Okay, so I was pretty sure that I was going to hate this reading. I mean, its about PowerPoint, but overall it wasnt bad at all. It raised a lot of interesting points that I had never stopped to consider. For example, I have has to bs my way through so many pwoerpoints in school, especially in high school, and I never once stoped to think about how much information I was glazing over instead worrying about wether to left or right justify, knowing all along that as long as it looks nice the information doesnt have to be quite as important. I really liked the suestion that on days in school when kids would be presenting powerpoints that they go to the Exploraorium instead, it makes so much more sense, especailly since I cant, off the top of my head, recall anything that I have ever learned in a power point presentation.
Some of the other questions that I was left with:

What would happen if we spoke in the same tounge as PP, in the reading it mentions that it would be "unwise and arragoant" but, I think that it would be more than that, because if people spoke in a simplified hierarchical bullet list there would be a huge shift in how much information was transfered.
also
The idea that the "more intense the detail the greater the clarity and understanding." I agree that for the most part it is better to have a detailed approach, but in a society where information overload is such problem allready can there be such a thing as too much?
also
What are peoples favorite PP effects? I think mine has to be the typewriter sound as it individually places each letter on the screen, for sheer entertainment value it wins.

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!

Powerpoint Questions...

In our generation, information is thrown at us, to the point and simple. Do we, the millennium generation really care to think critically about the information/educate given to us? Do we confuse learning and absorbing information as the same thing?

Is the issue at hand Power Point, or our cultures lack of creativity and that it is a good form just used too much in a monotonous manner?

The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint

I disagree with some of the points made by Tufte. He makes an argument that the introduction of PowerPoint into schools is “disturbing.” From my experience, I’ve had to write a report almost every time I made a PowerPoint. The point of PowerPoint was to help the students organize and gather their thoughts during the presentation of their report/research. I think the PowerPoint exercises that “typically show 5 to 20 words and a piece of clipart on eat slide in a presentation consisting 3 to 6 slides” are good guides that help students practice their speaking skills during presentations. After all, we learn PowerPoint because we use it many times in our lives.

I’m still not sure what to think about using PowerPoint for business purposes. It seemed like it was unprofessional and inexcusable to be brief, according to Tufte. As long as the presenter knows what he’s talking about, isn’t it better to have a brief outline rather than a long report?

Also, I find it very funny that Tufte said, “By using PP to report technical work, presenters quickly damage their credibility—as was the case for NASA administrators engineers pitching their usual PP decks to these 2 very serious review boards.” It sounds true, and as long as they get all their information across, does it matter what format they use for their work?

It's interesting how the beginning of the article talks about photography, following lithography, was a visual way to keep up with speech. The cult value's peak of photograpy with portraits of loved ones,the dead ect. Then it mentions how captions have become essential for certain types of photography and how that differs from a title of a painting. How will the nature of photography and it's valuecontinue to become different in the future with the rapidly changing technology?
How do we challenge consumerism with a new perspective while living in a country that feeds off of it?

Walter Benjamin Essay

This essay addressed many of the questions I, myself, have been asking over the past few weeks. Will man made, individually produced products become obsolete with the new wave of media that has entered the art world? Although Benjamin addresses the idea that mass reproduction of a work decreases its value, the question that still remains is whether we will begine to value originality over flawlessness. Computer programs, like Photoshop and Illustrator, have given us the power to alter the reality of an image and create whatever we want from it.
Benjamin also address the social aspect of art. Is it art if it isn't intended to be and visa versa? The manifesto that accompanied the Benjamin essay had an interesting view from the commercial aspect. Is design art?

Walter Benjamin worte this in 1935, when he thought the "new" technology affected the place of art in the society. However, he had nothing on the techonology that we have today. Do you think that he would still hold the same position even with the advanced technology (e.i. digital reproduction)?
Do YOU agree with his whole argument that certain mechanical reproduced art loses its authenticity? After all,,,, it does feel a whole lot different when we actually go to galleries to see artwork than seeing them in magazines, internet, etc.

The World of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Is film really the only form of art that can be duplicated without lossing its authentcity because one can experience this form in both time and space? Can't a duplicate of a painting do the same?

Does this article really apply to our modern day way of thinking? For example I don't know if I agree with the quote, "The uniquiness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition.

Having an unrestricted internet, Are we in one of the Last free unregulated social networking time periods? Like many technological advances before it the internet, it is threatened by regulations, most recently Network Neutrality, this one most likely won't go anywhere, but what's next??? ENjoy it while it lasts.

Also, On a Barely Related Note, Matthew Barney was mentioned in the Reading as an techno-noir artist similar to the driector of Blade Runner. Matthew Barney is going to be at the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington DC Wednesday, Is anyone Going?

Hirshhorn Museum

The Interface

What happens when an interface does not allow for the user to access the function that it needs or wants to reach, that is within the construct of the interface? And as a follow up to that, what happens when a user tries to solve the problem and find away around the interface to access the restricted information?

The Interface

While reading this article, I was especially interested when Manovich spoke about how technology and the use of the computer has changed over the past twenty years. Having grown up with computers I didn't realize just how drastic the progress has been since the early 80s. My first question is, is the progress of computers and our society's increasing reliance on them healthy for our culture? I, myself, sometimes worry that because computers and the work that can be done on them is becoming increasingly more valued, i idea of something handmade, and even something with human flaws is becoming more rare. My second question is a follow-up to that statement: should the work of computers be valued equally to the work of man?

1. According to the book, we engage in more activities during a typical day than Karl Marx imagined. Then it states that "Yet in performing all these different activities, the user in essence is always using the same tools and commands: a computer screen and a mouse, a Web brower; a search engine; cut, paste, copy, delete, and find commands." Isn't it unreliable to argue that the user in essence is always involved in the stated activities? It seems more of an assumption, rather than a proved factor.

2. Is it possible to think that the increasing development of technology, including GUI, may result in "dark, decayed, "postmodern" society as in Blade Runner?

The Interface

According to the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, what would the world would be like if the new interface was able to translate all codes?"

The Interface

In the direction technology is advancing, do you think Video Games and other computer enterainment will become the new "interactive" media?