even if you try to make an informative "presentation". It's amazing that some people—some people in Boeing, for example could think that a "presentation" literally means "Powerpoint slideshow."

Now, I don't think what Tufte is saying is that PowerPoint caused the Columbia accident. First of all, right out, he didn't say that. That's an extrapolation. What he is saying, however, is that bad ways of conveying information are… well… bad ways of conveying information. And as far as he is concerned, PowerPoint is a bad way for expressing the complex ideas of rocket science (ex: you're a rocket scientist. You deal with really big numbers in your craft—exponents. Problem: PowerPoint doesn't have a way of showing exponents. So you have to resort to 10^10 to convey 10 to the tenth power. Multiple layers of these examples and you get jargon. Multiple layers of jargon and your information gets mangled—it becomes indecipherable.) So, for the rocket scientist, use a program that has exponents as a feature (like Word, but Word has its own issues…) and can accurately portray your complex data.

I agreed with his main points that the overall format of a slideshow in-itself has to condense information to be anything worth doing, and I found his humor in the essay (especially the front cover) to be especially delightful. I agree with the point that a basic slideshow, made entirely of illustrations, for example, is fine. Powerpoint can do that, sure. But so can any other Piece Of Software. It seems that the only reason we settle for this is because we don't have or don't know of anything better.

The only questions I have then is…

1. Why do we still use PP?

2. What point is there in using something that is ungainly and unsuitable for conveying even basic information (beyond the level of the six-year-old)?

I think there is only one answer…

Bill Gates is the Antichrist!