MetacognitiveandAestheticDesign ofPresentationSlides SteveSemken - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Metacognitive
and
Aesthetic
Design of
Presentation
Slides Steve
Semken Presentation
graphics
software
is
widely
used
in
geoscience
teaching, but
used
straight
out
of
the
box,
or
casually,
it
can
be
pedagogically stifling. This
 session
 offers
 a
 few
 ideas
 and
 suggestions
 for
 enhancing
 your slide
presentations.

It
draws
on
cognition
and
visualization
research, information
 design,
 aesthetics,
 and
 the
 presenter’s
 own
 empirical observations. You
 are
 invited
 to
 follow
 as
 many,
 or
 as
 few,
 of
 these recommendations
as
you
choose
to
do—but
give
them
some
thought. semken.asu.edu/teaching/cp10slides.pdf July
2010

How
much
do
you
use
presentation
software?


For
what
purposes? Do
you
find
it
useful?



A
necessary
evil?


An
opportunity
to
be
creative? …Have
you
been
subjected
to
some
 really 
awful
presentations? Yours truly Inner
Mongolia,
China,
2008 We
will
explore
the
design
(good
and
bad!)
and
use
of
digital
slides
from
the
perspectives
of: (1) Accessibility
(legibility)
of
slides
for
diverse
audiences (2) The
cognitive
style
of
digital
presentation
software (3) Aesthetic
considerations 2

The
 Principles
of
Universal
Design 
characterize
maximum
accessibility and
usability
of
technologies
and
environments. Principle
Four
(of
seven): 
Perceptible
Information The
 design
 communicates
 necessary
 information
 effectively
 to the
user,
regardless
of
ambient
conditions
or
the
user’s
sensory abilities. Guidelines: • Use
 different
 modes
 (pictorial,
 verbal,
 tactile)
 for
 redundant presentation
of
essential
information. • Provide
adequate
contrast
between
essential
information
and its
surroundings. • Maximize
“legibility”
of
essential
information. • Differentiate
elements
in
ways
that
can
be
described
(i.e.,
make it
easy
to
give
instructions
or
directions). • Provide
 compatibility
 with
 a
 variety
 of
 techniques
 or
 devices used
by
people
with
sensory
limitations. The
Center
for
Universal
Design.
(1997).

 The
principles
of
Universal
Design,
version
2.0. Raleigh,
NC:
North
Carolina
State
University. 3

Intrusive
backgrounds
cause
contrast
problems. Don’t
you
think
it’s
difficult to
focus
on,
read,
and analyze
the
content
of
a slide
with
a
cute,
irrelevant, and
intrusive
background? This
is
particularly
true
if
the presenter
is
trying
to
show graphical
data. Beware
of
backgrounds imposed
by
presentation templates;
plain
is
better. Crossey
et
al.,
 GSA
Bulletin 
121
1038
(2009) 4

Sometimes
it
may
be
necessary
to
include
a
large,
bold
graphic that
takes
up
most
or
all
of
the
background
under
text. Use
contrasting
text
colors
to enhance
legibility. Shadowing
text
can
be
effective. Shadowing
text
can
be
effective. Embossed
text
is
another
option. Drop
shadow
is
even
better. Embossed
text
is
another
option. If
it
is
acceptable
to
obscure
part
of
the
image,
fill
the
text
box
with
a
color that
contrasts
with
the
text
(perhaps
one
picked
from
the
image). Or,
you
can
make
the
text
box
translucent
by
increasing
its
transparency
to suit
(this
is
40%
transparent). 5

The
choice
of
typeface,
font,
and
font
size
affects
legibility. Sans‐serif
( vs. serif )
fonts
 are
preferred
when
legibility
at
a
distance
is
a
concern. Arial 24 Arial 20 Arial 18 Arial 16 Arial 14 Arial 12 Arial 10 Arial 24 Arial Bold 20 Arial Bold 18 Arial Bold 16 Arial Italic 24 Arial Italic 20 Arial Italic 18 Arial Italic 16 Helvetica 24 Helvetica 20 Helvetica 18 Helvetica 16 Helvetica 14 Helvetica Bold 24 Helvetica Bold 20 Helvetica Bold 18 Helvetica Italic 24 Helvetica Italic 20 Helvetica Italic 18 Verdana 24 Verdana 20 Verdana 18 Verdana 16 Verdana Bold 24 Verdana Bold 20 Verdana Bold 18 Verdana Italic 24 Verdana Italic 20 Verdana Italic 18 Candara
24



 Candara
20 



 Candara
18 



 Candara
16 



 Candara
14



 Candara
12 Candara
Bold
24



 Candara
Bold
20 



 Candara
Bold
18



 Candara
Bold
16 6

Legibility
for
color‐blind
audiences A
viewer
with
any
of
the
three
known
types
of
color
blindness
may
view
your
slides quite
differently
from
those
who
do
not
have
such
color
vision
deficiency
(Bajaj,
2009): (One
form
of
 red
‐
green 
color
deficit) (Images
from
Bajaj,
2009) (Another
form
of
 red
‐
green 
color
deficit) ( Blue‐yellow 
color
deficit,
much
less
common) Bajaj,
G.
(2009).

 
Slides
for
color‐blind
audiences. 

Retrieved
01
July
2010
from
 http://www.indezine.com/products/powerpoint/learn/accessibility/colorblindvisions.html. 7

Legibility
for
color‐blind
audiences Red
text
on
a
green
background 
is
especially
problematic
(Bajaj,
2009): (One
form
of
 red
‐
green 
color
deficit) (Images
from
Bajaj,
2009) (Another
form
of
 red
‐
green 
color
deficit) ( Blue‐yellow 
color
deficit,
much
less
common) You
can
download
the
 Vischeck 
plug‐in
for
Adobe
Photoshop,
to
check
your
image
files for
legibility
by
color‐blind
individuals:
 http://www.vischeck.com 8

Beware
of
potential
 distractors 
in
projected
images! 









With
distractors

 







With
distractors
removed Distractor Recent
eye‐tracking
studies
indicate
that
when
an
image
contains
a
person
or
animal as
“scale,”
students
are
drawn
to
focus
on
the
distractor,
and
survey
the
scene
less. Instead,
use
a
consistent
and
boring
scale in
photos
and
include
people
only
if
it
is
necessary to
show
how
we
study
a
problem. Coyan,
J.
A.,
Busch,
M.
M.,
&
Reynolds,
S.
J.
(2009).

Examining
student
interactions
with
distractors
in photographs
using
eye‐tracking
technology
[Abstract].

 Geological
Society
Abstracts
with
Programs,
41, 
196. 9

Thoughts
or
questions
about
legibility? 10 10

The
cognitive
style
of
PowerPoint
(Tufte,
2003;
2006) Renowned
information‐design
expert
Edward
Tufte
has
issued
a damning
indictment
of
PowerPoint.

These
are
his
principal arguments: 1. PowerPoint
slides
have
extremely
narrow
bandwidth
compared
to other
forms
of
information
transfer
(e.g.,
reports,
newspapers). 2. Hierarchical
bullet
lists
truncate
explanations
and
dilute
thought. “Power
points”
replace
complete
sentences
as
the
basic explanatory
units
in
presentations. 3. The
sequential
slide
format
arbitrarily
partitions
the
flow
of information: Data
are
stacked
in
time
rather
than
presented
synoptically, obscuring
context
and
making
comparative
reasoning
difficult. Insertion
of
“PP
Phluff”
such
as
clip
art
and
animations
merely combats
numbing
repetition
with
meaningless
entertainment. 11 11

The
cognitive
style
of
PowerPoint
(Tufte,
2003;
2006) 3. Build
sequences
control
the
order
and
pace
of
reading
and learning;
they
are
presenter‐centered,
not
student‐centered. The
Dreaded
Build
Sequence The
Dreaded
Build
Sequence The
Dreaded
Build
Sequence •The
first
line
is
revealed! •The
first
line
is
revealed! •The
first
line
is
revealed! •The
second
line
is
revealed! •The
second
line
is
revealed! •The
second
line
is
revealed! •The
third
line
is
revealed! •The
third
line
is
revealed! •The
third
line
is
revealed! (The
audience
flees) 4. Out‐of‐the‐box
PP
templates
and
stylesheets
propagate
the cognitive
style. 5. Lazy
use
of
printed
PP
slides
as
handouts,
in
place
of
written reports,
infects
the
paper‐based
presentation
method. Tufte,
E.
R.
(2003).

 The
cognitive
style
of
PowerPoint. 

Cheshire,
CT:
Graphics
Press
LLC. Tufte,
E.
R.
(2006).

 The
cognitive
style
of
PowerPoint:
Pitching
out
corrupts
within 
(2nd
ed.).

Cheshire, CT:
Graphics
Press
LLC. 12 12

Tufte’s
 The
Cognitive
Style
of
PowerPoint 
presented
in
the
form of
a
PowerPoint
presentation
(Swartz,
2003)
… Overview • • PowerPoint
is
standard…. • …but
bad. • Why? Cognitive
Style • • Is
presenter‐oriented • Audience
and
content
suffer • Low
resolution • Deeply
hierarchical • Preoccupied
with
form Low
Resolution • • Nearly
content‐free • Only
slightly
better
than
1982
 Pravda 
propaganda! 13 13