If you have to make a presentation for a decision maker, you have to bring difficulty of the contents down to board level. That serves two purposes: 1 the presentor didn't make the decision, so he he can't be blamed for the wrong decision 2 the decision maker didn't make the presentation, so he can't be blamed either as he didn't get the correct information.
I have seen this happen, and people were laid off in the wrong place as a result of it. On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 20:43, graywolf wrote: > Then we can look at it another way, a person who makes a possibly life > threatening multi-million dollar decision from a twenty minute PowerPoint > presentation certainly fits my definition of a fool. > > Of course, the adviser who presents it that way fits my definition of incompetent. > > -- > > Chaso DeChaso wrote: > > > > >>>Interesting take, blaming the misuse of software > >>>for a problem, > >>>rather > >>>than those who misued the software. > > > > > >>Well said. I get to see quite a few ppt > >>presentations at work and they > >>never impress me. It has nothing to do with ppt > >>itself - they're just > >>bad presentations. > > > > > > Well, this oversimplifies the problem by > > underestimating the way in which tools condition our > > thinking and condition the problems and solutions at > > hand. It is also surprising that anyone would > > casually and quickly reject a thinker such as Tufte > > trying to tell us something. > > > > I would not say the medium IS the message but > > certainly it alters, limits, abstracts the message in > > various ways. This may happen independent of our best > > intentions. > > > > It is overly idealistic to imagine that humans are > > these perfect things hovering high above the world > > making decisions; in fact we are immersed in the world > > and are conditioned by its perameters. Our thinking > > is conditioned by the language we happen to use as > > well as by the software we select (or have selected > > for us, for the most part). No matter how perfect we > > think we are, a presentation is going to be different > > with different media - people will learn different > > things. We make different mistakes when using > > different tools. Engineering projects have different > > types of failures based upon different types of > > software, and versus doing things "by hand". Assuming > > humans haven't changed, this focuses the attention on > > the role of the media and methods thereof. Also, at > > the extreme, different types of projects become > > possible and impossible. > > > > Humans are not limitlessly creative or vigiland > > therefore we rely upon convention, precedent, > > technique, culture, tools, etc. to influence answers - > > this is a part of life and not necessarily "bad". > > (Most pieces written on piano are different than those > > written on guitar - and few are capable of dreaming up > > complete pieces in the abstract not associated with > > instrumentation, while laying in bed...even they are > > conditioned by memory of the instruments). Given that > > this is a fact, one can then turn attention toward > > laying a certain amount of blame on tools and methods > > that are more mistake prone in certain contexts. > > Powerpoint is certainly a media which predisposes one > > to certain errors mainly related to oversimplification > > as Tufte argues. Yes, if we were almost perfect and > > nearly godlike we would catch every mistake and only > > have ourselves to blame, but in fact as soon as one > > relies on a tool and gives over some responsibility to > > the tool (which we must and always do) then we can > > speak about the influence of the tool itself and about > > how for example powerpoint may have been a legitimate > > contributing factor the shuttle disaster. > > > > Chaso > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > > > -- Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
