Alex Lundry delivers a crash course on familiar topics in information graphics, using Congressman John Boehner’s cluttered Healthcare Reform Chart as a jumping off point (language briefly NSFW):

(via Andrew Sullivan)

Change blindness is the failure to notice changes to the scene (or image) you are viewing.

From Kelly:

This is an interesting phenomenon and worth keeping in mind as it relates to demonstratives. It tells me that the presenter possibly needs to verbally point out the changes that occur when presenting a sequence of demonstratives that have the same base image (or at least point out that there is going to be a change from one slide to the other so that the audience looks for it).

It’s kinda like the gorilla experiment…

The clip is from the BBC documentary series “Brain Story“. Some other clips and episodes are available for online viewing, though it appears the entire series has not yet been released.

(via Boing Boing)

A study published this summer (PDF) asserts that using animations in PowerPoint to control the rate of information on a slide may actually reduce comprehension by the audience.

Even though the use of custom animation allows the introduction of new information incrementally the technique can adversely impact student learning experience when factual information is conveyed in the presentation.  Subjects shown the static slides had better recall of graphics and text on the slides due to prolonged exposure to the information. The incremental introduction of concepts in dynamic slides was designed to prevent student exhaustion caused by visually presenting all concepts at once.  However, the dynamic slides lead to excessive processing demands and limited exposure time.

To use the example of a slide with five bullet points: if you added the bullet points incrementally, the last bullet point, which could very likely be the most important point or even a conclusion to the slide, would be available to the audience only a fraction of the amount of time that the first bullet point is available. Seeing the last bullet point only briefly could reduce the audience’s ability to retain that information.

However, the study in question took place in a classroom, where a presentation has a much different function than in a courtroom. Also, the data for the study were gathered using a nine question quiz administered after the viewing of the PowerPoint, so although the scores of those who viewed the animated presentation were approximately 10 points lower than those who viewed the static presentation, that is really only a difference between answering seven questions right and eight questions right. The actual presentation used does not seem to be available, and so we can’t assess whether there are any other issues that might contribute to the discrepancy in scores.

Still, I think it is important to note that simply adding information a piece at a time may not help a jury get more from your presentation than if you just put up the information all at once. There are other methods for focusing a jury’s attention without withholding information, but even more important than that is having a clear message that is communicated as simply as possible, avoiding clutter and unnecessary distractions.

Congratulations to Cummins-Allison Corp, and their attorneys from Winston Strawn, Nixon Peabody and The Heartfield Law Firm, for their successful infringement suit against Shinwoo Information & Telecommunications Co. and Amro-Asian Trade. US Patents 6,459, 806; 5,966,456; 6,381,354; and 5,909,503 were found valid and infringed in Judge Ron Clark’s Court in Beaumont, TX. The jury awarded Cummins-Allison $12 Million in damages. Barnes & Roberts provided graphics and presentation support in the war room and courtroom.

Attributing Human Voice, Behavior and Motivation to Inanimate Constructs

Both scientific and legal training stress the importance of avoiding anthropomorphism. We are taught to study and apply the laws of science and society based on facts and logic; to remove our own personal bias from observation and communication. However, that very science, through the study of linguistics, for example, teaches us that human beings think, speak and experience the world through the lens of our own, rather personal, sense of anthropomorphism. In other words, people experience the world through human hands, human eyes and human ears all coupled to a human brain filled with human emotions. We are hard-wired to apply human emotion and reason to all we see and hear.

When it comes to trial presentation, patent lawyers (many with technical training prior to their entry into the law) and technical experts are at a distinct disadvantage. They live by the cold, harsh light of the scientific method, eschewing anthropomorphism in their work. There is nothing inherently wrong with the scientific method. However, to point out the obvious, jurors in technical cases are not typically scientists or technologists. Indeed, any scientifically trained juror is likely to be excluded based on that very training.

Now that we are faced with a jury of non-scientists and the difficult task of teaching technical subject matter to them, we must switch off the cold light of science, light a warm fire and settle in to tell a story.

Read the full article at WWW.ASTCWEB.ORG

There has been much talk about whether or not it is safe to text with your cellphone while driving, or even if it is safe to have a telephone conversation with or without hands-free technology. But all of the thousands of words I read (and wrote) on the subject, to say nothing of the millions of words written and read throughout the country, can come anywhere close to the power of this video clip:

What makes this video so powerful? More…

In this clip from Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, Senator Chuck Grassley demonstrates almost every mistake you can commit in a presentation during his rambling and ill-conceived speech. File this under “Ideas That Sounded Good at the Time.” Senator Grassley’s narrative character, “Sir Taxalot” sets off to slay the “Deficit Dragon” in this rambling metaphor or allegory or whatever. Watch the clip (Warning: Some colorful language) as a cautionary fairy tale:

I’m certain that the idea was born in a conference room with lots of smart people working furiously on the Senator’s speech – probably late into the night. Someone has the idea and the rest of the sleep-deprived, caffeine-fueled conferees immediately (mis)recognize its brilliance. I’ve witnessed and engaged in this process hundreds of times in preparation for a big trial but have always found a toehold in sanity before committing such an atrocity in front of the jury.

We all want to be clever. We all want to be funny. We all need to stop and take a deep breath to clear our heads. We are paid to be smart – not clever. We are expected by the judge, the jury and by our clients to take the case seriously – otherwise, we are wasting their time. Spontaneous humor can occasionally be the right thing to do. But this crime against communication was executed with forethought and malice.

Is there a way Senator Grassley could have used the Sir Taxalot metaphor with better results? What if we fixed his illustrations, adjusted his typography and changed the colors up just a little? In short, no. Emphatically no. Congress is not a kindergarten class. Yeah, yeah, I know it is sometimes hard to tell judging by their behavior. But health care reform is serious business. The same is true in the courtroom. Jurors are not kindergartners and we should not treat them as such.

I could go on about the way Senator Grassley reads his presentation, and just about every design element of ye olde graphics themselves, but won’t bother. A bad metaphor, executed poorly, illustrated in a condescending manner, and delivered without any narrative style leaves me with my head in my hands wondering whether to laugh or cry.

Venture capitalist Guy Kawasaki sees hundreds of pitch ideas from entrepreneurs and they frequently bring PowerPoint presentations. According to Mr. Kawasaki, most of the presentations are “crap.” In response, he offers the following rules: 10 slides, 20 minutes, 30 point type. Here he explains his theory:

Recently, Joey Asher of Speechworks wrote an article promoting the 10/20/30 rule. As given, the rules are well suited for sales and promotion presentation. Indeed, Mr. Asher’s expertise is in the area of sales. But the rules are not necessarily perfected for the courtroom. The underlying advice may be sound – with some modification. More…

(Via Andrew Sullivan)