PowerPoint Doesn’t Have to Suck

Twice this week I got into conversations about the merits of PowerPoint. First with WSJ reporter Charlie Wells, then with social media agency CEO Jason Stein. Here’s the debate with Jason. https://mobile.twitter.com/ericfranchi/status/380320221929549824?screen_name=ericfranchi. Both questioned whether PowerPoint was an effective tool at all.

Frankly I can’t argue with either of them. Most PowerPoints that I see are bad. But they don’t have to be. I think death by PowerPoint can be avoided. There are two solvable issues:

Design: There are FAR too many options in PowerPoint. I think it stems from the fact that it’s used in so many different ways - for presentations, webinars, training documentation, instructional materials, etc. In my opinion Microsoft’s customers will be well served if they created a version of PowerPoint for presentation-use only that stripped out a lot of the options in font size, chart creation etc. and provided guidance/suggestions at adhere to design best practices. Such as large font, minimal word count, large images, etc.

Humans: many times the presenter shares equal blame with the software for delivering a poor experience. Typically you see folks reading off the slides, trying to make sure all of the points listed are addressed. I think they forget the fact that the audience can (and is) reading the slide content. A speaker is there to present and not read to the audience like a kindergarten teacher. This goes back to some of the bad PowerPoint slide practices. Creating a presentation is beyond the scope of this post, but presenters will be well served by spending more time scripting and practicing than anything. Then create slides that support your points and put the focus on you, the presenter.

PowerPoint doesn’t have to suck. It’s fine (but can be improved). What sucks is how it is used most of the time.

 
2
Kudos
 
2
Kudos