The argument for and against PowerPoint (mostly against) goes on. Many have picked up on thoughts expressed by Edward Tufte in his essay “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint”. Regardless of where you stand on the debate created by this essay, it is important to understand that Tufte’s essay is opinion… not science. There are no studies that show PowerPoint is “making us stupid”, or that we should not trust presenters who rely on it or that projected visuals should be thrown out in favor of handouts. It is also very popular these days to decry the widespread use of the ubiquitous Bullet Slide. Keep in mind that to date, Presentation Facts has found no empirical evidence that the much maligned Bullet Slide is significantly more or less effective than any other type of visual. (It may or may not be better, or worse than other visuals, we just haven’t reviewed studies yet that clearly answer this question).

We have however found clear evidence that what happens before… and after visuals are created can significantly impact the persuasive effect of a presentation. Read the rest of this entry »

You have probably heard it said that when giving a presentation, you are the primary visual. A 1979 study adds some credence to this bit of common wisdom. Read the rest of this entry »

I remember pretty clearly the day that the February 2000 issue of Presentations Magazine arrived in our Kalamazoo, Michigan office. It contained the results from a Presentations/3M study on the effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Prior to this, I had heard rumblings of “data” from the 1980s studies but had never actually read those research reports. For the next few years, I confidently told audiences and clients that “multimedia presentations could increase comprehension 78% over static visuals.” Like many others, I was eager to use any data that seemed to validate the services we were offering to clients.

So what did this study really tell us about the effectiveness of PowerPoint multimedia presentations? Unfortunately, the answer is: Not much at all. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the problems with the 1986 UM/3M study was that it used overhead transparencies and slides for visual support. It is a little hard to know which of the 1986 findings (if any) might be generalized to the way most presentations are given today. It might be reasonable to think that the positive findings in comprehension and retention would still hold true. What about the significant improvement in the audience’s perception of the speaker however? Vogel hypothesized that the improvement in persuasion was predominately mediated through this heightened positive perception of the speaker. Would someone viewing a typical presentation with PowerPoint visuals today perceive the presenter as positively as the 1986 subjects viewed the speaker with overhead transparencies? Read the rest of this entry »

In part 1 of this post, I briefly described the background and study design of the UM/3M research conducted by Doug Vogel in 1986. In this post, I will highlight the primary results along with some interesting information I had never heard before about a small side study Vogel did with some “extra” subjects in this study.

If you haven’t reviewed part 1 of this post, please do so because it is the excellence of the design and conduct of this study that lends credibility to the findings. Vogel intended this work to be a baseline for continuing research and in the design of this study has given us a great model of what quality research in the use of presentation visuals looks like. Read the rest of this entry »

Background
Douglas R. Vogel is a professor and chair of Information Systems at the City University of Hong Kong. He is recognized worldwide for his research in areas like group support systems, MIS and collaborative information systems. Although most Presentation Professionals would not know Vogel by name, he has played a key role in developing our understanding of how visuals support persuasion in a presentation setting. Read the rest of this entry »