Presentational Visualisation: Towards An Imagery-Based Approach of Computer-Generated Presentation Visuals

TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | TOWARDS AN IMAGERY-BASED APPROACH OF PRESENTATION VISUALS
PRESENTATIONAL VISUALISATION
Towards an Imagery-based Approach of Computer-generated Presentation Visuals
Research Paper,
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements toward the
Master of Science [MSc] Degree,
Computer Sciences in Media
Author: Till Voswinckel
Tutors:
Prof. Dr. Miguel Ángel García Gonzalez
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Taube
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to the following people
for their invaluable support and assistance:
For the interesting ideas, countless pointers to resourceful
concepts and implementations, and his ongoing, “mission-
ary work”, to Cliff Atkinson of Sociable Media.
For the interesting studies in “Fuwa” and abroad, to my tutor
Prof. García and the AAA at the University of Appl. Sc. Furtw.
For their invaluable Digital Library and the great, academic
environment, to the Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico City
To Julia and Marco for their steady support, the inestimable
lectorship, and for good times
To my parents, my brothers and my sister for always giving me
their support, and for being as lovely as they are
To Grisel Orozco, for everything she is and does
Of course, I’m always happy about questions and comments

CSM COMPUTER SCIENCES I. MEDIA
FACULTY OF DIGITAL MEDIA Please direct your feedback to : TILL @ VOSWINCKEL . NL
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALISATION | TOWARDS AN IMAGERY–BASED APPROACH OF PRESENTATION VISUALS 1
Presentational Visualisation [Abstract]

Computer projection is certainly the worst thing to happen to presentation skills since the invention of the
overhead projector.
(Bland 1998, p. 131)
Computer-aided „live“, oral business presentations have evidently emerged from a previously marginal ne-
cessity for engineers to “communicate with other people” (Parker 2001) towards a now “ubiquitous feature
of organizational life” (Davison & Briggs, 2000). Paralleling this rise of presentation as “the basic unit of
group communication” (Keller 2003), particularly the use of visual aids, and more specifically software-
generated presentation slides as not merely an aesthetic enhancement, but rather indispensable feature and
integral part to contemporary business conversations has thus shaped an essentially “standardised”,
PowerPoint-dependant presentation culture (Bly, 2003).
Despite the evident lack of directly related communications research on the matter (cf. Atkinson & Mayer
2004), a characteristic, “bulleted-list format” (Zongker & Salesin 2003) has thereby evolved into the most
predominant, commonly accepted aesthetic paradigm in terms of both analog and digital slide design.
While presentation software has been analysed to tendencially endorse such bullet-pointed concepts through
“suggestive”, wizard- and template-driven workflows, defenders cite not merely presenter convenience, but
moreover “mnemonic” and even persuasive effectiveness as features supposedly underlying the popular bullet
point slide schema (Holmes, 2004)
However, despite the well-established need for cognition, comprehension, and persuasion in any such pre-
sentational scenario, cognitive psychology and advertisement research have in fact substantiated previously
voiced critique on the “intellectual reductionism” (Cyphert 2004) and communicative ineptitude of these
“bulleted approaches” from an educational, “learner’s perspective”. In fact, experimental evidence from
dual-coding psychologists particularly found the aforementioned, text-centric visualisation approaches “in-
effective” within our initially defined, “narrated” presentation scenario: Instead of enhancing an orally deliv-
ered speech, simultaneous text display actually “exceeds the cognitive capacity of most people” (Raymond
2003), not leastly since suchlike, visual-verbal processing would essentially represent something of a “proc-
essing challenge” to the human, cognitive system (Mayer, 2001).
Alternatively, the use of purely visual imagery has been proven effective not merely in terms of “spatial rea-
soning”, but moreover as an operative approach to learning and persuasion strategies. Based on mental, vis-
ual imagery and picture superiority assumptions (Paivio 1986) now generally “agreed on” within the cogni-
tive-scientific community (Kosslyn 1994), visualisation theory has recognized and leveraged the communi-
cative potential of such pictorial approaches for some time now (Crapo et al. 2000, Barkowsky 2002)
Nonetheless, despite recent advances into the more abstract realm of information visualisation (Card et al.
1999, Gershon & Page 2001), visualistic approaches have, until recently, failed to entirely and appropriately
convert non-figurative (i.e. previously textual) content into actual, visual imagery. Since this metaphorical
transition can nevertheless be seen accomplished within interactive and GUI scenarios in the shape of icons, I
have applied concepts of playfulness (Webster & Ho 1997) and the aforementioned iconicity towards an ap-
propriate visualisation of relationships, interactions and logical hierarchies (Voswinckel 2003, 2004)
However, in order to more effectively approach the rather complex subject of persuasive and memorable
presentation on arbitrary issues, further assumptions of visual rhetorics (Foss 1994), visual metaphor (Phil-
lips & McQuarrie 2004), vividness (Hill et al. 2003. 2004), and visual storytelling (Shaw et al. 1998, Wal-
ters et al. 1999) are discussed towards an integrative concept of what I like to term “presentational visualisa-
tion” (Wood 2003): A dramaturgically connected and hierarchically structured approach involving auto-
matic, databased stock photography retrieval for an appropriate, metaphorical visualisation.
1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Investigational Focus ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.1 Contextual Differentiation and Specification.......................................................................... 5
1.1.2 From the Web to the Real World ........................................................................................... 5
1.1.3 Definition of the targeted “presentation” scenario and its visual complement ......................... 6
1.1.4 Presentation Software and Format Perspective........................................................................ 7
1.2 Hypothesis ...................................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 10
1.4 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 10
1.5 Presentational Purposes ................................................................................................................. 11
1.5.1 Dialogue............................................................................................................................... 11
1.5.2 Information Purpose ............................................................................................................ 13
1.5.3 Persuasion Purpose ............................................................................................................... 16
2 A Critical Review of the Bullet Point Format .................................................................................... 19
2.1 Situation Analysis and Problem Definition.................................................................................... 19

2.1.1 Technical and Graphical–Aesthetic Characteristics ............................................................... 19
2.2 Presentational Evolution................................................................................................................ 19
2.2.1 From Show–and–Tell to PowerPoint ................................................................................... 19
2.2.2 Chalk and Talk..................................................................................................................... 20
2.2.3 Business Tools ...................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4 Production process and aesthetics ......................................................................................... 21
2.2.5 Text Organization on Charts................................................................................................ 22
2.3 Bullet Points.................................................................................................................................. 23
2.3.1 Ubiquitous Feature............................................................................................................... 23
2.3.2 An Aesthetic Review of “Bulleting” Techniques.................................................................... 24
2.3.3 Comparative studies: Continuous vs. Bulleted Text.............................................................. 25
2.3.4 Bullet Point Critique ............................................................................................................ 25
2.3.5 Early Discomfort .................................................................................................................. 27
2.3.6 Summarization and Fragmentation Features......................................................................... 28
2.3.7 Presentational Bullet Application.......................................................................................... 29
2.3.8 Correlations between Technical Development and Bullet–Point Application ....................... 30
2.4 Technology View .......................................................................................................................... 32
2.4.1 Workflow Rationale ............................................................................................................. 33
2.4.2 Software Bullets: The Computational Adoption ................................................................... 34
2.4.3 Technological Advances, or Conceptual Standstill?............................................................... 38
2.4.4 Template–Centric Usability ................................................................................................. 39

2.4.5 Intuition or Imposition? ....................................................................................................... 40
3 Templates, Wizards, and Beyond ...................................................................................................... 42
3.1 Role and Accountability of the Software ........................................................................................ 42
3.1.1 The Scapegoat Discussion .................................................................................................... 42
3.1.2 Means and Extent of Software–driven Design Influence ....................................................... 46
3.1.3 Underlying, Mental Model................................................................................................... 47
3.1.4 Towards GUI Analysis: Common Paradigms ......................................................................... 47
3.2 The PowerPoint GUI: An Exemplary “Workflow” Analysis ............................................................ 49
3.2.1 Subject Matter: The PowerPoint Application ....................................................................... 49
3.2.2 Startup Dialogs, and the “Splash Screen”.............................................................................. 50
“Blank” Presentation: Mandatory Layout Selection .......................................................................... 52
Post–Title Slide Editing.................................................................................................................... 55
3.2.5 The Next Step: Inserting a New Slide................................................................................... 58
Re–Iteration, Discussion .................................................................................................................. 61
3.3 Bullet–Point Aetiology .................................................................................................................. 62
3.3.1 Predetermination or Freedom of Choice? ............................................................................. 62
3.3.2 The “Template Obedience” Phenomenon ............................................................................ 63
3.3.3 Adoption Rationales ............................................................................................................. 64
3.3.4 “Sociological”, Aesthetic and Long-Term Effects .................................................................. 68
4 Visual Persuasion: Rhetorics, Visualisation, and Explorations into Cognitive Science ........................ 75
4.1 Persuasion Theory ......................................................................................................................... 75
4.1.1 “Classic” Persuasion Theory ................................................................................................. 76
4.2 Approaches within Aristotle’s “Scientific Rhetorics” Tripod .......................................................... 78
4.2.1 Ethos .................................................................................................................................... 78
4.2.2 Pathos .................................................................................................................................. 80
4.2.3 Logos.................................................................................................................................... 83
4.2.4 The Fourth Pillar: Memory .................................................................................................. 89
4.2.5 Comprehension and Persuasion............................................................................................ 91
4.2.6 “Educational” Context ......................................................................................................... 92
4.3 Dual Coding and Channel Separation ........................................................................................... 94
4.3.1 Channel Interference, Limited Capacity, and Split–Attention Effects ................................... 94
4.3.2 Oral Presentation Context: Processing Challenges ................................................................ 95
4.3.3 Cognitive Evidence and Related Research............................................................................. 96
4.3.4 DCT | Consequences ............................................................................................................. 96
4.4 Mental Imagery and Picture Superiority Phenomena..................................................................... 97

4.4.1 Dreaming Evidence .............................................................................................................. 97
4.4.2 Mental Imagery as a Generally Accepted Assumption ........................................................... 98
4.4.3 Images as More Affine Carriers of Information..................................................................... 98
4.4.4 Your Face Looks Familiar, But I Can't Remember Your Name ............................................ 99
4.4.5 Visual Appeal ..................................................................................................................... 100
5 Towards a Theory of Presentational Visualisation............................................................................ 102
5.1 Visualisation and Imagery-based Approaches............................................................................... 102
5.2 Insight, Not Numbers ................................................................................................................. 102
5.2.1 Visualisation: High–flown promises, sobering reality.......................................................... 103
5.3 Interactive Visualisation: The Iconic Promise .............................................................................. 103
5.3.1 Metaphoric representations: Pictures, Icons, and the GUI .................................................... 104
5.3.2 Custom Implementations ................................................................................................... 104
5.3.3 Conceptual Icon–Mapping................................................................................................. 107
5.3.4 Presence, Realism, and Stock Photography ......................................................................... 108
5.3.5 Software Approaches: Probable Cause, Possible Solution .................................................... 113
5.4 Conceptual Outline..................................................................................................................... 114
5.4.1 An Automated Approach.................................................................................................... 114
5.4.2 Seamless Imagery Retrieval via Stock Photography DBs....................................................... 114
5.4.3 “Playing a Full Deck”: Screen–Filling, immersive Visualisation .......................................... 115
5.4.4 Captions as Specific Context Providers................................................................................ 116
5.4.5 Visual Key Mnemonics....................................................................................................... 116
5.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 117
5.5.1 Review................................................................................................................................ 117
5.5.2 Audience-centered, Research-based Approaches.................................................................. 118
5.5.3 Towards Persuasive, Pictorial Visualisations........................................................................ 118
5.5.4 DICNE, Iconic and Stock Photography prototypes as an Impetus for Further Research........ 118
5.5.5 Outlook.............................................................................................................................. 119
Appendix................................................................................................................................................. 120
5.6 Supplementary Screenshots ......................................................................................................... 120
Marketing Simulation .................................................................................................................... 120
Quantity Component: Slider and Interactive Statistics (Example) .................................................. 121
Column Relator Component.......................................................................................................... 121
Matrix Evaluation Modules ............................................................................................................ 122
6 Bibliography and References............................................................................................................ 123
1 Introduction
1.1 Investigational Focus
1.1.1 Contextual Differentiation and Specification

1
Drawing on the equally “presentational” nature of my (2003) Diploma Thesis, one might be tempted to
wonder about the necessity of seemingly “just another thesis” (Gómez 2004, p. 4) on multimedia–fed busi-
ness presentations, or “computerized slide shows” (Martin 1996, p.13). Thus, before defining applied meth-
odologies and aims within this paper, it appears reasonable to firstly set out the central scenario targeted
throughout this work, as well as to clarify differences and advances in respect to my previous work.
While my diploma thesis provided earlier distinctively and elaborately focused on the technical, format–
2 3 4
driven aspects of multimedia presentations, and specifically concentrated on self–narrated, automatic pres-
5
entations on the web , the work put forward within this document both applies a different perspective and
scenario, which evidently sees itself set apart from the work outlined throughout my earlier work: Where
necessity, effectiveness and applicability of purely web– or multimedia–based presentations have remained
6
quite controversially discussed issues especially in terms of online instruction and pedagogy, the much more
7 8
common (and financially lucrative) scenario is certainly that of the “oral business presentation” (Gorodetsky
9
et al. 1997, p. 2376), or “speech”, which, according to Davidson and Briggs (2000), might easily be
phrased as a “ubiquitous feature of organizational life” (p. 91).
1.1.2 From the Web to the Real World

Deviating from an initially approached, stand–alone notion innate to web–based presentations, our par-
ticular interest shall subsequently lie in the computational assistance and accompaniment of “real–world”,
10
orally delivered “talks” – not leastly since, according to Good and Bederson (2002), “the most frequent use
of a presentation tool occurs in combination with a presenter’s oral discourse” (p. 40).
11
Thus, equally in light of a similar discussion within my earlier work, this paper will concentrate on the lat-
12 13
ter: a “live”, or “in–person” presentation scenario (cf. Zielinski 2002, p. S16). This particular focus
equally reflects, as Keller (2003) notes, the “rise of the presentation the basic unit of group communication”
(p. 8). Moreover, the emphasis on predominantly business, or commercial environments set forth within this
1
XML Presenter, cf. Voswinckel 2003, pp. 4f.
2
ibid, p. 2, Chapt. 1.1.3
3
cf. Adamus 2002, Branzburg 2004, and Mayer/Chandler 2001, p. 390
4
see Weitzman/Wittenburg 1994, p. 443
5
cf. Gemell/Bell 1997, Bell 1998, and Voswinckel 2003, pp. 40ff
6
cf. Creahan/Hoge 2000, Schakelman 2001, Brabazon 2002, and Mayer 2001, pp. 63ff.
7
Pratt 2003, p. 20, Nelson et al. 1999, p. 354
8
Clark 1993 p. B.6, Lindstrom 1998, p. 8, McCannon/Morse 1999 – Note: “Lucrativity” in this context refers to the commercial profit-
ability in terms of possible (presentation) software sales, respectively market potential.
9
cf. Munter 1997, Levine 2001, p. 253
10
Cross / Warmack, p. 318
11
Voswinckel 2003, p. 4
12
Martin (1996) characterizes a presentation through the term “live narration” (p. 14)
13
The author has equally defined the scenario given above as the “standard Laptop–to–Projector, live–audience presentation setup.” (Zie-
linski 2003b, p. S4)
paper quite naturally stems both from the aforementioned, favourable economical prospects within this
field, as well as —on the analytical side— from “presentation software’s” intrinsic attachment to this par-
ticular area:
Presentation software is aimed at a very special audience. Thus, […] the vendors of these applications seem
to be devoted to pitching them primarily to business audiences…
(Camp & Cogan 1988, p. 71)
1.1.3 Definition of the targeted “presentation” scenario and its visual complement
Even though the aforementioned setting in its broadest sense would appear quite clear at first sight, a review
of the available literature and the wide range of definitions proposed by various authors reveal considerable
intricacy in making out a clear shape or neatly identifiable aspects with the generally quite “blurry” notion
of an assumed, arbitrary business presentation scenario (Zielinski 2002). Hence, even the very definition of
the term “presentation” itself, as noted in Bennett et al. (1998) “may differ widely among languages and
cultures” (p. 102).
1.1.3.1 Basic Definition and Discrimination

1
Starting with a rather general concept of the term “presentation”, Advanced Training CEO Albert Thiele
provides an accessible, albeit somewhat limited definition: according to Thiele (2000), presentations can
2
typically be characterized by a speaker, or lecturer, who “communicates complex content to an audience in
a directed manner, applying optical media and didactical methods” (p.2).
Besides describing the general setting, Thiele not solely mentions the oral part of an assumed arbitrary
speech, but equally pays reference to its visual complement, framed in his definition through the term “opti-
3
cal media”. Clearly, the author leaves no doubt about the visuals’ “supporting role” within this scenario.
4
Furthermore, by purposefully applying a somewhat dated wording as provided above, Thiele rejects the
5
pervasively referenced concept of “multimedia” (which, for example, might also involve sound as an addi-
tional feature) and thus consequently avoids a limitation to merely digital presentation aids.
Beyond the mere “optical media” aspect, however, Gemmell and Bell (1997) address a much broader range
of different “communication channels” applied within the context of business presentation: The authors
differentiate between the “Slides” (or visual supplement), Audio (“the talk”), Video (“talking head”), Back–
6
Channels, and Slide comments (also referred to as “the talk script”, or speaker’s notes). It shall be noted,
however, that within the range of this thesis, we shall concentrate primarily on the visual aspect of presenta-
tion–accompanying supplements, since most of the public discussion has been revolving around this issue,
7
as well as in light of the rather controversial nature of the other features, such as sound, or motion and ani-
8
mation.
1
“Dr. Albert Thiele ist Management–Trainer und Geschäftsführer von Advanced Training in Düsseldorf.” (Thiele 2001, p. 174)
2
“Vortragender”, in its German original text. (Thiele 2000, p. 2)
3
see equally Bray 2004, p. 19
4
„…unter Einsatz optischer Medien“ (Thiele 2000, p. 2)
5
cf. Vulner 2000, Fuller 1993, p. 5, Mayer 2001, pp. 2f.
6
Gemell and Bell 1997, p. 81
7
For treatments on the use of sound within presentation aids, see Godin 2001, p. 7, Webster/Ho, p. 72
8
cf. Zongker/Salesin 2003, Rieber 1990, p. 77, Roberts 1996, p. 78, Faraday/Sutcliffe 1997a, pp. 272–274, 78, Faraday/Sutcliffe 1997b,
p. 185, Gillan 1998, p. 143, Naharro–Berrocal et al. 2002, p. 773,
1.1.3.2 Role and Importance of the Visual Complement

Consequently, while in agreement with Thiele in terms of the central role occupied by the “lecturer” in the
1
context of such a presentation, other researchers such as Chen and Heng (2003, p. 568) view a much more
prominent, “guiding” role held by the presentation’s visual complement itself and even mention a distinct
software product for this purpose, stating that “most […] presentations take the form of a speaker lecturing
while guided by the accompanying display of pre–composed presentation slides such as Microsoft Power-
Point”.
Chen & Heng’s definition clearly articulates the general understanding of “presentation software” as practi-
cally exclusively serving the visual complement purpose in the form of large–scale, parallel projection (hence,
2 3 4
referred to in the following as “slides”, “visual aids”, or simply “visuals” ). Consequently, the software is
5
nowadays unanimously considered legitimate successor of previously applied tools such as overheads, or
6
flip–charts.
Not surprisingly, albeit in recognition of the speaker–centred presentation scenario laid out above, a large
7
number of publications point to an attentional shift from the actual, oral discourse (“the talk” itself) to-
wards the presentation’s visual – and, in respect to the computer science perspective we shall take within the
8
scope of this thesis, notably digital – presentation complement: Representatively, Dieberger et al.’s (2001)
definition noticeably reveals this reversed role allocation by lapidarily stating that “an audience experiences a
‘presentation’ as a linear series of slides with accompanying narrative” (p. 137).
1.1.4 Presentation Software and Format Perspective

Particularly due to the advent of generally accessible presentation software in the 1990s (cf. Iedema et al.
2003, p. 771) and in particular considering the commercial success of Microsoft’s PowerPoint product
9
thanks to the company’s “Office” suite strategy, a significant number of writers contend to observe an in-
10
creasingly “dominating” role held by the previously negligible supplement: While Bly (2003), amongst
11
others, quite carefully acknowledges visual aids to simply have become “standard” in business and technical
12
presentations (p. 87), other contributors such as Ganzel (2000), Tufte (2003a,b), and Ramalingam (2004)
assert that “instead of being a visual tool used to illustrate certain elements in a presentation, the slides have
become the whole presentation” (p.8)
The slide show, once peripheral to a presentation, has become its center, even its reason for being.
(Ganzel 2000, p. 55)
1
see also Thiele 2001: “Der Mensch steht im Mittelpunkt.” (p.172)
2
“We use the word ‘slides’ to mean not just overheads, but also the richer presentation graphics” (Gemell and Bell 1997, p. 81)
3
see Hill 1991, p. 218, Foxon 1992, p. 48, Aubuchon 1997, p. 45, Bennett et al. 1998, p. 24, Ganzel 2000, p. 55, Simons et al. 2000, p.
41, Kaminski 2002, Burch 2003, p. 94, Bly 2003, p. 94, Baecker 2003, p. 19, Bray 2004, p. 19, Flintoff 2002, p. 13, Fisher 2004, p. 54
4
cf. Sloboda 2003, p. 21, Goldstein 2003, p. 20, Bly 2003, p. 87
5
“When PowerPoint replaced traditional slides and overhead transparencies in the 1990s…” (cf. Iedema et al. 2003, p. 771) – see also
Hill 1991, p. 218, Zongker/Salesin 2003, p. 298, Ramalingam 2004, p. 8
6
Flip charts: “the precursor to today's PowerPoint presentation” (Schonfeld 2004, p. 101) – see also: Rabinovich 2003, p. 14, Zielinski
2003b, p. 52
7
cf. Gemell and Bell 1997, p. 81
8
cf. Kornblith/Lasser 2003, p. 1456, as well as Moore 2003, p. 29
9
see Parker 2001, p. 80, Laberis 2003, p.10, Mendelson 2004, p. 130, and Kwatinetz 2001, pp. 96–98
10
Tufte 2003, p. 118
11
Rabinovitch 2003, p. 14
12
“Rather than supplementing a presentation, it has become a substitute for it.” (Tufte 2003b, p. 118)
1.1.4.1 Software Critique

While these unanimous findings as regards the steadily increasing importance of digital, visual aids particu-
1
larly due to the wide–spread use of PowerPoint (Maney 1999, p. B3) come as little of a surprise, the general
consequences on quality and appearance of the overall presentation setting as defined above remain a con-
troversially discussed subject among the business and scientific community: As Cyphert (2004) notes, par-
ticularly visual complements connected to the PowerPoint presentation software have been “denounced by
academics and by CEOs as intellectual reductionism.” (p. 80)
Nevertheless, beyond the frequently reiterated assertions as to the (supposed) “detriment of dialogue, inter-
2 3
action, and thoughtful consideration of ideas”, University of Northern Iowa researcher Cyphert goes on to
state that particularly in terms of the software’s impact on the actual rhetorical and ‘presentation’ scenario as
drafted above, “it seems obvious that PowerPoint is not a particularly good tool for creating visual aids to
classical forms of verbal communication”:
[The requirement] to create and use electronically generated “visual aids” seems to result in […] things
speakers should never do with projection equipment: They speak in the dark, turn their backs to the audi-
ence, and read the handouts, which are projected at full size and in full colour but are nothing more than
an outline of the speech.
(Cyphert 2004, p. 83)
Thus, despite visual aids’ apparently clear and well–defined task – to represent an actual “aid” to the pres-
entation itself and, respectively, to “strengthen the speech” (Angell 2004, p. 156) – scholars have been dis-
agreeing on which visual strategies actually prove effective in terms of its aforementioned, supporting role,
and consequently, whether current presentation software would “do a good job” (Dieberger et al. 2001, p.
138) to that effect.
While various writers have supported the moral (McMillan/Hyde 2000), strategic (Cyphert, 2004), and
4
theoretical (Frobish 2000) importance of addressing presentation software, the actual functionality, or mo-
5
dus operandi of the “slideware” tool itself turns out not to be the focal point that fuels the ongoing critique
voiced throughout this discussion, but rather the quite similarly shaped results for which the critics have
been holding an assumed, underlying (or “implied”) design principle, as well as the software itself, directly
or at least indirectly responsible.
1.1.4.2 Characteristic Paradigm: The Bullet Point Format

6
In particular, the generic “bullet point”, or “dot point” format (Iedema et al. 2003, p. 771) has been identi-
7 8
fied as “probably the most predominant, characteristic trait” of computer–generated visual aids. More spe-
cifically, GUI and usage principle of Microsoft’s PowerPoint application have been directly linked to this
9
distinctive, visual style (Naughton 2003a, p. 6). Thus, while in acknowledgement of bullet–point applica
1
cf. Norvig 2003b, p. 343
2
see Cyphert 2004, p. 80, Nunberg 1999, p. 330, Keller 2003, p. 8
3
cf. Cyphert 2004
4
ibid, p. 82
5
The word “slideware” was first shaped by Tufte (2003b, p. 118) and Ramalingam (2004, p. 8)
6
Maulitz 2003, pp. 927, 929
7
cf. Tufte 2003b, p. 118
8
“These initial ideas are invariably couched in words in ‘dot point’ format.” (Iedema et al. 2003, p. 771)
9
“One simply types words and the program organises them into ‘bullet points’…” (Naughton 2003a, p. 6) – see also Atkinson/Mayer
2004: “Most PowerPoint presentations look a particular way because the PowerPoint tool has features that make particular tasks easy. […]
PowerPoint makes it easy to use bulleted lists, so we use bulleted lists” (p. 5)
1 2
tion “years before today’s slideware”, the format is believed to have “become ubiquitous under Power-
Point.” (Tufte 2003a, p. 11)
3
However, despite the apparent predominance of the aforementioned “bulleted–list” format, its wide–spread
4
application appears “by no means obvious” to a number of writers:
It may be surprising that PowerPoint has been so widely adopted in a short 17 years, but it is even more
surprising that there is little research that informs its use. This research vacuum has been filled by conven-
tional wisdom – commonly accepted beliefs that guide behaviour.
(Atkinson and Mayer, p. 2)
5
Not surprisingly, scholars in visual communication assert the familiar bullet–point list in particular to apply
“varieties of written, verbal and visual communications in ways that simply don’t work” (Cook 2003, p. 25).
6 7
Besides the mere aesthetic aspect, its distinctive “intellectual propositions” have been analysed to “rarely
8
serve the overall presentation – or the audience – very well”.
1.1.4.3 Challenged Communicative Effectiveness

More importantly, however, the abovementioned features have been found to “contradict current research
9
in cognitive science”: Recent studies, particularly in the field of cognitive psychology, conclude that the
10 11
conventional, prose–focused “text–on–screen” approach “does not seem to work so well”, since bulleted
slides are generally found to be rather poorly suited for learning (Atkinson / Mayer 2004), “hard to remem-
12 13
ber”, and hardly effective in terms of persuasion as in comparison to alternative means of visual rhetoric,
14
such as “visual storytelling”, or purely image–based approaches (Gould 2003, Terberg 2004)
In light of the discussion outlined above, a critical analysis of the current and possible tasks as well as contri-
butions of various computer applications generally termed as “presentation software” appears reasonable.
Furthermore, from a computer science point of view, the question in which ways a possible software prod-
uct might be suited to effectively enhance a presentation scenario as defined above represents another central
question within the scope of this paper.
1.2 Hypothesis
Much of the research to be discussed within this work is equally directed at providing scientific evidence to
an approach of primarily “visualistic” presentation support. Inspired by Don Norman’s assumption of text as
1
Tufte 2003b, p. 118
2
Tufte 2003a, p. 11
3
cf. Zongker / Salesin 2003, p. 303
4
Cook 2003, p. 25
5
cf. Shaw et al. 1998, p. 41
6
For a corresponding discussion, see Voswinckel 2003, pp. 26–28.
7
cf. Shaw et al. 1998
8
Endicott 2002b, p. 20
9
cf. Atkinson / Mayer, p. 5
10
cf. Maulitz 2003, p. 929, Simons 2004, p. 30
11
Mayer / Moreno 1998, Mayer 2001, p. 23
12
“Cognitive psychologists have established that lists, in contrast, are remarkably hard to remember because of what is referred to as the re-
cency and primacy effects…” (Shaw et al. 1998, p. 50)
See also: “Long flat lists are hard to remember”… in: Ragget et al. 1997, Chapt. 17.3.3
13
cf. Cyphert 2004, Hill 2002, 2003, Hill/Helmers 2004
14
cf. Walters et al. 1999, Turnley et al. 2002, Gershon & Page 2001
1
“the last thing people should put on a PowerPoint slide”, a number of cognitive science–related theories
such as mental imagery and picture superiority effects will be discussed in order to put forward a conceptive
2
alternative directed towards visual imagery approaches: An understanding of pictorial methodology as being
3 4
more optimally suited as a means of effective communications in terms of cognition, learning, and persua-
5
sion, than the aforementioned, text–and bullet–centric slide paradigms.
1.3 Structure
Initially, however, based on the range of available aims or purposes to be outlined within the limits of the
scenario outlined above, a specific presentational focus, or aim (“persuasion”) will be defined and deter-
mined within the first chapter, in order to direct and classify the forthcoming research.
Furthermore, in chapter II the development of the aforementioned, characteristic “bullet point” format will
be more thoroughly investigated and evaluated towards the end of this chapter.
Consequently, in chapter III, I will attempt to verify the common hypothesis as to the “responsibility”, or
6
guidance function of the software product itself in respect to aesthetics and an assumed, general design
principle to be observed with its results. Besides a careful review of published critique and research on the
matter, a methodological GUI analysis approach will be applied in order to determine the degree of “guid-
ance” towards specific, characteristic traits.
Chapter IV is clearly to occupy a key fraction within the scope of this work, as many of its theoretical con-
cepts and foundations are outlined and discussed. In order to approach a scientifically valid and coherent
model towards the discussion of an alternative approach to presentation software, a number of appropriate
7
theories and studies will be proposed and underpinned with further research from cognitive science.
In Chapter V, the theoretic framework is then to be argumentatively applied to an actual, conceptual design
approach. Based on the findings provided in the previous chapter, an alternative concept would have to pro-
vide an answer to the question: “How might a visualization strategy work more effectively in terms of the
previously established criteria [persuasion, see Chapter I]?”
Finally, the results from the preceding discussions will be summed up and critically reviewed. Besides pro-
viding a first conclusion, possible ongoing development and future research will equally find appropriate
room for discussion.
1.4 Methodology
Despite this basically representing a computer science thesis, for an application of models and assumptions on
cognition and persuasion, as well as in terms of a knowledgeable critique and evaluation of current presen-
tation software principles, much of the material and research to be presented within this paper emanates
largely from areas of cognitive science and psychology.
1
cited in Simons 2004, p. 30
2
cf. Tegarden 1999, p. 10
3
Najjar 1995, Kosslyn 1980
4
cf. Mayer 2001, Douville et al. 2002
5
acc. to Goosens 2003
6
see, for instance, Godin’s (2001) assertion that “much of the fault lies with Microsoft.” (p. 3)
7
e.g. Mental Imagery, Dual Coding, Visual Persuasion, and Picture Superiority Effects (see Chapter IV)
Therefore, I would like to specifically thank the Organizational Psychology faculty staff with the Tec-
nológico de Monterrey here at its Mexico City campus for their support and guidance in terms of compre-
hension, evaluation and application of the available research to presentation software’s “natural” computer
science environment.
Furthermore, starting from the previously cited computer science perspective we shall take throughout this
work, when attempting to provide answers to the question in what way computer software might be suited
to effectively (in ways to be defined towards the end of this chapter) assist the abovedefined presentation
1
scenario, we shall refer to multimedia “projected onto a screen” (Hexel et al. 2004, p. 49) in this given con-
text and equally within the limits of this thesis.
2 3
Thus, supplementary applications as to providing speech transcripts, assistance in slide advancement, si-
4 5
multaneous feedback and discussions, or even “narrative flow support” may find occasional mention, but
will clearly not represent the focus of this paper.
1.5 Presentational Purposes

Clearly, prior to the analysis of current and possible alternative means for presentation–accompanying,
digital visualisations, a distinctive set or category of aims and purposes within the context of our rather ge-
neric “presentation” environment will have to be identified in order to be able to make any qualified judge-
ment on the means of communication under examination.
Thus, the nature and appearance of any arbitrary presentation is ultimately determined not merely by its
6
content (“What the speaker wants to say”), but equally through a number of associated intentions and goals
that every presenter inevitably attaches to the desired outcome, or effect, of his speech:
Are you informing, trying to change opinions or beliefs, strengthening or reinforcing existing opinions or
provoking reactions?
(Bennett et al. 1998, p. 16)
Quite naturally, since the general environment, context, and circumstances, as well as, self–evidently, the
content and message of each presentation differ from case to case, so do its characteristics.
1.5.1 Dialogue
Due to the fact that many presentations are held in communication with (possible) customers or clients, the
claim maintained by a considerable number of relevant publications as to the importance of establishing per-
7 8 9 10
sonal relationships, involvement, and even “passion” or “intimacy” amongst and towards the audience
1
See also Campbell / Pargas 2003, p. 100, Mayer 2001, p. 2, and Cyphert 2001, p. 81, for a definition of this setting: “material that is be-
ing projected, slide by slide, onto a large screen at the front of the room…” (Jaffa 2004, p. 50)
2
See, for instance, He et al. 2000, or Erol, Hull and Lee 2003
3
cf. Franlin, Bradshaw and Hammond 2000
4
cf. Davison and Briggs 2000
5
cf. Dieberger et al. 2001
6
Russell 1992, p. 62
7
Highley 2003, p. 8, Mitchell 2003, p. 54, Beckwith 2003, p. 125
8
cf. Brabazon, p. 121
9
Goldstein 2003, p. 20 – Keeler 2004: “People want passion.” (p. 6)
10
cf. Sochaczewski 2001, pp. 37f, Levine 2004, p. 65
appears little surprising, since the core of business discourse has previously been defined as “an integrated
1
process of ‘sensemaking’ discussion” (Weick, 1979).
Moreover, particularly small–scale meetings and presentations of rather informal nature not solely serve to
2
unidirectionally present, but to equally “reason about, communicate”, and jointly solve different problems
(Tegarden 1999, p. 9)
3
However, many of these above–discussed claims stem from authors’ assertions as regards dialogue and dis-
cussion within such a presentation environment:
That’s because, at this rarefied level, your talk isn’t so much a presentation as a discussion.
(Fisher 2004, p. 56)
1.5.1.1 Dialogue and Discussion: The Software Perspective

As much as this appears reasonable, and even in agreement to the assertion that an “oral presentation and
4
cannot be considered complete without the oral discussion”, the aforementioned dialogue aspect as part of
an oral presentation appears somewhat complex to be implemented as part of any software product: Due to
the computer science perspective we shall take within the scope of this thesis (which focuses on possible,
computer–aided solutions to given problems), a software product guiding, moderating or simply supporting
a live discussion in any way seems somewhat hardly imaginable, not lastly since pre–composed presentation
visuals quite statically determine a “clear narrative outline” (Iedema et al. 2003, p. 771) of the content, al-
lowing rather little space for potential flexibility in terms of discussion or dialogue.
Consequently, the number of available software solutions and concept publications has remained quite lim-
5
ited until the current date. The SketchPoint system, developed towards “informal presentations that aim at
fast and lightweight idea communication” (Li et al. 2003, p. 235) and Davison and Briggs’ (2000) “Group
Support System for Presentations” are among the few exceptions approaching computer–aided support for
real–time debate within the abovedefined presentation scenario. In general, however, assistance and par-
ticularly acceptance of corresponding software solutions must be described as rather unsatisfactory whenever
it comes to dialogue support (Bly 2001, Kaminski 2002).
6
Worse still, much of the critique on current presentation software cites the systems’ static nature as the
7
main cause that has its use appear “far less appropriate” in terms of dialogue assistance than conventional,
informal and notably not digitally supported “point–by–point discussions among individuals” (Creahan &
Hoge 2000, p. 264).
1.5.1.2 PowerPoint as an Impediment to Presentational Discussion?

8
One of the “biggest criticisms” particularly directed at Microsoft’s PowerPoint product has specifically
9
maintained the observation “that it flattens the very discussion […] that makes a good presentation great.”
1
cited in Cyphert 2004, p. 83
2
Tufte 1990, p. 33
3
for a more in–depth discussion, see Wolff 2004, p. 25
4
NASA disclaimer, cited in Tufte 1997, p. 47
5
cf. Li et al. 2003
6
cf. Cane 2004, p. 12, Zongker / Salesin 2003, p. 298, Brunner et al. 1991, p. 90
”The static nature of conventional, computer–based presentation systems such as Powerpoint” (Cane 2004, p. 12)
7
cf. Creahan and Hoge 2000, p. 264
8
cf. Goldstein 2003, p. 20
9
see also Parker 2000
(Goldstein 2003, p. 20). “Academics and CEOs”, as Cyphert (2003) notes, have consequently denounced the
software due to its supposed “detriment of dialogue, interaction, and thoughtful consideration of ideas” (p.
81). Since the tool is considered “heavily scripted”, according to Kaminski (2002), “it does not lend itself to
spontaneous discussions in the classroom or boardroom.”
Not surprisingly, a number of scholars even uphold the transformation of the current, rather “passive” con-
1
cept of presentation (Bork 1992, Webster/Ho 1997), towards “a way of promoting discussion” (Shugart
2001, p. 85). However, in terms of the desired, dialogue–heavy presentation scenario mentioned above, the
aid of computer software, which would essentially represent our particular perspective of interest at this
point, suddenly appears somewhat superfluous under these circumstances:
The best presenters have conversations with their audiences – and you don’t need to have a computer run-
ning to have an effective conversation.
2
(Bly 2001, p. 52)
In light of this fairly unenthusiastic outlook on computer–based presentation support in terms of possible
3
assistance towards dialogue, or interaction with the audience, the discussion within this paper will conse-
quently have to concentrate on the more fundamental, key aspects of the abovedefined presentation setting,
namely the information and persuasion purposes.
1.5.2 Information Purpose

Clearly, a common assignment frequently associated with the abovedefined presentation setting is that of
4
“conveying [specific] information” to an audience. Similar to the dialogue quality discussed above, a pres-
entation is conceived as a characteristic event appropriate to “disseminate information, ideas, and views.”
5
(Shipman et al. 1997, p. 71) This view, supported by a considerable number of writers, interprets the con-
cept of a “presentation” in terms of its ability to transport a number of arbitrary ideas or pieces of informa-
tion towards its listeners.
Similarly, Faraday and Sutcliffe (1997) have identified knowledge on “whether the presentation will suc-
cessfully deliver information to an audience” as the fundamental design problem associated with the con-
6
ceptualization of multimedia presentations, while Kellaway (2004) simply treats the general notion of
“business presentation” as virtually synonymical to “sharing information” (p. 10).
1.5.2.1 Data Presentation

The abovementioned perception sees itself equally reflected in the notion of a speech scenario as “data pres-
7
entation” (Molyneux 2003, Few 2004c), which more specifically focuses on the delivery of business figures,
statistical data and numerical information. With the advent of computer–generated business graphics
8
(Brown 1984, Schaller 1990), the latter characteristically assuming the shape not merely of tabular data, but
1
“Most presentations are dominated by lecturing, and lecturing results in passive listeners. Even the presence of the computer has done lit-
tle to change this as presentation software often is used as a fancy page–turner.” (Webster / Ho 1997, p. 63)
2
see also Bray 2004, p. 19
3
ibid.
4
cf. Brabazon 2002, p. 17
55
see, for instance, Zielinskin 2003b, p. 52, Weitzman / Wittenburg 1994, p. 443
6
cf. Faraday and Sutcliffe 1997, p. 272
7
see also Ramalingam 2004: “Data–driven presentations are nothing new…” (p. 8)
8
Rao and Card 1994, Tufte 1983, p. 178
1 2
more recently graphical charts and viewgraphs. Nonetheless, the very approach to data visualization typi-
cally applied by common business software has prompted substantial criticism as to its supposed, “incoher-
3 4
ent” implementation, resulting in presumably “complicated”, “corrupted” graphs more prominently
5
termed by Tufte (1990) as “chart junk”. Moreover, researchers have, until the current date, not been able to
6
provide consistent evidence substantiating a previously supposed, innate advantage of graphical chart visu-
7
alizations over their tabular equivalent.
8
More interestingly though in terms of software critique, writers have constantly been holding the “overly”
accessible, automated design principle of popular, commercial office tools responsible for current business
9
graphics’ qualitative deficiencies :
“Do it yourself” software has lured us into the false hope that we need only install and make technology
available for use and the rest will take care of itself. Producing information through the use of a computer
often gives the results an air of authenticity that they don't deserve.
(Few 2004b, p. 22)
Nonetheless, as the discussion surrounding the topic of pure data presentation as outlined above represents a
rather complex subject by itself (cf. Few 2004a,c), the issue cannot be covered sufficiently within the scope
10
of this thesis, as we shall more generally address the wider question of software–aided, visual presentation
enhancement in this paper. Furthermore, since the above-
mentioned debate on data visualization reaches back into the
early 70s when “the graphical displays […] had to be labori-
ously hand created” (Myers et al. 1988, p. 192), the issue
presents itself as doubtlessly associated (see above), yet not
directly or even intrinsically linked to computer sciences.
Thus, while the aspect of data visualization certainly repre-
sents an interesting side issue to presentation visuals and con-
sequently deserves at least peripheral discussion, we shall in
the following rather concentrate on software–focused as- Fig. 1.1: Traditional Data Presentation (exc. from Few,
pects of visual communication. 2004b): “3D graphics for Business Intelligence: Is the data
presentation easier —or harder— to understand?” (p. 21)
1.5.2.2 Software Perspective

In close association with the very software perspective cited above (and returning to the general debate on
information delivery as a central task within an arbitrary presentation scenario), the mention of particularly
Microsoft’s PowerPoint tool comes to the fore, since a number of scholars have tightly linked the product to
specifically informative purposes: as Iedema et al. (2003) note, the software “enabled many of us to provide
information more accessibly within a clear narrative outline” (p. 771).
1
cf. Tufte 1983
2
Campbell 2002, p. 1999
3
Tufte 2003, p. 118
4
“Diagrams ‘help’, with lightning connections and complicated charts on where the data goes on its way to bed.” (Samson 2003, p. 1)
5
Tufte 1990, p. 33
6
cf. Brown 1984
7
cf. Ives 1982, deSanctis 1984, Tufte 1983, p. 178
”The failure to demonstrate a clear advantage for graphics suggests that the extravagant claims favouring graphic presentation formats may
be considerably overstated.” (Jarvenpaa / Dickson 1988, p. 764)
8
Few 2004b, p. 22
9
cf. Few 2004c
10
cf. Tufte 1983, 1990
The authors more specifically address the aforementioned “narrative outline” by defining a presentation’s
1
ideas as “invariably couched in words in ‘dot point’ format”, thus alluding to a clear focus on “textual con-
tent of the PowerPoint slides” (James / Hunter 2000, p. 146), which equally framed in terms of the “bullet–
2 3
pointed”, or “text–on–screen” design principle.
In correlation with this very concept, Zielinski (2003b) defines the “efficient transfer of information [as the]
highest and best purpose” of the PowerPoint software, praising its ability to “communicate complex con-
cepts in ways that are easier to understand and more compelling than transparencies, flip charts or other
similar media” (p. S2).
1.5.2.3 Lecturing
More exclusively referring to the software’s increased use as an information delivery tool in higher educa-
tion, Brabazon (2002) points out that “PowerPoint is framed as an effective way to convey information in
lectures” (p. 17). Similarly, a vast majority of academics generally agrees on the software’s current – and fu-
4
ture – “important role in the lecture hall” (Rogers et al. 2003, p. 308). Doubtlessly, as Branzburg (2004)
notes, “presentation software has found a hallowed place on many an educator's desktop.” (p. 9).
Nonetheless, what is now simply termed “PowerPoint Pedagogy” (Mahin 2004) essentially comprises a
number of further aspects: Not solely are academic and school classes increasingly held in PowerPoint (Lage
5 6
et al. 2000), posted on the web as lecture notes, or converted into “PowerPoint show–and–tells” for assign-
7
ment display by “virtually all students” (Petroski 2004, p. 22); the bulleted PowerPoint schema is equally
replacing conventional science papers and journal articles for communication amongst researchers, increas-
ingly positioning itself as “the lingua franca of science” (LaPorte et al. 2002, p. 1479).
1.5.2.4 Presentation Software’s Challenged Educational Applicability

However, although the appropriation of originally business–originated presentation software through edu-
cational and academic environments bears ample substance for profound discussion, it cannot be covered to
its full extent within this thesis, not leastly since the various aspects involved (such as learning theories,
pedagogy, student interaction, and long–term memorization) would go far beyond the scope of this work.
Nonetheless, a number of corresponding concerns towards the educational use of PowerPoint (cf. Hlynka et
al. 1998, Brabazon 2002, McKenzie 2003, Turkle 2004) will find sufficient room for discussion within the
third chapter.
Refocusing our attention to the initial presentation scenario and purpose as defined at the beginning of this
chapter, it becomes clear that the “classic business presentation”, we shall concentrate on within this thesis,
as well as its digital, (visual) complement, equally targets a different rationale beyond the abovementioned,
mere conveyance of information, or lecturing purpose:
1
Iedema et al. 2003, p. 771
2
Cliff Atkinson, cited in Simons 2004, p. 30
3
cf. Maulitz 2003, p. 929, Simons 2004, p. 30
4
cf. Borne 2003
5
cf. Pathak 2001, Haq / Dacre 2003, p. 368, Brabazon 2002, p. 16, Klein 2002, p. 1421, Agnew 2002, p. 1323
“There are four million PowerPoint lectures on the web, and the number is increasing logarithmically” (LaPorte et al. 2002, p. 1479)
6
Carter / Lorsch 2003, p. 142
7
Petroski 2004, Borne 2003, McKenzie 2003
PowerPoint is not synonymous with presenting or teaching, with visual aids or even with a computer pro-
jector. An effective presenter must be familiar with, as Aristotle put it 2500 years ago, “all the available
means of persuasion.”
1
(Kaminski 2002)
1.5.3 Persuasion Purpose

Clearly, the previously quite business–focused presentation scenario targeted within this thesis virtually pre-
2
determines the certain necessity – and, doubtlessly, difficulty – to “make an impact” on the audience: the
ability to persuade, convince, and influence a given audience, or colloquially: “getting [someone] to agree to
[your] requests.” (Cialdini 2001a, p. 76)
1.5.3.1 Rhetoric and Persuasion Science

3
Despite this phenomenon’s initial appearance as an intangible capability of “a handful of gifted naturals”,
4
in recent years, social psychology has been able to identify select aspects of what is now termed “persuasion
5 6
science”. In addition, the study of rhetoric has provided “over 5,000 years” (Heimes 1998b, p. 162) of
rather practical knowledge on particularly linguistically shaped, social influence. (Peterson 2001, p. 19)
Nonetheless, while the social, and oral aspect of rhetoric has been extensively investigated on in terms of
“language, specifically written or spoken texts, their embodied delivery, and their implications for persuad-
7
ing particular audiences in particular places at particular times”, the accompanying visual component we
want to concentrate on within this thesis, as well as corresponding theories of so–called “visual rhetorics”
have been left, for the most part, to theorists and critics of art, film, and television who have developed so-
phisticated vocabularies of description and aesthetics as a way to account for their effects (e.g. Metallinos
8
1996, Zettl 1999).
Due to the lack of an equivalent theory in terms of presentation graphics, researchers have, until now,
mostly focused on investigations regarding the persuasive effectiveness of the abovementioned conventional,
9
computerized “bullet slides” (Bell 2004), as well as on the corresponding software products themselves.
1.5.3.2 Presentation Software’s Persuasiveness Claim

The latter, in turn, have traditionally targeted the above defined aim of audience persuasiveness: Few surpris-
ingly, one of the first —and previously most successful— presentation programs has aptly been entitled
10 11
“[Aldus] Persuasion”. Still, with the present, overwhelming dominance of Microsoft’s Office product,
1
Equally cited Thomas 1998 (p. 21), Winn & Beck, 2002, p. 22: Aristotle (1999) defined rhetoric as “the ability, in each particular case,
to see the available means of persuasion” (pp. 36–37)
2
“Anyone who has faced presenting budget figures or complex concepts to an audience knows how hard it can be to make an impact”
(Strasser 1996, p. 78)
3
Cialdini 2001b, p. 72
4
“Social psychology has determined the basic principles…” (Cialdini 2001a, p. 76)
5
Heimes 1998a, p. 98
6
Actually, as Kaminski (2002) and Thompson (1999) point out, it is actually just half that, since Sorates, Aristotle, and Plato’s working
period is dated back roughly 2500 ago.
7
Peterson 2001, p. 19
8
equally cited in: ibid.
9
Martin 1996, p. 13
10
Shipman et al. 1997, p. 71
11
Tufte 2003b, p. 118
1
various writers have commented on a supposed, “persuasive influence of the PowerPoint presentation”, the
2
“art of persuasion, by PowerPoint”, or simply “those fancy persuasive PowerPoint presentations that mar-
keting gurus, MBAs, management consultants and economists seem to do so well.” (Hermoso 2003, p. 27)
Analogous to the assertion upheld in respect the presumed effectiveness of graphical data presentation (see
3
above), particularly PowerPoint–generated presentation visuals are thus quite generally attributed an im-
4
palpable “influence [on] how decisions are made” (Meilach 1986).
However, while business graphics’ superiority claims in terms of decision–making effectiveness and persua-
5
sion —while possibly “overstated” — have been footed on a clear, statistical rationale of scientific visualiza-
6 7
tion, the persuasive effectiveness of characteristically “bulleted” presentation visuals’ has not been estab-
lished methodologically yet.
1.5.3.2.1 Available Persuasion Studies on Presentation Software

8
Thus, the first notably scientific studies frequently cited to prove an “increased persuasiveness” through
presentation visual usage, more prominently termed the UM/3M and Wharton School studies (Oppenheim
9
et al. 1981, Vogel et al. 1986) —though providing quite convincing figures — have been, as Kaminski
(2002) notes, “exclusively conducted in the early eighties,” and merely examined the effects of the use of
10
conventional overhead transparencies. However, “today, a presentation with PowerPoint is not necessarily
11
more persuasive”.
In order to maintain the aforementioned persuasiveness claim equally in respect to PowerPoint–created

presentation slides, two further studies (Simons et al. 2000, Guadagno et al. 2003) were consequently con-
ducted towards the end of the 1990s, quite readily confirming the purportedly strong persuasive “power of
12
PowerPoint”.
1.5.3.2.2 Questionable Methodology

Nonetheless, in both of the last–mentioned investigations, an astounding lack of coherent methodology is
equally apparent as their rather narrow research horizon: While both studies casually omit an initial defini-
tion or further exemplification of the authors’ understanding of “persuasiveness” and not even cater or fur-
ther clarify the different views on the applied “influence” notion with their studies’ participants, the two
maintain a fairly self–assured conclusion, attributing an “increased persuasiveness of a speaker by 43%”
(Sloboda 2003, p. 20) to visually support presentations in respect to their conventionally delivered counter-
parts. “In the sales/persuasion scenario”, as Simons et al. (2000) note, the application of multimedia suppos-
edly proved “dramatically more effective” than traditional, non–digital presentation aids.
1
Wright 2003, p. 58
2
Weingarten 2003, p. A26
3
cf. Jarvenpaa et al. 1988
4
cited in Strasser 1996, p.
5
Jarvenpaa / Dickson 1988, p. 764
6
cf. Owen 1999, Tegarden 1999, Tufte 1983, 1990
7
Talisayon 2002, p. 17
8
Strasser 1996, p. 78, Bly 2003, p. 87
9
“A study [conducted] at the University of Minnesota found that visual support increased the persuasiveness of a speaker by 43%...” (Slo-
boda 2003, p. 20)
10
cf. Oppenheim et al. 1981
11
cf. Kaminski 2002
12
cf. Guadagno et al. 2003: “The Power of PowerPoint: The Impact of Technology and Expertise on the Evaluation of Information” (pa-
per title)
More importantly though, both studies quite evidently lack an at least consistent or somewhat traceable
methodology. The available descriptions of applied design principles possibly apparent with the experi-
ment’s slide samples leave as much to want for as theoretical groundings, or even a basic bibliography, sam-
ple or questionnaire appendices. Not surprisingly, the principal editor and author of the latter study
(Simons et al. 2000) quite straightforwardly described the implementation of the study as “quite a disaster
1
really”.
Moreover, both investigations merely received quite superficial mention in rather general–interest, journal-
istic publications (e.g. Parker 2001). However, neither of them has been scientifically published in any peer–
reviewed journal yet. Thus, in light to the aforementioned shortcomings apparent with currently available
studies on the persuasive effectiveness of visually accompanied business presentations, a more focused inves-
tigation on the persuasiveness of various design characteristics underlying current presentation visuals seems
appropriate at this point.
1.5.3.3 Persuasion as Presentations’ Underlying Key Aspect

As pointed out earlier within this chapter, the intentions of attracting and maintaining “the attention of [an]
2 3
audience”, and more importantly, of persuasively “communicating an idea or thought from the presenter
4 5
to the audience”, or simply “driving home your case” appear to be central to the general notion of “busi-
ness presentation” per se:
The key to an effective presentation is to always think of the audience as a client who must be persuaded.
(Inglis & Kozubska 1987, p. 3)
Computer software, as the digital counterpart of the aforementioned presentation aids, has consequently
been postulated to visually supporting this process:
If you use [presentation software] for the former task – as a persuasion tool to highlight major talking points
– then you’re using it to its best advantage.
(Zarowin 2004, p. 104)
6
Due to the relative scarcity of relevant studies in the field, as well as the obvious deficiencies of currently
available research as discussed above, I will try within the following chapters to outline supposedly “domi-
7
nating” visual design principles currently apparent to the graphical appearance of digital presentation slides,
8
their “social” influence as well as persuasive effectiveness in terms of cognitive science, and to present theo-
retic evidence from the fields of Mental Imagery in order to put forward a possible alternative.
1
Personal communication (phone interview) with Presentations editor Tad Simons, 11.08.2004
2
Gebhardt 2003, p. 5, Goldstein 2003, p. 20, Pease 2004, p. 18
3
cf. Burge 2003
4
Ramalingam 2004, p. 8
5
Ricucci 2004, p. 15
6
“Since independent research in this area is hard to come by…” (Simons 2000, p. 41)
7
Tufte 2003b, p. 118
8
see Chapt. IV
2 A Critical Review of the Bullet Point Format

2.1 Situation Analysis and Problem Definition
2.1.1 Technical and Graphical–Aesthetic Characteristics

Clearly, as perceptible within various of the aforementioned publications, digital presentation visuals’ cur-
rent “standard, [rather] out–of–the–box” characteristics (Abram 2004, p. 28) clearly shape not merely its
generally professed graphical appearance and consequently a certain visual style, but equally a distinct “cog-
1
nitive style” directly associated to current presentation software’s underling design principle.
However, before being able to describe possible impacts of the aforementioned phenomenon, we might ini-
tially want to outline the development and evolution of its underlying, visual characteristics and principles.
This evolution has proceeded, obviously, not merely on the technical level, where the development of pres-
entation–aids have in part shaped the proceedings business conferences, talks and meetings themselves, but
2
equally on an aesthetic and stylistic level. Clearly, these two parallel processes have always mutually influ-
enced and affected the other component respectively.
2.2 Presentational Evolution
2.2.1 From Show–and–Tell to PowerPoint

3
Prior to the large–scale introduction of non–digital and even non–technological approaches to presentation
aids, the “visual” component of a speech was merely represented by the physical performance (i.e. facial ex-
pression, gesture etc.) of the speaker himself (Chaney and Green 2002, 2004). However, the talk as is had
consequently been dominated by the oratory (and auditory) element of the speech itself, as a “visual compo-
nent” per se was somewhat unavailable. The notable exception was the (albeit limited) use of basic objects
for demonstration, clarification, or simply “visualization” purposes, such as Richard Feynman’s striking im-
promptu experiment before the Rogers Commission investigating 1986’s Challenger accident (Tufte 1997,
pp. 50ff) or the decomposition of the earth’s magnetic field in the film The Core, “dramatically illustrated
with an aerosol can, flame, and a peach” (Rovin 2003, p. 16).
Still, due to the lack of an appropriate medium, the idea of spontaneously sketching more abstract ideas in a
4
visual manner (preferably on 2D media) proposed itself as a fairly desirable feature. However, in light of the
currently apparent dependency on presentation software (Bell 2004), a number of scholars such as McDan-
5
iel and Kent (2004) review this rather “ancient” presentation scenario more affirmatively:
1
cf. Tufte 2003a („The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint“)
2
“PowerPoint does more than provide a way of transmitting content. It carries its own way of thinking, its own aesthetic…” (Turkle
2004, p. B.26), see also Khan 2001, p. 36 (“…to the point where the aesthetics seemed to matter more than the message”)
3
cf. Bennett et al. 2003, p. 119
4
Good 2002: “Perhaps because of the familiarity of traditional 2D media such as paper and chalkboards, there are innumerable software
systems that make use of 2D space for representing non–spatial information” (p.548)
5
Laberis 1996, p. 37
Before computers began generating images pulsating with color and graphics, before overhead projections
added multi–screen backdrops to presentations, there were simply speakers. Orators actually —people who
spoke passionately and effectively to their audiences.
(McDaniel & Kent 2004, p. 60)
Nonetheless, before long, the pedagogical and persuasive appeal of even “analog” (Pease 2004) presentation
visuals proved rather irresistible: Based on the notion of the aforementioned, “conventional” presentation
aids such as diagrams, flipcharts and handouts as “crucial to the learning of [Gardner’s] visuo–spatial intelli-
1
gence”, Mills (2000) cites an (unreferenced) study, after which an asserted 75 percent of information
2
“comes to us visually” (p. 159). Consequently, in terms of visual presentation aids, Mills simply maintains
3
that “when used well, all visuals enhance persuasion”, equally referring to the 3M study discussed above
(Vogel et al. 1986).
Despite the quite recent success which business–based presentation aids such as flip–charts or whiteboards
th
have met with only by the second half of the 20 century, its roots quite naturally originate a lot further
backwards: The invention of the flip chart, for instance, termed “the precursor to today's PowerPoint pres-
4
entation”, has been credited to then NCR CEO John H. Patterson as early as 1884. Stunningly, prior to its
invention, or even wide–spread implementation (which was not to occur before 50 years onward), an area
which today proves immensely fruitful and moreover closely entangled with the presentation setting as de-
fined above had been ignored by corporate and business application for a considerable amount of time: The
academic, or educational sector, and with the latter, “the good old blackboard” (Hogan 2003, p. 66):
Visual presentations have played an important part in business and academia for decades, if not centuries.
One of the most primitive presentation technologies, the chalkboard, is still widely used.
(Zuckerman 1999, p. 9)
2.2.2 Chalk and Talk

Not surprisingly, the probably first true “lecture aid” found its application in schools and universities even
th 5
prior to the 18 century and has since been used steadily and quite extensively until the present day, despite
continuing efforts to introduce the long hyped “electronic blackboard” (Hoffer 1988, Watson, 1998) and
PowerPoint–based lecture delivery (Brabazon 2002, Wright 2003, Turkle 2004). Even though obviously
6 7
lacking PowerPoint’s current multimedia “sophistication” or even “richer presentation graphics”, a number
of scholars point to various advantages purportedly innate to the blackboard’s apparently "low–tech [and]
8
old–fashioned” approach to lecturing, consequently termed chalk and talk:
The expression “chalk and talk” is often used disparagingly about non–technological approaches to educa-
tion, and yet also articulates a well–used pedagogical method.
(Bennett et al. 2003, p. 119)
While Rubin and Harris (1998) refer to the “higher level of integration across the material” and superior
student involvement (p. 125), Gleicher et al. (2002) point out that “chalkboard lectures offer an element of
1
cf. Gardner 1988, p. 24
2
Mills: “Visuals come in many forms and include slides, overheads, audiotapes, flipcharts, props, product samples, and brochures” (p.
159)
3
ibid.
4
Schonfeld 2004, p. 101
5
cf. Anderson 1961, Richardson 1917, p. 25 (cited in Rickey, “History and Use of the Blackboard”)
6
cf. Rabinovitch 2003, p. 14
7
Gemmell / Bell 1997, p. 81
8
Rubin / Harris 1998, p. 125
complexity that is not found in PowerPoint or slide lectures” (p. 10). Equally, Stanford’s Michael Kirst
1
claims the very technology–centric approach of educational technology integration as one of the main rea-
2
sons for the somewhat absent enthusiasm perceived with the introduction of electronic lecture aids beyond
the conventional blackboard: “The [old] type of teaching is established and works well.” (Marcom and Bel-
lew 1985, p. 1)
2.2.3 Business Tools

Beyond the boundaries of academia, however, the evolutionary progress of various presentation aids has tra-
ditionally been rather warmly and quickly appreciated. Despite corporate America’s initial hesitation to use
the somewhat bulky blackboard (deemed rather unenthusiastically on account of its educational image) for
visual presentation support in business settings, the industry rapidly adopted more lightweight presentation
tools such as the aforementioned flip–chart, acetate tablets, or photographic projection slide carrousels. An
3
accessory to prove particularly successful was, doubtlessly, the “informal”, and therefore vastly implemented
4
OHP:
[Managers] were jumping up and down over the invention of the overhead projector – Now there was the
greatest thing since sliced bread!
(Noack 1999, p. 6)
5
Invented in the early thirties and thus a “relatively old technology”, the emblematic OHP projectors re-
6
mained a celebrated business item, ostensibly representing “the most technologically advanced presentation
th 7
tool available” far until the second half of the 20 century. Besides enabling business speakers to quickly
display photocopied presentation material, the (abovementioned) business graphics, or even rather short–
handed, “hand–drawn plastic foils” for rapid idea communication, the overhead projector principally pro-
vided one predominant, very convincing aspect: convenience.
2.2.4 Production process and aesthetics

Where previously, presenters had to elaborately prepare and create presentation material relying on the ser-
8
vices of professional graphic departments or design bureaus (Jaffe 2000), with overhead projectors enabling
9
them to display transparencies prepared in advance or even sketched on in real–time, now virtually “any
10
type” of content could be displayed as a visual presentation complement.
2.2.4.1 Technological Restrictions shape Characteristic Text Focus

11
However, as the creation of more “sophisticated” or professional–looking visuals represented an insur-
mountable challenge to many ordinary, in the majority of cases “insufficiently” design–proficient business
1
“The technology–centric approach generally fails to lead to lasting improvements…” (Cuban 1986, cited in Mayer 2001, p. 8)
2
Marcom / Bellew 1985: “Enthusiasm is abundant” (p. 1)
3
Condon 1995, p. 31
4
OHP as the typcial acronym for „Overhead Projector“, cf. Murphy 1997, p. 12
5
Volsteedt 2001, p. 37
6
Burke 2003: “I celebrate the overhead projector…” (p. 58)
7
cf. Johnson 1994: “In 1969, the most technologically advanced presentation tool was the overhead projector.” (p. 31)
8
p. A.1, see also Parker 2001, p. 85
9
Wankat / Oreovicz 2003: “Transparencies prepared in advance […] will be neater, but they contribute to that dreaded ‘canned’ feeling
and usually make presentations go much too fast.” (p. 40)
10
“Now anything on a sheet of paper could be transferred to an overhead slide” (Parker 2001, p. 85)
11
cf. Peterson 2001, Rabinovich 2003, p. 14; see also Gemmell / Bell 1997 (“richer presentation graphics”, p. 81)
1
people (Pirner 2001, Kaminski 2002), the decision scope as regards which graphical contents specifically to
put on the slides represented itself as somewhat limited: Since the output of conventional business equip-
ment (such as typewriters or index machines) and early computing devices had traditionally been restricted
2
to text, the archetypal appearance of presentation slides was, naturally, to be characterized by textual bullet
lists or even entire paragraphs as the preferred, logical choice (cf. Parker 2001, p. 78).
Computers have not traditionally been very skilled in the art of presentation… it appeared hard just to get
the machine to move beyond simply displaying characters. Moreover, [computers] didn’t tackle the more
significant problem of translating digital information into a visual language.
(Johnson 1997, p. 7)
Clearly, IT’s text–centric view represents by no means an inexpected, or in any way surprising concept: As
Geisler et al. (2001) point out, this emphatic practice has always staid firmly rooted in a large variety of dis-
ciplines, since “texts are deeply embedded in cultural, cognitive, and material arrangements that go back
3
thousands of years”:
The vast majority of people who use information technology (IT) every day use IT in text–centered interac-
tions.
(Geisler et al. 2001, pp. 260, 270)
2.2.5 Text Organization on Charts

In awareness of the abovementioned, rather obvious focus on textual content apparent in most business
4
presentation charts (Simons 2004b), the subsequent question as regards how this kind of content is usually
5
organized, structured, or “shaped” within these slides appears of particular interest at this point.
Obviously, beyond the mere spatial arrangement in terms of text layout, especially an inner, logical structure,
as well as summarization, or fragmentation techniques certainly occupy an important role within this context.
In turn, these concepts have visibly seen themselves subject to rather controversial discussion, not lastly since
“the tendency toward fragmentation in computer–mediated text has been both celebrated” (Baudrillard
6
1983), and “decried” (Bierkerts 1994).
Nonetheless, in order to find appropriate contributions to this issue, the following discussion is to slightly
depart from the purely technological view as taken above, since a number of resourceful observations in this
field obviously appear of rather “aesthetic” nature.
2.2.5.1 Continuous, paragraphed Text Flow

7
Clearly, as Mayer (2001) points out, the “traditional method” for presenting textual information typically
8
assumes the form of a continuously flowing paragraph. Nonetheless, since the latter characteristically takes a
1
Pirner 2001: “Presenters, especially those with little or no design background, oftentimes lack a sense of what's professional in appear-
ance”, Kaminski 2002: “Most people are not trained in design…”
2
Camp / Cogan 1988: “The tools include a word–processor with default settings for bullet charts and tables, a labeler for labeling any-
thing you can put on a slide” (p. 71)
Antonoff 1989: “PowerPoint has neither outlining nor chart– and graph–making capabilities.”
Colmes 2004: „Early on, I found that I could easily use a debug script for DOS to place text anywhere I wanted on the screen” (p. 100)
3
Geisler et al. 2001, p. 270
4
D. Paradi: “…peoples’ addiction to text” (cited in Simons 2004, p. 31)
5
“[…] A form of cultural mediation […] that shape a text …” (Mahon 2000, p. 473)
6
Geisler et al. 2001, p. 282
7
Mayer 2001, p. 23
8
cf. Grabowski et al. 1994, p. 119 (“Flow[ing] paragraph”)
rather uniform or rectangular shape lodging amorphous amounts of continuous, textual content, the entire
figure somewhat lacks a certain type of inner structure, or distinct organization, that might be suited to fa-
cilitate an appropriate reception, left alone memorization, of the content.
This difficulty obviously makes the paragraphed text shape a rather protracted presentation technique,
which, as Mayer goes on to argue, “does not seem to work so well” (p. 23). Similarly, Tufte (1983) has
deemed the abovementioned, “flowing” text mode (Powell et al. 2000, p. 151) as rather inappropriate for
information display:
The linearly organized flow of words […] offers less than one effective dimension for organizing the data.
(Tufte 1983, p. 178)
However, although Tufte does not fail to mention the application of “text tables” as an allegedly appropri-
1
ate, alternative technique for the organization textual content, the historic development of business docu-
ment layouts (where, clearly, “presentation visuals” are the aspect we’re most interested in within the scope
of this thesis) proved to yield a rather different form of “highlighting technique” (Sant 1992, p. 61):
2.3 Bullet Points

Then we learned about “bullets” – little black circles in front of phrases that were supposed to summarize
things.
2
(Feynman et al. 1988, p. 126)
2.3.1 Ubiquitous Feature

Obviously, besides presentation visuals’ obvious focus on text as discussed above, the “bullet point” meta-
phor has clearly emerged as an “ubiquitous feature” (Tufte 2003b, Ramalingam 2004) not merely to busi-
3 4 5
ness presentations, but in equal measure scientific talks, lectures, briefings, as well as countless additional
environments and circumstances.
Nonetheless, where the abovementioned text focus sees itself equally rooted in the underlying technology’s
6
computational development (computers, thus presentation aids, as “word processors”), the origins and ra-
tional innate to the bullet point format is not as easily traceable: Unlike the previously discussed business
th
graphics, which have been thoroughly researched and documented back into the 19 century (Tufte 1983,
7 8
pp. 32ff.), the wide–spread, “traditional” bullets have, oddly, never been investigated on. Until the current
day, their historic and aesthetic exact origins remain as much in the dark as the exact implications of their
apparently “epidemic use” (Flintoff 2002, p. 13).
1
cf. Tufte 1983, pp. 178–180
2
cited in Mamola 2004, p. 134
3
cf. Iedema et al. 2003, Haq / Dacre 2003, Coghill et al. 2003, Ficenec et al. 2003, p. 263
4
cf. Brabazon 2002, Wright 2003, Weingarten 2003
5
cf. Jaffe 2000
6
Zongker / Salesin 2003: “PowerPoint’s design as a word processor for slides…” (p. 306)
7
Labbert and Plaifair (cf. Tilling 1975, pp. 193ff.) as the “inventors of the bar chart” (Tufte 1983, p. 33); Minard (1869) as a central fig-
ure to the development of dense, complex graphics. (pp. 40ff.)
8
cf. Alben, Faris and Saddler 1994: “Dots […] were confused with traditional bullet points; not every step represented a distinct instruc-
tional point” (p. 15)
2.3.2 An Aesthetic Review of “Bulleting” Techniques

1
The oldest acknowledged mention of the typographic “bullet glyph” (Carlson and Kacmar, 1999) actually
reaches back only as far as to the late 1950s, when Exxon (then Standard Oil) manager A.F. Kaulanis was as-
2
serted to have “written bullet points into his company’s history in 1958”:
We came up with new formats including the extensive use of bullets to highlight key ideas…
(Poulsen 1982, p. 19)
Although a clear hint towards a broader implementation of the previously rather unknown graphic symbol
into business communications by this time, pragmatically viewed, Kaulanis could not possibly claim to have
invented the glyph from scratch, left alone the mere concept of using bullets in terms of “itemized compo-
nents” (Sant 1992, p. 162). The latter, however, equally defined earlier in terms of “graphically list[ing]” a
3
number of items, can be tracked back as far as to the ancient Greeks and Aristotle’s “Model of Memory”
(Wittrock 1988).
Interestingly, the abovementioned model correlates quite closely to our initially established “speech” setting
and even points to the visualization concept we shall focus on in greater detail within chapter IV. Briefly put,
“this model emphasized putting the points of a speech in linear order and then representing each point with
a familiar object that was easily retrievable from memory” (Douville et al. 2002, p. 107).
Nonetheless, instead of the above proposed visualisation approach, the modus operandi universally accepted
4
as to the present day, more of a “highlighting technique” really, merely involves the application of rather
5
“visually monotonous” (van Allen 1997), uniform “little black circles”. Despite the obvious pervasiveness of
the bullet glyph and its associated symbols (cf. Spencer 2002, p. 16), the historical development of its rapid
adaptation still presents itself somewhat blurry.
2.3.2.1 Convenience
At any rate, the abovementioned convenience aspect might have greatly attributed to its current extensive
use. Obviously, as Royse (1994) points out, “the note or bullet–point format is the quickest way of getting
ideas down on paper” (p. 92). Similarly, Belfield (1998) elucidates the “expediency” central to the concept
6
of “bullet lists” even further, by stating that “the great thing about [these] lists is that they are so conven-
7
ient”:
Why read the book when you can just get a list of quotations from the author?
Why have prose when a list of bullet points will do just as well?
(Belfield 1998, p. 34)
This view sees itself equally reflected in Simons’ (2004b) referral to the previously established continuous text
concept. In a reply to Edward Tufte’s conceptual PowerPoint and slide aesthetics critique (2003a,b), Simons
lapidary comments that “urgid paragraphs […] sometimes make bullet points seem like a good idea” (p. 6).
1
corresponding Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bullet_(typography) [acc. 23.8.2004]
2
cf. Poulsen 1982, p. 19
3
“Use bullet points to graphically list your benefits.” (Hawthorne 1997, p. 72)
4
cf. Sant 1992, pp. 61, 92, 162, 171
5
cf. Feynman et al. 1992, p. 126, Mamola 2004, p. 134
6
cf. Spencer 2003, p. 8, Wright 2003, p. 58
7
Belfield 1998, p. 34
2.3.3 Comparative studies: Continuous vs. Bulleted Text

Although obviously couched in rather polemical wording, Belfield’s and Simons’ convenience argument has,
in parts, been tendencially confirmed by a number of scholarly studies when comparing paragraphed, textual
content to its bullet–pointed counterparts: Representatively, Ramey and Miller (2000) found that “a long
block of text becomes more readable with bullet points to set off chunks of information.” (p. 151). Fur-
thermore, the authors suggest the outlining text with “graphic elements” (such as the aforementioned,
1 2
“zesty” bullet points) in order to “direct more attention to it”.
Likewise, Amler, Hopper and Kaplan (2003) encountered rather similar phenomena when comparing
3
varying presentation formats relative to the expected salience of information presented:
Results support the expectation that information displayed in a bullet point format resulted in better subse-
quent retrieval of information than paragraph display of information.
(Amler, Hopper and Kaplan 2003, p. 407)
As regards the above quoted findings, according to Fryxell (2000), “the lesson to be learned [here] – is the
4 5
bullet point”. Particularly, the author refers to an assumed, aesthetic paradigm underlying the “bulleted”
6
authoring principle as central to the thus promoted highlighting technique’s “most striking features”:
[Bullet points] encourage a habit of mind, an approach to organizing your argument that boils out the non-
essentials and concentrates on what absolutely must be communicated to your audience
(Fryxell 2000, p. 20)
2.3.4 Bullet Point Critique

Nonetheless, particularly this very notion of bullet points as couching ideas into a “well–trained thinking
pattern”, as equally maintained by Möller (2002), has found itself subject to substantial criticism: The abo-
7 8
vementioned paradigm of “boiling down” complex concepts into “more digestible”, coherent bits (Keller
2003, p. 8) has caused considerable suspicion (Stewart 2001) among critics such as Edward Tufte (2003a,b),
who have consequently believed “bullet points […] to dilute thought and leave critical relationships un-
specified” (Lenth 2004, p. 569).
Besides the bullet paradigm’s assumed superficiality characteristic which, according to Rotella et al. (2003),
9
has Feynman’s abovementioned summarization feature yield “sentence fragments [enclosing] more mirrored
surface than depth” (p. 67), Fryxell’s clarity claim as regards bullet points’ supposed capacity to communi-
cate more “simply and effectively” (Voss 2000, p. 42) has equally been called into question, since bullets, ac-
10
cording to Thompson (2003), essentially appear more ideally suited to “obfuscation” purposes, “rather
than to make things clear” (Saunders 2003, p. 766).
1
Blake 1999, p. 42
2
Ramey / Miller 2000, p. 151
3
Almer / Hopper / Kaplan 2003, p. 405
4
Fryxell 2000, p. 20
5
cf. Farkas 2002, p. 292 (“bulleted list items”), Pratt 2003, p. 23 (“bulleted phrases”)
6
Pitta 2001: “One of the most striking features […] is a list…” (p. 322)
7
Voss 2000, p. 43
8
cf. Htun 2004: “In addition to fancy statistical methods, [he] devoted greater efforts to presentational style […] in order to make his ar-
guments more digestible…” (p. 77)
9
see Just / Ogden 1998: “Text Summaries: Use this format to identify key themes as bullet points in your introduction, or to summarize
your themes in closing” (p. LEG.05.4)
10
Thompson 2003, p. 88
2.3.4.1 Equivocal Tendencies

1
Another, particularly disturbing detail in respect to the supposedly strict, “precise” (Minton et al. 2004, p.
46) habit of mind (Fryxell 2000) innate to the bullet–point paradigm is certainly represented by the some-
what dubious context provided by its defenders. Particularly Möller (2002) enters rather thin ice when
commenting that previously “huge amounts of rambling text” are lent “strength through discipline” by a
stringent bullet point corset.
Infelicitously, the author refers to arguably

dogmatic concepts when quoting Jones’
2
(1972) “Third Wave” publication, which, as is
known, explicitly cautions about the thus de-
scribed, autocratic tendencies. Möller, how-
ever, quite carelessly embraces these very con-
cepts by directly connecting the “bulleted”
structuring principle to the aforementioned,
positively problematic notion applied in Jones’
experiments (cf. Jones 1976, Horn 1976,
Monteith, M. and Winters 2002, p. 48).
Fig. 2.1: Slide Paradigm as used by Möller (2002) during an assistant prof.
2.3.4.2 Well–Educated Criticism lecture at the Techn. Univ. [TFH] Berlin, 5.7.2002 (cf. Möller 2002)
Even though, generously, Möller’s (2002) ar-

gument might be interpreted as an undeliberate derailment from otherwise coherent reasoning, the contro-
versy as previously outlined sheds light onto the general, “congenital distrust” shared, according to Abram
3 4
(2004), among “well–educated communities” towards the “bulletpoint mindset”. In light of the above-
mentioned, rather questionable predisposition, particularly scholars have traditionally viewed the bullet
paradigm with considerable “intellectual suspicion” (Stewart 2001, p. 201), up to the assignment of assum-
5
edly “crypto–fascist” attributes (cf. Voswinckel 2003, p. 23).
Clearly does the abovementioned contention, openly inviting business presenters to “jump aboard the bullet
train” (Fryxell 2000), not always that directly relate to obviously and notoriously propagandist thought as
6 7
previously cited – nonetheless, particularly corporate writers are believed as increasingly, and literally
“aligned” (Goldsborough 1998, p. 11) with the bullet point paradigm:
They will force themselves to confront the greatest evil of modern times: Like soldiers, […] they will march
straight into the hail of bullet points.
(Brooks 200p. 28)
1
Note: as in “strictly sequentially” (Nelson et al. 1999, pp. 356, 356)
2
Publication dates unavailable, see: Jones 1976, Horn 1976, Monteith, M. and Winters 2002, p. 48
3
Abram 2004, p. 27
4
Cliff Atkinson, as cited in Simons 2004, p. 30
5
Heller 2003, p. 43
6
cf. Möller 2002, Jones 1972, 1974
7
Fryxell 2000: “All across corporate America, executives are pounding out bullet points to make their points” (p. 20)
2.3.4.3 Bullets: The Pervasive Paradigm

1
Thus, despite the format’s obvious popularity (Fryxell 2000), yet even ubiquity, critics have consequently
2 3
denounced the firm reliance, or “fixation” to the rather “inflexible” (Murphy 1997) bullet–point corset.
Nonetheless, the authors’ concern, or discomfort aptly apparent from the discussion outlined above repre-
1
sents by no means a recent phenomenon. Moreover, despite the popular view of particularly “presentation
software” as “most notably” responsible for the technique’s observed success (Fryxell 2000, p. 20), or even
4
“the proliferation of bullet points [as] the disease's most obvious symptom” (Simons 2003, p. 6), a number
of earlier publications point to considerable discontent with the underlying principle, but equally the very
5
pervasiveness attributed to the bullet–point paradigm considerably prior to the advent of digital presentation
technology.
2.3.5 Early Discomfort

Remarkably, Nobel prize–winning physicist Richard P. Feynman represents one of the first and certainly
most renowned figures to document mentionable discomfort with the “bulleted” highlighting technique,
vexedly logging its allegedly unwarranted application:
There was one after another of these little god–damn bullets in our briefing books and on the slides.
(Feynman 1988, p. 126)
Quite notably, the technological development most prominently held accountable for the assumed omni-
6
presence of the above cited format sees itself ten-
dencially decoupled from Feynman’s central criti-
cism as to the ubiquitousness, and structural per-
sistence, of the bullet–point technique.
Indeed, mostly unnoticed by notorious, current–

day critics of the bulleted presentation paradigm
7 8
(Tufte 1997), bullet summarizations had con-
stantly, and consequently, crept into business re-
ports, professional resumes, and (most interest-
ingly) presentation slides during the second half of
th
the 20 century already.
2.3.5.1 Institutional Application

During the XX. Century
Particularly the academic and institutional field
initially addressed by Feynman saw itself continu Fig. 2.2: Boeing/NASA Slide as analysed by Tufte (2003a,b), assuming
“faulty bullet slides” as one possible reason to misinterpretation prior to
the Columbia launch- and accident. (cited in: CAIB / Gehman et al.
2003, p. 191)
1
cf. Naughton 2003b, Tufte 2003b, Ramalingam 2004
2
cf. Drucker 2000, p. 71
3
Preference to “stick to bullets”, Crace 2003, p. 2
4
see also Zielinski 2003b, p. 52, Naughton 2003b, p. 6
5
cf. Shugart 2001, Keller 2003
6
see the corresponding discussion towards the end of this chapter, as well as in chapter II
7
In his analytical review of the Challenger accident, Tufte strongly criticises the graphic visualization applied with NASA’s briefing slides.
Nonetheless, he leaves the very same slide’s bulleted structuring unnoticed – the very principle he will focus on during his critique of the
2003 Columbia tragedy.
8
cf. Just / Ogden 1998, p. LEG.05.4
1
ously “submerged under an avalanche of bullet points” throughout this period, specifically when scientific
reports and standard documents increasingly resorted to the application of the abovementioned, fairly con-
venient structuring paradigm:
2 3
Exemplarily, as noted in corresponding ISO standards documentation, it has largely been agreed to “imple-
4
ment ‘API format’ bullets under clear and agreed ‘rules’.” Moreover, in a subsequent addendum, API stan-
dardization committees declared it “industry custom to use bullets and the users are familiar with this ap-
proach.”
While the above cited statement suitably exemplifies the vast acceptance, or, as averred in Wanner et al.
(2002), “familiarity” with the bullet–point approach in a number of academic and institutional circum-
stances, both rationale and setting we shall be most interested in within the scope of this work – i.e. business
motivation and presentation scenarios – have not been sufficiently addressed throughout the previous discus-
sion.
Clearly, various conventional business environments have equally embraced the abovementioned paradigm
in a variety of applied settings (cf. Fryxell 2000). Nonetheless, besides the technologically driven rationale
underlying its ubiquitous application in these scenarios (a notion we shall discuss in greater detail later
within this chapter), our specific interest equally lies in the intellectual, or conceptual motivation justifying
its vast adoption:
2.3.6 Summarization and Fragmentation Features

Besides the obvious convenience aspect as previously discussed, particularly “precision”, as well as “communi-
cative efficiency” concepts are most commonly associated especially to bullet points’ underlying summariza-
tion feature: Specifically, Just and Ogden (1998) propose the “text summary format” as appropriate in order
“to identify key themes as bullet points […] or to summarize themes in closing.” (p. LEG.05.4)
The resulting content’s implied compactness has, as a consequence, greatly contributed to its popularity
5
particularly with business communities: Since “PowerPoint–like sentence fragments” merely hold “minimal
amounts of text”, concepts enclosed within the characteristically “quick bullet points” (Murali 2004, p. 19)
are, for their most part, rather “easily grasped” (Finkelstein 2004a, p. 20).
2.3.6.1 Fragmentation as Religion

As venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson noted in (Maney 1999), the “religion” of the underlying paradigm “is
6
to express oneself concisely in a few bullet points with analytical precision”. Considering business’ tradi-
tional endorsement of assumedly “effective”, rapid communication, scholars have subsequently interpreted
7
the rather welcoming demeanour towards bullets’ essentially “oversimplifying” principle as logical conse-
quence stemming from the celerity requirement that drives today’s typically “short–lived” business concepts:
We posit that these problems are endemic to the process, given the way that most organizations […] work...
The process tends to focus on format, […], and bullet point closure.
1
cf. Hule 2004, p. 12
2
cf. API CRE ISSC 2002
3
ibid, p. 8
4
cf. Wanner et al. (2002)
5
Rotella et al. 2003, p. 67
6
cited in Maney 1999, p. B3
7
Simons 2004: “It encourages oversimplification by asking presenters to summarize key concepts in as few words as possible – e.g., bullet
points” (p. 24)
(Wynn and Novick 1995, p. 256)

Interestingly though, the very compression characteristic attributed to the widespread adoption of the bullet
technique in the corporate sector has equally fuelled substantial criticism among scholars, holding particu-
1
larly its application on presentation visuals responsible for a distinct, “anti–reflective rhetorical style”:
It breaks information and data into fragments, making it more difficult to see the logical relationships be-
tween different sets of data, [and] it encourages oversimplification by asking presenters to summarize key
concepts in as few words as possible – e.g., bullet points – which can lead to gross generalizations, imprecise
logic, superficial reasoning and, quite often, misleading conclusions.
(Simons 2004b, p. 24)
Nonetheless, it should be noted that most of the abovementioned critique aims not at general–purpose ap-
plications of the bullet–point schema as outlined previously; in fact, the perception of “bulleted lists [as] a
‘faux analytical’ technique” (Thompson 2003, p. 88) appears limited almost exclusively to its specific use on
business presentation slides.
2.3.7 Presentational Bullet Application

2
Thus, beyond its abovementioned applications in the context of paper–based, “time–honoured”, private
3
reading as defined by Xerox Parc scholar Gould (1999), the bullet paradigm has consequently been en-
dorsed as an assumedly appropriate technique for the very field of business presentations, thus taking the form
4
of largely, publicly presented “bullet charts”.
5
Since “talks”, as Don Norman points out, “are by their very nature superficial”, the bullet point format, per
6
se tendencially attributed rather “little depth”, typically presents itself as an apt measure to compensate for
the limited time available to content presentation through “boiling out the nonessentials and concentrating
[the speech] on what absolutely must be communicated to your audience.” (Fryxell 2000, p. 20)
7
Consequently, the “zesty” bullet point format has found extensive application not merely as an internally
8
used speech outline (“speaker’s notes”), but equally adopting the role of a “mnemonic” in the form [pro-
jected] text (Maulitz 2003, p. 929). Characteristically, as Auty (2003) notes, speakers would thus simply
9
“use bullet points and talk around them” (p. 49) – a concept equally reflected by Shepherd (2004), and
Redfern–Jones (2003):
If using transparencies or a flip chart, use headings and bullet points as prompts to talk more fully through
each of the different points.
(Redfern–Jones 2003, p. 96)
Most interestingly, the above discussed, “bulleted” presentation schema sees itself ultimately connected to
presentation technology:
1
Naughton 2003b, p. 6
2
Mayer 2001, p. 26
3
For a resourceful description of Gould’s work at the abovementioned institution, see Taylor 2000, pp. 23ff.
4
cf. Feigenbaum 1996, p. 101, Stoll 2001, p. 47
5
as cited in Simons 2004, p. 28
6
Hill 2002: “Bullet–point format with little depth…” (p. 19)
7
Blake 1999, p. 42
8
cf. Jaffa 2004, p. 50
9
“Endless slides full of bullet points recited from the screen…” (Shepherd 2004, p. 44)
2.3.8 Correlations between Technical Development and Bullet–Point Application

At this point, it appears interesting to link the application of the bullet–point format as previously de-
scribed, to the technical development of corresponding presentation aids. Clearly, the usage of a previously
drawn presentation outline assuming the shape of pre–prepared “presentation visuals” has always been tied
to the technological possibilities of the latter: Even though bullet–points’ early, and ample presence on pa-
per–based media, as previously noted by Feynman (1988) can be seen as somewhat decoupled from any
kind of development e.g. in the desktop publishing field (Pearson 1994, p. 34), presentation materials cre-
ated beforehand have traditionally relied on some sort of projection, or even non–technical equipment.
Although early, quite “rudimentary presentation support” (Mathias 1995) such as the aforementioned
blackboard have traditionally allowed for simple note–taking and sketching on the fly, they generally failed
to provide sufficient display possibilities towards more elaborate, pre–prepared, or even “richer presentation
graphics” (Gemmell and Bell 1997, p. 81). Consequently, even paper–based equipment such as NCR’s flip–
chart as previously discussed clearly represented a warmly welcomed instrument, since it provided the much
longed–for feature of creating slightly more large–scale presentation “charts” in advance for later display
during the speech.
2.3.8.1 Applying the Tight, Bulleted Corset to Presentations

However, Wankat and Oreovicz (2003) rather critically comment on the abovementioned, pre–prepared
materials that although possibly “neater” than earlier approaches, a certain “dreaded, or ‘canned’ feeling” (p.
1
40) might equally arise from the presentation’s thus quite visibly pre–determined, or “limited” structure.
2
The resultant, “clear narrative outline, […] invariably couched in words in ‘dot point’ format”, has subse-
quently been recognized to effectively reduce a speech’s interactivity:
Using a flip chart in the meeting […] and writing up bullet points on the chart […] is a very practical way
of reducing the amount of time spent on discussions.
(Westwood 2001, p. 194)
3
Moreover, as noted in Redfern–Jones (2003), even notably non–technical, or “analog” presentation media
4
in their early stadia, such as the aforementioned, “informal flipchart, overhead projector, [or] slide carousel”
5
have always mutually embraced the previously established bullet–point format (Dehaas 1999), particularly
with regards to the graphical display of the actual speech’s appropriately fragmented outline, as discussed
above (p. 96).
2.3.8.2 Projected Bullet Points: Presentational Aid or Crutch?
2.3.8.2.1 Traditional, Tangible vs. Automatic Bullets

6
An apparent replacement of their rather small–scale, tangible, counterparts in the form of traditional index
7
cards (Mazen 2000, p. 312), visibly projected, bullet–pointed outlines have subsequently been applied as an
1
cf. Norvig 2003b (“[its] limited format may have contributed to poor decisions”, p. 343)
2
Iedema et al. 2003, p. 771
3
cf. Pease 2004, p. 14
4
Condon 1995, p. 31
5
“You’ll record the result as a final bullet point on your flip chart list” (Dehaas 1999, p. 52)
6
cf. Churchill 2002, p. 750
7
Mazen 2000: “In one of the early presentations […], a presenter read most of her part from index cards” (p. 312) – see also Basset 1998,
p. 75
1
alleged “crutch” for presumably inexperienced speakers in order to maintain the previously defined topic
2
structure, thus adopting the role of a “helper, a security blanket, [or] a teleprompter.” (Wahl 2003, p. 131)
Even though, primordially, “the ‘bullet points’ are clearly not there to be read off verbatim”, as Maulitz
(2003) notes, the author points to her considerable “astonishment [on] how many lecturers do just that” (p.
3
929). Not surprisingly, the aforementioned “flip chart bullets” (van Zweitanz 1995) have been lent the
4
equally fitting term “cheat sheet”, representative of bullet points outlining the “key issues” of a speech “on a
5
transparency, flipchart, or chalkboard” (Dwyer 1994, p. 19).
Moreover, similar to the “summarizing frame of mind insisting on a heading followed by bullet points”
which Parker (2001) exclusively attributed to an assumed design principle underlying automated software
approaches such as PowerPoint’s AutoContent Wizard (p. 76), so did conventional presentation media ex-
hibit an implicit, distinct schema which stunningly corresponds rather closely to its recent, digital counter-
part: Although not as strictly formalized in terms of design algorithms underlying current presentation soft-
ware’s templates and wizards, most “traditional” presentation media did (or rather, do) in fact pursue the
very same structure:
An overhead transparency or flip chart can display three or four bullets under the headline…
[Furthermore], every transparency, handout, or flip chart page needs a headline.
(Susman 1997, p. 20)
2.3.8.3 Analog or Electronic: The Implicit Paradigm

6
Thus, an ample application of the “bullet–point paradigm” can be observed even considerably prior to the
7
introduction of digital or even generally technological presentation equipment. More importantly, “analog”
utilities now considered “traditional presentation media” (Wolff 1997, p. 110), as emerges from the previ-
ously outlined discussion, in fact tend to equally possess an implicit, inner paradigm closely resembling cur-
rent–day “bullet sheet” paradigms. (Miller et al. 2001, p. 519)
8
Nonetheless, while the evident rationale to the format’s success appears “by no means obvious” to a number
9
of observers, its visible prevalence is perhaps most credibly explained by considering the various aspects dis-
10
cussed within this chapter. The aforementioned convenience characteristic prominently associated with the
bullet–point format might indeed most likely have contributed to its current–day predominance, particu-
larly in terms of its application to so–called “traditional media” (Masten et al. 2002, p. 72):
11
In light of the fact that the “average business presenter”, inherently due to an obvious lack of appropriate
1
training (Pirner 2001, Kaminski 2002), arguably represents something of an amateur in terms of presenta
1
Lustberg 2004, p. 4
2
see also Godin 2001, p. 5
3
“Flip chart bullets make for dull reading at best and frustration at worst.” (van Zweitanz 1995, p. 714)
4
Stodart 1997: “In bullet points, outline the key issues…” (p. 21)
5
Notably, a number of critics have equally pointed to an assumed redundancy innate to the aforementioned principle (Adams 2003),
since, essentially, the (unlike with the previously applied index cards) publicly displayed outline readily reflects identical content as orally
discussed by the speaker, merely “talked around” (Auty 2003, p. 49), or further detailed at best. Nonetheless, the assumed, didactical
“added value” of this approach has been disclaimed by Mayer (2001, p. 86f.)
6
C. Atkinson, as cited in Simons 2004, p. 30
7
cf. Pease 2004, p. 14
8
Cook 2003, p. 25
9
ibid, Atkinson / Mayer 2004, p. 2
10
Cook 2003: “The words on the slides are mere notes, outlines that would once have been crafted into short reports for readers to peruse
at their convenience.” (p. 25)
11
Slater 1991, p. 71 – for a more detailed description, see Schaller 1990
2 3
tion design (Adams 2003), the application of an apparently “firmly established” visualisation paradigm
which merely requires minimal creative skills certainly represents a comprehensible strategy.
2.3.8.3.1 Prudent Lemming Principle

4
Although arguably “not strong in aesthetics”, the imitative appeal, or impulse, of such a “commonly ac-
5
cepted” paradigm has undoubtedly proved fairly alluring, considering the vast adoption of the aforemen-
tioned bullet–point paradigm. Judging from the mere, relative percentage of presentation media applying an
6
arbitrarily shaped “heading–and–bullets” design, an impressive quantity of presenters obviously follows a
distinct, behavioural pattern: Where an aesthetic principle (such as the bullet–point format), convention, or
strategy can be assumed “commonly believed” or accepted, Henderson (2000) speaks of an ostensible, “pru-
dent lemming principle” (p. 1248). According to the latter, presenters have consequently endorsed the
7
above defined outlining strategy in terms of the “lowest common denominator” known to the individual.
8
With regard to this so–called “herd behaviour”, the previously untraceable (Cook 2003) or, as it seemed,
9
rationally unsubstantiated (Atkinson & Mayer 2004) adoption of the “bulleted mindset” suddenly becomes
somewhat more comprehensible:
It’s easy to slip into [this] groove… Not surprisingly, […] bullet–point rhythms have become de rigueur in
the world's offices, conference rooms, convention centers, and showrooms.
(Gates 2002, p. 45)
2.4 Technology View

While this finding, as well as our previously discussed observations concerning the “ubiquitousness” (Tufte
2003a,b, Ramalingam 2004) of the bullet point format see themselves fairly decoupled from any sort of ac-
10
tual presentation technology, similar phenomena have in fact been documented significantly earlier (cf.
Poulsen 1982, Feynman et al. 1988). Particularly the latter aspect has remained largely untreated within the
hitherto discussion.
11
Clearly, as discussed above, the concept of “bulleting” (Turkle 2004) essentially embodies “nothing new”:
As Tufte (2003b) notes, “presentations at companies such as IBM and in the military used bullet lists shown
by overhead projectors years before today’s slideware” (p. 118). Nonetheless, tying in with the evolutionary
discussion held earlier within this chapter, this view indeed misses an intrinsic, circumstantial technology per-
spective as needed for our understanding of current user behaviour.
1
“Most people are not trained in design…” (Kaminski 2002)
”Presenters, especially those with little or no design background, oftentimes lack a sense of what's professional in appearance.” (J. Endi-
cott, cited in Pirner 2001)
2
“The problem seems to be that too many computer–generated presentations are being done by amateurs more enamoured by the bells
and whistles than by giving thoughtful presentations where attendees listen to the speaker” (Adams 2003, p. 20)
3
“However, while […] presentation […] standards […] are not yet firmly established…” (McKiernan 2000, p. 12)
4
Isenberg 2003: “not strong in aesthetics: […] unadorned lists and bullet points abound” (p. 1630)
5
“There is little research that informs [the] use [of presentation software]. This research vacuum has been filled by conventional wisdom –
commonly accepted beliefs that guide behaviour…” (Atkinson and Mayer 2004, p. 2)
6
cf. Keller 2003, p. 8, Mahin 2004, p. 219
7
Sabella and Booker 2003: “Automated and customized number and bullet outlining…” (p. 208)
8
Henderson 2000, p. 1249
9
Cliff Atkinson, as cited in Simons 2004, p. 30
10
“There was one after another of these little goddamn bullets in our briefing books and on the slides” (Feynman 1988, p. 126)
11
Ramalingam 2004, p. 8
Despite the aforementioned fact that text–centred presentations and particularly the “bullet point” structure
as discussed above have been “around” for quite a while (Heiss 1999, p. 26), the actual proliferation of the
1
latter has principally been accredited to the inception of computational equipment, and at an amplified
level, to “presentation software” in particular (Fryxell 2000, Tufte 2003a,b)
2.4.1 Workflow Rationale

Although the previously discussed, “manual media” (Laiserin & Linn 2000) equally offered an accessible
visualisation paradigm in the shape the aforementioned bullet point schema, as well as graphical “informal
idea sketching” (Li et al. 2003), the elaboration of large amounts of texts, i.e. on early presentation equip-
2
ment such as flip charts, whiteboards or even the archetypal “flipper” proved somewhat unduly labour–in-
tensive.
3 4
Consequently, conventional (thus, “analog”, or “paper–based”) media have historically emerged as fairly
5 6
resistant to prose– or bullet–heavy visualisations. Since simply “filling up”, or even “cramming” the corre-
sponding display surface with bulleted, textual content (Paterson 2000, p. 119) obviously appeared overly
7
time–consuming in terms of the literally manual aspect of this task, presenters have traditionally hesitated
to scribble unwarranted amounts of text onto the charts.
2.4.1.1 Facilitated, Digital Bullet–Point Workflows

The drastically amplified accessibility and convenience offered by more recent business utilities, however, ef-
fectively removed this initial reluctance: The advent of office technology primarily focused on accessible text
production such as electronic typewriters or early computing systems not merely augmented paper–based
media production (Gershon & Page 2001, p. 33). In fact, with the progressing availability of manageable
projection devices such as the aforementioned overhead projector, the resulting “slides”, or transparencies
appeared increasingly inclined towards the above described bullet–point approaches (cf. Parker 2001).
Clearly, in light of the sceptical view towards users’ subsequent “addiction to text” traditionally occupied by
8
“well–educated communities”, it must appear by no means surprising that a number of scholars equally
point towards the critical aspects of this software–fueled, textual accessibility ostensibly accountable for an
9
assumed “proliferation of bullet points”:
Computer projection is certainly the worst thing to happen to presentation skills since the invention of the
overhead projector.
(Bland 1998, p. 131)
1
“[…] The proliferation of bullet points as a substitute for the declarative sentence…” (Zielinski 2003b, p. 52)
2
Samson 2004: “He never gives Power Point presentations. If he needs to stand on a podium to give explanations, he employs a ‘flipper’ –
a term invented when bullet points were still on acetate slides and required to be physically flipped.” (p. 4)
3
cf. Pease 2004, p. 14
4
cf. Gershon / Page 2001, p. 33
5
cf. Steinberg 1991, pp. 52, 53, as cited in Harrell 1999, p. 451
6
Paterson 2000, p. 119
7
“These ‘traditional media’ obviously take time to create and are more difficult to revise…” (Zuckerman 1999, p. 9)
8
“On a very shallow level, I sometimes think that the well–educated communities in which we travel have a congenital distrust [towards
the concept] exemplified by […] bullet points…” (Abram 2004, p. 27)
9
“The ‘bullet points’ that pour off the screen […] are not there to be read off verbatim —yet it is amazing how many lecturers do just
that.” (Maulitz 2003, p. 929)
2.4.1.2 Accessibility
1
Nonetheless, equally in terms of a technological perspective, the currently predominating “textual”, or
2
“bulleted” paradigm presents itself as something of a logical consequence from the actual workflow underly-
ing presentation visuals’ creative process: Considering early computing systems’ evident restriction to textual
content as discussed above, the creation of briefly bulleted transparencies quite obviously presented itself as
3
simply the “most accessible” visualisation technique available.
2.4.2 Software Bullets: The Computational Adoption

From this production process point of view, it essentially appears as somewhat of a “logical step” that soft-
ware developers so readily adapted the aforementioned slide structure as an integral paradigm to their early
4
implementations of “presentation software”. Exemplarily, public–key cryptograph Whitfield Diffie can cer-
tainly be viewed as one of the first computer science researchers to apply IT technology to the previously
typewriter–centric slide production approach:
At Bell–Northern Research lab (1981), Diffie expanded graphics software designed by a fellow engineer so
that the page could show a number of frames, and text inside each frame, with space for commentary
around them.
(Parker 2001, p. 85)
2.4.2.1 Presentational Pioneer Approaches

Interestingly, this (albeit premature) pioneer approach to what should later emerge as “presentation soft-
ware” already featured the central three components equally mirrored by current versions e.g. of Microsoft’s
PowerPoint product: a “slide” pane, filled with (mostly textual) content, as well as an array reserved for fur-
ther notes or additional commentary. [see Fig.3.26]
Not surprisingly, Diffie’s BNR colleague Robert Gaskins, then head of computer–science research, later went
on to extend the application into a commercial software product, finally releasing the tool in April of 1987
5
under the humble name of “PowerPoint”. An instant success “especially in the business sector” (Runner
6
2004, p. 14), the program was soon to be acquired by Microsoft, whose “suite strategy” effectively turned
7
the software into something of an “industry standard”.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that although presently the most successful approach to presentation soft-
ware, Diffie’s and Gaskin’s early prototypes are by far not the only computerized slide utility pioneered
throughout the early 1980s. Indeed, a multiplicity of parallel developments simultaneously approached the
very same issue during this period, in acknowledgement of an obviously ample business demand underlying
the automated production of talk–accompanying visuals.
1
Weate 2003: “…further research beyond the textual paradigm.” (p. 27)
2
“The majority of organisations are finally giving birth to a new paradigm […], presented in zesty bullet–point format…” (Blake 1999, p.
42)
3
Cliff Atkinson: “People want to communicate visually, and this is the most accessible media–creation tool that's available…” (Wahl
2003, p. 131)
4
cf. Diffie and Hellman 1976, Diffie 1988
5
cf. Parker 2001, p. 85
6
Kwawinetz 2001, pp. 96, 98
7
cf. Brinkley / Lohr 2001, p. 60, Ries / Ries 2001, pp. 165, 166
Despite this apparent diversity, it is stunning to find that, obviously for a number of reasons discussed
1
above, essentially all respective approaches to “presentation slide software” developed throughout this time
practically apply the bulleted, or text–centric visualization schema in astonishingly similar fashion as central
part of their design paradigm
2.4.2.2 MORE
Most prominently, software legend and “pundit program-
2
mer” Dave Winer (1988) initially defined the develop-
ment towards transparency, or paper–printed outputs of
textually fragmented, hierarchical data structures for busi-
ness presentation purposes. Partly as an unanticipated re-
3 4
sult from Winer’s early Outlining approaches, which or-
dered typically rather short sentence fragments into a fine–
leveled, directory–like structure (thus similar to the above
described bullet paradigm, although theoretically less
5
problematic in terms of hierarchy and linearity), a slide–
oriented printing option had equally been conceptualized
during the early 1980s.
2.4.2.2.1 From Outlines to Bullets

However, since the outlines’ deeply hierarchical structure,
as well as typically dynamic, continuous and thus pageless
characteristica could not be reflected within per se linearly Fig. 2.3: Outline Editing view in MORE 1.1c
6
ordered, moreover visually restricted slides, they had to be
logically combined and separated into in fixed, linear sequences to fit a distinct, visual page layout:
The Program uses an outline approach to developing presentations…

The user first creates an outline of the material to be presented, defining main headlines as slide titles and
subheadings as text.
(Beale / Brambert 1990, p. 52)
2.4.2.2.2 Bullet Sheets

Subsequently, following an intuitive request from Apple Computer’s Guy Kawasaki, MORE and similar out-
liners’ “presentation mode” output saw itself equally restricted to what Winer’s developers would conse-
quently term “bullet sheets”:
1
cf. Roy / Elfner 2002, p. 273
2
Johnston et al. 2001, p. 23
3
For a clarifying word on the very notion of outlining (which, according
to the authors, dates back to pre–Christian times, p. 69), see Price, 1999
4
cf. Winer 1988, as well as http://www.outliners.com [accessed 7.9.03]
5
cf. Farkas 2002, pp. 283, 292, Voswinckel 2003, pp. ?
6
Note: this attribute refers to visual restriction in terms of shere, dimensional limits, i.e. a fixed height innate to a slide’s, or transparency’s
dimensions; thus, a vertically “endless” slide, as required by a larger, hierarchical sequency (without separating “breaks”) cannot be imple-
mented within this concept.
[The] printout [was] marked up with a box around the text, and bullets on each of the subheads…
The user didn't get control over […] the presentation, […] but you could produce a sequence of bullet
charts in more simply by typing in an outline and flipping a switch.
(Winer, 1988)
Despite the intriguing, continuously structural hierarchy paradigm underlying MORE’s aforementioned out-
lining principle, the software emerged as a commercial success primarily due to the very linear, bulleted
printout that initially drove its business pres-
entation functionality as described above.
1
In fact, as Apple’s “business evangelist” Guy
2
Kawasaki (1989) notes, users had previously
(ab)used WYSIWYG drawing tools, but rather
3
found it “a pain” to solely “crank out” bullet
points within this graphically overly sophisti-
4
cated environment. Consequently, users
thankfully embraced the apparently more ac-
cessible, easy and convenient bullet–point
framework as proposed by a variety of “pres-
entation programs” emerging throughout the
later 1980s. Fig. 2.4: MORE’s Bullet Chart View (v.1.1c)
2.4.2.2.3 Outlining: Short Hello and Long Goodbye

Ironically, MORE itself eventually moved away from the very outlining principle it once spearheaded by also
5
increasingly shifting towards a rather graphically oriented slide design initially denounced by its originator,
thus obviously giving in to the preliminary success the software had enjoyed in the presentation–oriented
business sector:
Users no longer need to rely on MORE’s outline features to create presentations. [The software] can [now]
create entire presentations using bullet charts…
(Green et al. 1990, p. 79)
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of software approaches towards this task therefore went on to implement
the aforementioned, categorically “bulleted” paradigm in terms of their central “slide production” feature:
Despite apparently fierce competition, virtually all “major players” (Caster 1993, p. 118), or “giants” (Nee-
dleman 1991) within this field – which originally not even included the now dominating, “second–genera-
6 7
tion” software PowerPoint – have traditionally concentrated on bullet–point functionality.
1
cf. Brown 1992
2
Quotations borrowed from an interview transcript by Cliff Atkinson (Atkinson / Kawasaki 2004)
3
cf. Martin 1992, p. 150, Gralla 1993, p. 147
4
G. Kawasaki: “I suggested [bullet charts] to [Dave Winer] during the design of ThinkTank because they were such a pain to create in
MacDraw…” (from the aforementioned interv. transcript)
5
“I’ve always felt that graphics products like page layout programs, draw programs, paint programs, were too low–level to be useful to
word and concept people. With MORE, the process of producing graphics was automated.” (Winer, 1988)
6
“Not the first with software in this category […] as a second generation product…” (Antonoff 1989, p. 189)
7
cf. Needleman 1991, pp. 1,2
2.4.2.2.4 Computational Bullets: From Early Restrictions toward “Multimedia”

Clearly, much of the initial presentation applications’ text– or rather, bullet–point–centric functionality lies
evidently founded in previous, technical restrictions: As discussed above, early slide software (then termed
1
“business graphics” applications) sees itself traditionally divided into the aforementioned, “data–driven
2
charts”, and the primarily textual, “ordinary bulleted–list slides” (Zongker / Salesin 2003, p. 303).
The latter, for their part, have traditionally been shaped by their initially rather limited, graphical function-
3
ality, and particularly lacking WYSIWYG support. This technological struggle apparent with early “slide-
4 5
ware” sees itself exemplarily reflected by Microsoft PowerPoint’s initial restrictions in terms of graphics:
It could only be used with Macintosh computers, and it was only capable of generating black and white
pages of text.
6
(Runner 2004, p. 14)
2.4.2.2.5 Technical Limitations and Text–Centric IT “Traditions”

Thus, next to the accessibility, or convenience rationale, as well as the rather “notional” raisons d’être dis-
cussed above, a number of indications clearly point to essentially technical limitations as well as professed
“traditions” in terms of text–centric interaction and application in computer science (Geisler et al. 2001). In
7
terms of “the now glutted desktop presentation market”, the restriction to black and white text output ap-
parent with its “initial leaders”, as well as the aforementioned, “bulleted printout” resulting from early, out-
8
line–oriented software such as MORE or Aldus’ Persuasion has certainly strongly contributed to much of the
text– and bullet–point–centric features innate even to current presentation software.
Obviously, “productivity software” available through the early 1980s had left much to want for in terms of
9
visualisation, or even multimedia functionality, since initial releases, as Toong (1984) noted, could merely
represent information “in information in numerical and textual form”:
The crucial missing component is the ability to present a total (and therefore, more memorable and per-
suasive) “picture” through […] pictorial data…
(Toong 1984, p. 81)
While much of this functionality has been added subsequently, many of the structural, underlying principles
laid out during the initial drafts of then premature “presentation software” has, according to this technol-
10
ogy–motivated critique, prevailed even with recent, “multimedia” presentation software releases.
This technologically motivated rationale towards understanding current–day textual bullet–point fixation,
in turn, has obviously been called into question by a number of critics who point to more recently material-
ized advances as regards presentation software’s technical aspects (colour, graphical capabilities), as well as in
terms of usability and graphical interface:
1
Seachrist 1996, p. 24
2
ibid.
3
cf. Parker 2001, p. 85, Seachrist 1996 (“Such were the limitations of the early charting programs”, p. 24)
4
Tufte 2003a,b, Ramalingam 2004
5
In fact, the software was still owned by Forethought with its initial 1.0 release in 1997
6
see also Antonoff 1989: “PowerPoint has neither outlining not chart– and graph–making capabilities.” (p. 189)
7
Fridlund
8
cf. Miller 1988, Antonoff 1988
9
Saigh 1998: „PowerPoint’s multimedia capabilities are limited.” (p. 165)
10
cf. McCannon / Morse, 1999
2.4.3 Technological Advances, or Conceptual Standstill?

Quite obviously, the graphical and technical capabilities available to presentation software and projection
1
hardware have dramatically increased particularly prior to the turn of the century. Nonetheless, colour and
gradient effects, advanced charting options, as well as headline drop–shadows and word–art functionality
2
wasn’t to change the perception that computer–generated charts have essentially remained a “static”, two–
3 4
dimensional, and particularly “text–oriented” medium.
Exemplarily, Stroupe (2000) has framed this very impression in terms of a distinct tendency “to handle ver-
bal discourse as text–heavy, grey chunks that must be made visually presentable”, referring to the slideware–
encouraged, proliferate use of words as “iconographically dead weight, carried along on the energy of the
images and design” (p. 609).
2.4.3.1 Unused Capacities

In a rather similar fashion, Simons (2004a) acknowledges presentation software’s technical advances in
terms of “graphics capabilities”, yet simultaneously bemoans an apparent lack of appropriate, accessible visu-
alization paradigms corresponding to the parallel, technical development: “Hardly anyone”, as the author
complains, “uses PowerPoint's advanced capabilities, and those who do tend to use them [rather] badly”.
Moreover, as Simons goes on to argue, even current PPT releases remain short of non–textual visualisation
features appropriately reflecting current computer graphics standards:
Don’t get me wrong: I like words, just not all by themselves on a 10–foot screen. And unless Jeremy Irons
is the presenter, I don't want to hear them read out loud to me… No, I want something else on that
screen, something worthy of the remarkable advances in projection technology that made those images pos-
sible.
(Simons 2004a, p. 6)
2.4.3.1.1 Graphical Features: Windows’ “Dated Look”

Notably, not merely presentation software’s text–centric approach itself has been subject to contentious dis-
cussion: Similarly, the very style and graphical engine driving current, computer–generated slides, as well as
the principal architecture underlying presentation software have been called into question. As Simons
(2004a) points out, “the fact of the matter is that PowerPoint, for all its utilitarian glory, still uses the same
5
basic architecture and design it had a decade ago”.
Simon’s critique, while primarily referring to PowerPoint’s aforementioned, text– and bullet–centric design
principle, sees itself equally reflected in Austen’s (2003) rather critical account of the program’s (as well as
the majority of its competitors’) aesthetic concept:
[Microsoft] let PowerPoint's graphics “slide”, to become the software world’s equivalent of someone who
hasn't changed hairstyle for 15 years.
(Austen 2003, p. 86)
1
Simons 2004a: „After all, Microsoft has pumped up PowerPoint's graphics capabilities, added animation paths and pretty much ex-
hausted the artistic possibilities of screen–bean stick–people” (p. 6)
2
Zongker / Salesin 2003, p. 298
3
cf. Fuhrmann et al. 2001
4
Fridlund 1992, p. 106
5
Simons 2004a, p. 6
In fact, while underlying operating systems and graphics engines progressively added an impressive range of
visual features such as (pseudo–)3D capabilities, real–time Anti–Aliasing, transparency, and drop shadow
1
effects such as incorporated into Aqua’s Quartz engine as well as upcoming Windows versions, presentation
2
software, previously considered to spearhead “workhorse graphics” (Martin 1989) development, has appar-
ently mirrored fairly little of these achievements.
Exemplarily, transparency and anti–aliasing characteristics added to more recent versions of Microsoft’s
PowerPoint proved to be unsupported with publicly distributed exports of presentation “packages” (Regen-
3
old 2002) until more recently this year, when an updated version of the so–called, cost–free “viewer” was
shipped (Hill 2003)
Similarly, where current–day operating systems and GUIs have gradually shifted from their initially rather
plain and saturated colours towards a more sophisticated, integral colour concept particularly emphasizing
on light, pastel tones, Microsoft’s entire office suite has remained fairly attached to its standard set of pur-
4 5
portedly “unappealing or at least somewhat unattractive”, “lush”, and “highly saturated” colours (Fritz
6
1999).
It is, as Austen (2003) notes, “that dated look” that its recently–emerged competitor, Apple Computer’s
Keynote (Schwartz et al. 2003) now “directly challenges”. Besides intrinsically featuring the “underlying text
features in OS X, with automatic anti–aliasing and kerning […] lending the final product a more polished
7
look”, the application has equally called PowerPoint’s text–centric design principle, at least tendencially,
into question:
Missing, for example, are pre–built presentations that require users only to plug in text. As someone who's
endured more of those than I care to remember, that might not be entirely bad in terms of making presenta-
tions more effective.
(Austen 2003, p. 86)
2.4.4 Template–Centric Usability

8
This strategic withdrawal from textual, “fill–in–the–blank” techniques (Schlender 2004) as apparent with
the above quoted conclusion essentially marks a stunning contradiction to earlier perceptions of “accessible”
presentation software design: The “automated graphic production process”, as (Winer 1988) notes, had
widely been considered the “solution” to users’ design problems throughout the 1980s and 90s.
Since, to Winer’s account, visually oriented, or even “graphics products” must essentially appear “too low–
9
level” to be useful to executives or even “word and concept people”, drawing and desktop publishing soft-
10
ware as initially appropriated for presentation slide production left users with an overabundance of spatial
design decisions. The apparent “horror vacui” (Wong et al. 1998, p. 423) in terms of an intrinsic “fear of
1
E.g. “ClearType” (cf. Press 2000, p. 19), transparency (cf. Clyman 2004, “it might be that Microsoft is just trying to play catch–up with
Apple in the interface department” p. 85), Petreley 1999: “Sure, [most] other operating systems [are] better, but the Windows 2000
mouse pointer has a drop shadow!”
2
“Programs [like PowerPoint] meet my definition of ‘workhorse graphics’, in that they […] produce excellent graphics…” (Martin 1989,
p. 201)
3
cf. Junion–Metz 2003, p. 37, Passerini 1999, p. 162
4
Danes / Hunter 1980, p. 71
5
“Bullet points and […] swathes of lush colour…” (Aspden 2004, p. 36)
6
“A reputation for highly–saturated colours [as noted] for e.g., PowerPoint presentations…” (Fritz 1999, p. 38)
7
Stone 2003, p. 42
8
“[Ballmer] and his staff designed fill–in–the–blank templates for PowerPoint presentations…” (Schlender 2004, p. 119)
9
cf. Winer 1988
10
G. Kawasaki: “I suggested [bullet charts] to [Dave Winer] during the design of ThinkTank because they were such a pain to create in
MacDraw…” (cited in the aforementioned interview transcript by C. Atkinson, 2004)
decisions. The apparent “horror vacui” (Wong et al. 1998, p. 423) in terms of an intrinsic “fear of
1
the blank, empty page” as observed with usage studies on early presentation software distributions, was con-
sequently approached by the concept of template–based slide design:
An obvious solution is to build a system, called a presentation tool, that automatically designs graphical
presentations of information. Using such a system, [one] needs not pre–design the presentations, and the
graphic design issues are the responsibility of the presentation tool.
(Mackinlay 1986, p. 111)
Therefore, since, as Endicott (2002) notes, “presenters, especially those with little or no design background,
2
oftentimes lack a sense of what's professional in appearance”, software engineers increasingly embraced thus
3
drafted approaches “that smoothed or eliminated these design decisions” for the user. Evidently, the appli-
cation of such technology accredited “a great deal of expert knowledge” embedded into the respective tech-
nology itself (Creighton & Adams 1998, p. 86) as had been initially stipulated by Weitzman/Wittenburg
4
(1994), and Mackinlay (1986). However, scholarly critique (Godin 2001, Parker 2001, Norvig 2003a,b)
5
points towards considerable discontent with the actual implementations’ resulting aesthetics, and particu-
larly cognitive effectiveness, thus leaving it unclear if the aforementioned goal has actually been achieved.
Nevertheless, a number of authors have emphatically posited “evident progress” in terms the above discussed
user convenience, claiming that “the usability advantages of design automation tools in presentation graphics
6
programs is well documented”. As Seachrist (1997) notes, all currently known software approaches to pres-
7
entation visuals have indeed integrated corresponding functionality offering design automation via thus
notoriously–framed “templates” (Aloia et al. 1998), “agents” (Dryer 1997), or “wizards” (Creighton & Ad-
ams 1998, pp. 84f.):
Whether using PowerPoint’s AutoContent Wizard, Freelance’s SmartMasters, Corel’s PerfectExpert, or

Harvard’s Quick Presentations, self–prompting tools give casual business users a much needed helping hand
in making design decisions.
(Seachrist 1996, p. 24)
2.4.5 Intuition or Imposition?

However, the mere existence of such functionality obviously cannot, by itself, have fueled the “ubiquitous”,
or “pervasive” application of bullet–shaped template technique to such an extent that critics would have
largely accounted the software itself as responsible for an apparent “proliferation of bullet points” (Zielinski
2003b, Simons 2004b).
Although it appears clear that, as noted by Vessey (1991), any template axiomatically “defines [a] visualiza-
8
tion’s visual structure very much like a parameterized icon” (p. 54), the obviousness and prominence of its
placement and application goes beyond mere usability, or adjacency issues: Clearly, as Möller (2002) points
1
„What would happen was that people would start up PowerPoint and just stare at it” (Zuckerman 1999, p. 9), see also Parker 2001, p.
76
2
Note: actually quoted in Pirner. 2001
3
4
“They must be graphic design experts to ensure that the resulting presentations are effective…” (Mackinlay 1986, p. 111)
5
“Every[thing] is better than the ugly templates provided with PowerPoint…” (Harford 2004, p. 13)
“Those ‘helpful’ tools are the main reason that we’ve got to live with page after page of bullets, with big headlines and awful back-
grounds.” (Godin 2001, p. 3) – see also Voswinckel 2003, pp. 26–28
6
7
“All of the tested programs offer design automation via templates” (ibid)
8
cf. Draper et al. 1990, Gray et al. 1990
1
out, since the “basic skill of enumeration” is assumed to represent something of an “intrinsic feature”, ap-
plying bullet–pointed templates might appear as something of an intuitive feature.
Nonetheless, the analogy to drawing, desktop publishing, or even simple word processing applications ex-
hibits that graphically orientated software not necessarily predefine any distinct, visual paradigm per se —
2
that is, apart from the page format. Due to the previously established, slide–based “horror vacui” phenome-
3 4
non, however, presentation software certainly represents one of the few categories in computer science that
are in fact considered to proactively put forward a single, or even a number of predetermined design sche-
mata.
In the following chapter, is it thus to determine up to what extent current “slideware” applications might be
5 6
righteously said to proactively, even “obtrusively” (Nutt 2002) “impose” the above discussed, distinct de-
sign paradigms towards an assumed “ubiquity of bullet points” (Naughton 2003b, p. 6), or, as maintained
by Worley and Dyrud (2004), if conversely, “the fault lies not with the software, but with the user” (p.
214).
1
“[We] all have acquired the basic skill of enumeration as children. If your presentation tool enumerates everything by default, it forces
them to stay within this well–trained thinking pattern.” (Möller, 2002)
2
Note: Clearly, Microsoft’s “Word” for example equally proposes various “templates”: “If you're simply writing a letter, you'll just want a
blank screen, but Windows word processors give you a lot more options than that.” (Yakal 1994, p. 39)
3
See above; “What would happen was that people would start up PowerPoint and just stare at it” (Zuckerman 1999, p. 9), see also Parker
2001, p. 76
4
Similarly, architecture software might equally count to this category of pre–templated UI approaches: “It makes you start with a box and
then punch out holes for windows and doors.” (Searls 1998, see also Laiserin/Linn 2000)
5
“Vehikel pädagogischer Aufdringlichkeit” (Nutt 2002, p. 18)
6
Walker 2002, p. 7
3 Templates, Wizards, and Beyond

Means of Influence: Guidance, Uniformity, and the User’s Freedom of Choice – as provided by the GUI:
The slides’ superficial aesthetics may change, but the bullet point format is always the same. But what is it
specifically about these slides that result in bullet points? [All of] these different presentations look so simi-
lar in their approach, that they must share some common origin.
The answer is not as obvious as it seems, because the root of their bullet point approach goes much deeper
than the visual surface of the slides, and into the fundamental structure of the PowerPoint presentation
itself.
(Atkinson 2005, p. 1)1
3.1 Role and Accountability of the Software

Clearly, much of the discussion around an assumed “responsibility” attributed to the software product itself
presents itself somewhat emotionally coloured. Nonetheless, subjective accounts such as the finding that
“much of the fault lies with Microsoft” (Godin 2001, p. 3) or its antipode holding the software “no more
responsible for bad presentations than chainsaws for the clear–felling of old–growth forests” (Holmes 2004,
p. 100), appear, albeit published in germane, scholarly journals, but able to contribute rather little to this
chapter’s central concern, which shall remain focused on possible guiding characteristics towards certain,
cardinal styles, or visual paradigms (such as the bullet–point schema discussed within the preceding chapter)
as apparent with the software’s graphical user interface (GUI).
3.1.1 The Scapegoat Discussion

Most of the aforementioned, “post hoc” arguments,2 however, appear chiefly aimed at a rather broad dis-
proval of possible software accountability in terms of the resulting visuals’ general quality. “The tool”, ac-
cording to Holmes (2004), is hence viewed as an innocent “scapegoat”,3 unrightfully saddled with responsi-
bility (cf. Nass et al. 1998) for assumedly “lousy”,4 or simply “bad” presentations”.5 Nonetheless, besides ar-
duously declaring the latter as an evident “symptom of the writer’s failure” and subsequently stipulating
technology’s users [to] shoulder the blame”,6 the authors provide rather little reference towards the actual
role, or “responsibility”, as Mackinlay (1986) put it,7 to be objectively observed with the software itself.
3.1.1.1 WYSIWYG or Wizardry?

Clearly, since all current presentation applications basically represent WYSIWYG–driven, graphical tools al-
lowing for essentially unlimited, direct manipulation of both text and graphics, an allegory, or rather close
resemblance, to the desktop publishing sector must appear somewhat self–evident. Not surprisingly, classical
1
Actual material in press. Content and page references provided “as is”, quoted from Atkinson’s initial first–chapter manuscript (dated
20.9.04) of “Beyond Bullet Points”, Courtesy Microsoft Press.
2
Holmes 2004, p. 100
3
ibid. For an interesting study referring to this “scapegoat” theory, see also Nass et al. (1998)
4
Field 2003: “You can't blame a software package for a lousy presentation” (p. 18)
5
Shwom / Keller 2003, p. 2
6
Holmes 2004, p. 100
7
“[Particularly] the graphic design issues are the responsibility of the presentation tool.” (Mackinlay 1986, p. 111)
illustration programs such as CorelDRAW have traditionally “repackaged” much of their bitmap and vector
graphics functionality towards slide–oriented by–products, as previously exemplified with Corel’s “Presen-
tations.” (Glinert 1999, p. 96)
However, while the aforementioned graphics and DTP software present themselves rather neutral in terms of
their graphical user interface,1 and thus, consequentially somewhat more “demanding, challenging, and
time–consuming” as regards the actual design process (Bakker–Dhaliwal et al. 2001), the more recent, in-
nate “presentation” software category can be observed as much more evidently directed towards an amateur2
audience not professionally educated in graphic design (Pirner 2001, Kaminski 2002). In light of users’ ini-
tially observed “uneasiness with the white screen”3 (Zuckermann 1999, Parker 2001) as discussed earlier,4 all
applications associated with the production of presentation visuals have thus not merely ―and unani-
mously― implemented adequate template, or even “self–prompting” functionality during the 1980s and
90s,5 but even reconfigured the latter to represent presentation software’s currently “most striking”,6 pre-
dominant feature.
3.1.1.2 Predetermined Workflow

Thus, unlike in conventional graphics software, not a single application within this segment has opted to
actually initiate with an unmodified, blank slide view: “Rather than launching with a blank screen”, as Heck
(1994) notes,7 slideware developers have instead put forward dialog splash screens, self–prompting8 “dialogue
boxes”,9 or “on–screen buttons” (p. 98) in order to proactively guide, or even “shepherd”10 the user towards
an automated slide–creation process. Not surprisingly, Miller (1988) notes that, with the vast majority of
current and previously conceived presentation applications, “you typically begin by selecting an auto–tem-
plate file, [and] then entering your presentation” (p. 58).
To this respect, the applications in question either tend to readily propose a preconfigured slide pattern by
automatically opening the corresponding template file on program launch, or, alternatively, through the ap-
erture of an initial dialogue window, or “splash screen” to prompt the user for appropriate selections (Hor-
ton et al. 1994,11 Clapperton 1996).
Despite being viewed as “obtrusive” by many,12 particularly Sellen and Nicol (1990) have interpreted these
proactive components as “implicit, on–line help”.13 While equally reflected by Seachrist (1997),1 Godin
1
Unlike with presentation software, DTP tools do not initially propose or even by default insert preconfigured shapes, graphics, or even
“templates”, since virtually all graphics programs initiate with what is usually termed “virgin work” – a blank page.
2
Maney 1999, p. B3
3
Duffy 1996: “We need more self–help modules in the software, multimedia examples and templates. Something […] that will help us
overcome the ‘blank screen syndrome’…” (p. 41)
4
“Microsoft learned that some would–be presenters were uncomfortable with a blank PowerPoint page —it was hard to get started”
(Parker 2001, p. 80)
5
6
Pitta 2001, p. 322
7
Heck 1994, p. 98
8
9
Samudhram 2002, p. 28
10
Parker 2001: „Even the most easygoing PowerPoint template insists on a heading followed by bullet points, so that the user is shep-
herded toward a staccato, summarizing frame of mind” (p. 78)
11
“[The application] asks you what type of graphic you want to create. Choices include title slides, bullet lists, graphs, tables and organiza-
tion charts” (Horton / Shinbach 1994, p. 11)
12
Flynn 1997: “[These] wizards [were] considered by many to be too obtrusive.” (p. 4)
13
“Any […] prompt to the next action in a series of actions or in the form of [a] message, could also be considered online help.” (Sel-
len/Nicol 1990, p. 152)
(2001) posited particularly “those helpful tools” as the “main reason” for the aforementioned, bullet–point
proliferation (p. 3).2
Consequently, since indeed “all” publicly available slideware tools feature such proactive “automation
mechanisms for taking the design burden away from users” (Seachrist 1996, p. 24), the general interaction
concept as apparent with commercial presentation software has clearly evolved beyond the notion of a
merely “neutral”, or passive user interface towards inherently (albeit, in most cases, rather subtly)3 proposing,
or even “imposing” (Walker 2002)4 a distinct, visual “framework”.
In light of an, as Lindstrom (1998) notes, fairly “restrictive mentality” (p. 14) apparent with template– or
wizard–driven presentation software, it becomes clear that particularly inexperienced presenters, “unsure of
how to get started”,5 appear subject to the arguably subtle influence exercised through these assumedly “ex-
pert”6 automation features. The commonly understood notion of slideware users as generally “grateful to let
the wizard do the working” (Creighton & Adams 1998, p. 86) sees itself equally exemplified in the assump-
tion that “if you stick to the standard templates and bullet points, you can put together something that
looks really attractive really fast” (Woodbury 1998, p. 81).
3.1.1.3 Suggested Preset Patterns: “Just a Tool” or Proactive Guidance?

Therefore, as Lorge (1997) points out, “presentation software programs”, while superficially diverse in terms
of multimedia features and usability, basically “share the same fundamental capabilities” (p. 88), in that they
unanimously promote “sug-
gested preset patterns for orga-
nizing information”,7 thus
outwardly facilitating the slide
production process within a
certain,8 “clearly restrictive,
narrative outline” (Iedema et
al. 2003, p. 771).
In light of the above dis-

cussed, unusually proactive
usability principle apparent
with commercial presentation
software, the notion of tem-
plate–, or even wizard–driven Fig. 3.01: Aesthetic inluence as exercised by PowerPoint – according to a Tufte (2003a,b) Per-
applications as “just a tool”, siflage comparing PowerPoint’s bullet point aesthetics to dictatorship.
1
“[These] self–prompting tools give casual business users a much needed helping hand in making design decisions.” (Seachrist 1996, p.
24)
2
“And those ‘helpful’ tools are the main reason that we’ve got to live with page after page of bullets, with big headlines and awful back-
grounds. Let's not even get started on the built–in clip art” (Godin 2003, p. 3)
3
Hansen / Kahnweiler 1997: “They control subtly by creating [and] promot[ing] templates...” (p. 117)
4
“PowerPoint presentations […] impose a strong sense of structure…” (Walker 2002, p. 7)
5
Lorge 1997, p. 88
6
“Embedded in the wizard is a great deal of expert knowledge, [so] for most people there is no reason to acquire all that knowledge.”
(Creighton / Adams, p. 86)
7
Lorge 1997, p. 88
8
Lindstrom 1998, p. 14
supposedly bereft of any guiding influence, subsequently appears somewhat naïve, even inappropriate within
our given context: “The tool metaphor”, as Edward Tufte comments, “does [herein] not provide any intel-
lectual leverage”.1
Clearly, exaggerated accounts on presentation software as an alleged “villain that oppresses its users, almost
by default absolving the presenter from taking any personal responsibility” provide rather little assistance
towards an understanding of the factual influence exercised by such “suggestive” user interfaces. However,
our basis to any analysis in this regard is clearly shaped by the recognition that computational systems, and
more so rather “obtrusively” interacting usability schemata as exemplified above, clearly represent more so-
phisticated agents beyond our original concept of merely passive, neutrally acting “tools”. As Johnson (1997)
puts out, any software system applied to “shape our thinking with the help of digital computers” is, by its
very nature, “not value–free”.2
Based on this essential assumption, we can clearly recognize that software engineers, be it by means of mere
intuition or through a more elaborately worked, theoretical model, necessarily implement fairly distinct
ideas and concepts into any software – as an inevitable artefact stemming from its very design process – of
how the final product is to be used:
Authoring tools are implemented based on [certain] approaches that reflect how the author or user is ex-
pected to conceive or experience the resulting package of media.
(Goldberg 1997, p. 8)
3.1.1.4 Medium or More?

Clearly, presentation software, or any kind of software really, therefore represents considerably more than
“just a medium”,3 as compared to previously applied “counterparts” such as the flip–chart or white board,4
in that it by its very nature, characteristically embodies a certain type of inherent, “computational intelli-
gence” (cf. Gassée & Rheingold 1990)5 in the form of algorithms and pre–determined “workflow inter-
faces”6 that appear obviously suited to at least superficially guide, or shape the results that it facilitates to ac-
complish.
Up to what extent such a software system actually exercises this type of influence is, obviously, subject to the
application’s visual gui and usability paradigm: The most “obtrusive” manifestation of restrictively guided
design is clearly exemplified by “Auto–Content”, or “design wizards” commonly built into the entirety of
commercial presentation software (Seachrist 1996, p. 24), since visual appearance, or even textual content
features, is therein delegated to the “presentation tool” itself.7 Not lastly when observed from this perspec-
tive, as Mackinlay (1986) puts out, the software does in fact “shoulder”8 an actual type of “responsibility”
(p. 111) towards the outcome of the design process.
1
cited in Shwom / Keller 2003, p. 15
2
cited in Zuckerman 1999, p. 9
3
Smith 2004, p. 519, Searle 2004, p. 9
4
Schonfeld 2004: “the flip chart [as] the precursor to today's PowerPoint presentation” (p. 101)
5
“Intelligence […] is the faculty of manufacturing artificial objects, after Bergson (1911)” (Gassée/Rheingold 1990, p. 225)
6
Wang 2002, p. 472, Reddy 2003, p. 46
7
“An obvious solution is to build a system, called a presentation tool, that automatically designs graphical presentations of information.
Using such a system, [one] needs not pre–design the presentations, and the graphic design issues are the responsibility of the presentation
tool.” (Mackinlay 1986, p. 111)
8
„Holmes 2004, p. 100
3.1.2 Means and Extent of Software–driven Design Influence

However, since presentation software is obviously not exclusively driven by the aforementioned “wizard”, or
2
“agent”1 technology (Brown 2002), the question determining its actual degree of aesthetic or even substan-
tial influence is how accessibly, or prominently placed such functionality appears within the application’s
graphical user interface.
Moreover, beyond the mere subject of per se tendencially “obtrusive” wizards (Flynn 1997),3 which, al-
though “ideally” symbolizing and reflecting presentation software’s guiding character,4 are certainly “not
5
used by everyone” (Bean 2002), another central indication towards an application’s aesthetic influence can
clearly be observed within the implementation of its template functionality.
3.1.2.1 Wizard and Template Accentuation: The Role of Subtle Positioning

Respectively, configuration, accessibility, and placement issues of these predetermined design schemas serve
as indicators towards evaluating supposed tendencies favouring, encouraging, or even intrinsically suggesting
a distinct, aesthetic paradigm as discussed earlier.
Thus, insights into whether certain templates merely represent an optional design choice discreetly hidden
within the application’s general workflow concept, or, conversely, might be observed to be more promi-
nently placed and presented among the dialogs’ design options, up to being even “rigidly” (Murphy 2002,
p. 46) suggested and advertised through the software’s graphical user interface provide useful implications as
to any supposed guiding function apparent with the software in question.
3.1.2.2 Tendencial Facilitations

Finally, an investigation into the observed usability as apparent with different design paradigms may poten-
tially yield some insight in terms of the aforementioned, general assumptions worked into the application’s
design and usage concept: How easy does the software make it for the user to achieve certain tasks, and to
implement certain design concepts? Clearly, the facilitation of distinct, aesthetic schemata theoretically im-
plies a conceptually driven guidance function:
Most PowerPoint presentations look a particular way because the PowerPoint tool has features that make
particular tasks easy. PowerPoint makes it easy to use templates, so we use templates. PowerPoint makes it
easy to use bulleted lists, so we use bulleted lists.
(Atkinson & Mayer 2004, p. 5)
The actual means towards an analysis of the thus described phenomenon can clearly be seen in the visual
and functional propositions of the actual GUI framework, i.e. the availability (cf. Sellen & Nicol 1990),6 po-
sition, alignment, ordering, size and obviousness (vs. delitescence, or “hidden–ness”), of characteristic GUI
components, as for instance formulated within the adapted Fitts’s law principle (see below).
1
cf. Dryer 1997, p. 265
2
“To be fair, much of the criticism of PowerPoint is directed at the features that allow authors to create complete presentations with al-
most no effort. Ignoring the design templates and the AutoContent wizard, however, PowerPoint still has some obvious shortcomings.” (
3
Flynn 1997: Wizards „automatically apply numbers or bullet points to a list… Microsoft Office’s [1997] wizards [were] considered by
many to be too obtrusive.” (p. 4)
4
cf. Mai / Neo 2000: “Guides are akin to the wizards functions that we see in presentation programmes like that of Microsoft PowerPoint,
where suggestions are given on how to go about building a particular type of presentation. Guides can be a more personalised wizard by
being able to anticipate a user's need and providing a solution to his or her problem.” (p. 42)
5
“[These] tools have been implemented, but are not used by everyone.” (Bean 2002, p. 11)
6
“What menus are available and what options are on those menus inform the user (theoretically at least) of the range of possibilities for
performing a task.” (Sellen / Nicol 1990, p.151)
3.1.3 Underlying, Mental Model

As Marcus and Baumgartner (2004) point out, the aforementioned criteria observable with any software’s
GUI inherently points to the application’s underlying, “mental model”, since user interactions, workflow and
program navigation essentially reflect “efficient movement within the mental model through menus, dia-
logue boxes and control panels” (p. 6).
Consequently, a methodological analysis on presentation software’s graphical user interfaces shall provide
appropriate indications as to such an assumed guidance function. At an increased level, these observations
are equally to provide answers to presumably exaggerated accounts finding the software to “force […] ideas
into a form that does not do them justice”:
Once you have decided to use it, the program tends to dictate the way in which your information is struc-
tured and presented.
(Simons 2001, p. 6)
Beyond the subjective validity of such “anecdotal evidence” (Zuckerman 1999, Butler & Mautz 1996) how-
ever, a clearly traceable, methodological analysis presents itself more aptly suited to adequately answer such
questions: How accessible, or cumbersome, are select visualisation features being presented, promoted (e.g.
in terms of “self–prompting”1 dialogue boxes) and implemented within an application’s GUI concept?
3.1.4 Towards GUI Analysis: Common Paradigms

Since in terms of presentation software, no conclusively concrete result or even a definite, detailed workflow
can be provided a priori beyond the very broad notion of “slide design”, an HCI evaluation method most
aptly approaching the aforementioned issues can probably be seen with a number of aspects inside of the so–
called “predictive” evaluation category:
Predictive evaluation usually involves making predictions about [GUI] attributes based on psychological
modelling techniques.
(Hilbert & Redmiles 2000, p. 389)
Nonetheless, the theoretically best–defined, standard proceedings with GUI evaluation, namely the com-
monly applied GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques (John & Kieras 1996a,b) present them-
selves quite “excessively goal–oriented”2 to properly reflect our rather “open” task definition. Since, moreo-
ver, the GOMS analysis model merely applies to rather small, simple (or modularizable) tasks, an essentially
broader, or “informal”3 evaluation technique based on the more intuitive walkthrough schema appears tenta-
tively more appropriate at this point.
Besides the equally task–oriented (and thus somewhat less applicable) Cognitive Walkthrough methodology
(Polson et al. 1992), a number of less stringent principles such as Sears’ (1997) Heuristic Walkthrough tech-
niques or evaluation aspects based on Nielsen’s “usability heuristics” (Nielsen 1994, Nielsen & Mack, 1994)
shall equally find headmost application within the following writing
1
“Whether using PowerPoint’s AutoContent Wizard, Freelance’s SmartMasters, Corel’s PerfectExpert, or Harvard’s Quick Presentations,
self–prompting tools give casual business users a much needed helping hand in making design decisions.” (Seachrist 1996, p. 24)
2
Attridge 1999, p. 27
3
cf. Dr. A. Holzinger’s paper “Usability Engineering Methods (UEMs) for Software Developers”, Univ. of Graz, Austria, URL:
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/~holzinge/holzinger/usability.html [last accessed 9.10.04]
3.1.4.1 Fitts’ Law

While many of the aforementioned principles partially remain subject to considerable debate within acade-
mia (Wixon 2003),1 I will initially discuss GUIs’ most striking aspects particularly in terms of what Microsoft
UI engineer Scott Berkun (2000) has termed “the one immutable rule for interface design that we know
about” – Fitts’s Law.
Although Fitts’ (1954) paper itself principally represents a strictly one–dimensional, heavily mathematical
model (Card et al. 1978)2 that has only been applied and extended towards approaches of graphical human–
computer interaction and direct, visual manipulation paradigms quite recently (MacKenzie 1992,
MacKenzie & Buxton 1992), its basic, underlying implication for graphical user interfaces actually reads
fairly simple:
The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target.
(Tognazzini 1992, p. 145)
3.1.4.1.1 Origins and Derivations

Subsequently, Tognazzini (2002) equally posits that the two principal GUI attributes can be defined through
position and spatial extent (i.e. the size) of GUI elements (buttons, icons, menu items) relative to the mouse
cursor.
If, “as generally claimed, the law does hold true” for visual human–computer interactions,3 and equally tak-
ing into consideration a characteristically peripheral placement of GUI widgets “around the edge of an art-
work”, or “workspace” (Kurtenbach et al. 1997, p. 35), then a more prominent, or “conceptually promoted”4
placement of an item, according to Tognazzini, can chiefly be identified through alignment on the edges, or
corners of the computer screen, as well as by its physical dimensions.
3.1.4.1.2 Consequencies in Terms of GUI Analysis

Therefore, GUI choices as presented to the user shall provide analytical clues in terms of their predetermined
spatial arrangement, or ordering5 as supposedly “proposed” through the software’s user interface, since, for
instance, topmost–positioned or even pre–selected design choices may indicate an underlying, guiding
function observable with the application itself.
Moreover, insights from observations towards the obviousness6 of algorithm–suggested workflows will be ana-
lysed as to provide indications towards a program–originated, or even –determined workflow process. That
means, that certain steps, or even an entire workflow process itself, “obviously” (Tognazzini 2002)7 sug-
gested through an application’s GUI (e.g. applying the last–mentioned instance from the walkthrough meth
1
Wixon 2003: „the Current Literature Fails the Practitioner“ (paper title)
2
The most common „Shannon“ formulation (due to its resemblance to Shannon’s theorem) states: T = a + b log2 · (C/W + 1) , where T is
the average time taken to complete the movement, a and b are empirical constants, D is the distance from the starting point to the center
of the target, and W is the width of the target measured along the axis of motion (Note: original, 1–dim. formula as initially provided by
Fitts). Thus, it basically posits distance and size as most important factors, here interpreted in terms of GUI interaction.
3
ibid.
4
cf. Lin 2002: „Operational Empowerment“ as understood in terms of “enactment” and “conceptual promotion” (p. 548)
5
cf. Patten and Ishii’s “Comparison of Spatial Organization Strategies in Graphical and Tangible User Interfaces” (2000), particularly in
regards to p. 46 (Spatial Arrangement Strategies, and Ordering)
6
“With all of the controls visible […], [their] purpose has been made obvious [e.g.] by its location and labelling.” (Murphy 2001, p. 48)
7
“Visually obvious environment” (Tognazzini 2002, n/p)
odologies discussed earlier) tentatively point towards a distinct, underlying “mental model”1 as categorically
attributable to the software itself.
3.1.4.2 Default Workflow Process

In terms of the aforementioned “design automation”,2 an investigation into the role of particularly self–
prompting,3 software–driven GUI assistance shall provide possible insight into such an assumed, predeter-
mined slide creation process. In this regard, the Microsoft Office XP Developer’s Guide (Brown et al. 2001)
specifies namely “Add–ins, Templates, Wizards, and Libraries” (p. 342) as, exemplarily, PowerPoint’s key
features to “give users a framework within which to complete common tasks” (p. 338):
In Office XP development, a workflow […] is a series of tasks or events, [and] the order in which they must
be performed.
(Brown et al. 2001, p. 362)
In order to “understand”4 the corresponding process itself, the identification and analysis of an assumed de-
fault workflow5 as previously described by the Microsoft engineers6 will therefore find appropriate commen-
tary within the following writing, mainly, of course, in terms of the aforementioned walkthrough perspec-
tive.
3.2 The PowerPoint GUI: An Exemplary “Workflow” Analysis
3.2.1 Subject Matter: The PowerPoint Application

Due to a clear and undisputed “dominance” (Grapes et al. 1998)7 held by software manufacturer Microsoft
within this particular market segment,8 the following walkthrough will consequentially focus on GUI aspects
observable with the company’s monolithic9 “PowerPoint” application, which, as an archetypal instance from
the above discussed, “presentation software” branch, may arguably not represent the first,10 or even most cut-
ting–edge embodiment of this category;11 nonetheless, it is undoubtedly the most representative one in the
field.
Since the PowerPoint (and with it, equally Microsoft’s entire Office suite) architecture has basically re-
mained unchanged ever since its 1997, “scandalous” transition glitch12 in terms of GUI, “real” 32bit environ
1
Marcus and Baumgartner, 2004, p. 6, cf. the corresponding discussion outlined above.
2
Seachrist 1996: “The usability advantages of design automation tools in presentation graphics programs [are] well documented.” (p. 24)
3
“…self–prompting tools give casual business users a much needed helping hand in making design decisions” [ibid.]
4
Brown et al. 2001, p. 362: “Understanding the Workflow Process”
5
ibid, p. 363
6
cf. Brown et al. 2001, pp. 297, 342, 346
7
“Microsoft’s PowerPoint was certainly the dominant software.” (Grapes et al. 1998, p. 269)
8
“Modern–day presentation software – of which Power–Point, in representing 95% of the presentation–software market, is the most
prominent example by far – is still rooted firmly in the past.” (Zongker / Salesin 2003, p. 298)
9
“Old–style, monolithic application“ (Sutton 2001, p. 16)
10
“PowerPoint has neither outlining nor chart– and graph–making capabilities… As a second–generation product, [it] was not the first
with software in this category…” (Antonoff 1989b)
11
“PowerPoint for Windows lags behind the competition…” (Fridlund 1991, p. 61)
12
“Then there’s the Great Word 8 [and] Office 95/97 Scandal…” (Crawford 1998, p. 110)
Note: During the transition from the single–digit Product Versions (PowerPoint 4) via the basically unchanged “Office 95” edition to-
wards the new 1997 architecture, file formats turned out to be mutually incompatible
ment, and file format,1 I will logically concentrate on workflow from the 1997 to 2003 (“XP”) versions
within the following writing.
3.2.2 Startup Dialogs, and the “Splash Screen”

Besides temporally consistent features to be observed with the PowerPoint GUI, it is obviously changed, or
even just slightly modified components that point to particularly interesting developments as regards the
application’s usability concept: With the
opening of two subsequent, self–prompt-
ing dialogue windows (excluding an addi-
tional, preceding “logo splash screen”,
which is merely displayed, or “quickly
flashed”2 prior to the actual program
launch), an obvious predisposition towards
a certain, default workflow stands indeed
to reason with PowerPoint’s 1997 appli-
cation GUI [cf. Fig. 3.1]. Since the HCI it-
self proactively “prompts to the next ac-
Fig. 3.1: Startup Dialog as automatically displayed at program launch
tion” (Sellen & Nicol 1990, p. 152) at (Program Version: Microsoft PowerPoint ’97 for Windows)
this point, the actual choices made avail-
able to the user within this context,3 and particularly position and alignment of these selection widgets may
thus provide resourceful indications towards a “suggested choice” predisposition as discussed earlier.
As obviously visible with the dialogue layout, here, the “blank” presentation —usually the default load init
with “other” commercial design and DTP software— is presented as merely one (furthermore, notably, sub-
ordinately aligned) amongst other design options. Not merely in terms of the above discussed “screen edges”
principle as derived from Fitts’ law,4 but equally taking into account “conventional” text layout paradigms
such as, most importantly, the occidental reading direction from left to right (van der Veer, 2003),5 Power-
Point’s Auto–Content Wizard, prominently positioned towards the top–left corner of the dialogue window,6
can clearly be identified as an intrinsically “suggested” choice widget. Moreover, the additional “tip” towards
the proposed usefulness of this feature visibly puts further emphasis onto the aforementioned AutoContent
option at this point.
3.2.2.1 Emphasis on Templated Slide Design

This distinct presentation order and pre–selection feature with an assumed preference towards title and bul-
let–slide proposals as discussed above becomes particularly evident in comparison e.g. with its freely avail-
able, OpenOffice.org competitor Impress: Where, in PowerPoint, the AutoContent wizard is visibly posi-
tioned topmost and pre–selected [Figs. 3.1–2], deprecating the blank slide offering towards the lower ranks,
1
“The fact of the matter is that PowerPoint, for all its utilitarian glory, still uses the same basic architecture and design it had a decade
ago.” (Simons 2004a, p. 6)
2
Samson 2003, p. 4
3
cf. Sellen / Nicol 1990: “What menus are available and what options are on those menus inform the user (theoretically at least) of the
range of possibilities for performing a task.” (p.151)
4
see the corresponding discussion above.
5
“In the western world we read from left to right and from top to bottom. [Thus,] important issues should be presented first (top left).”
(van der Veer 2003, p. 20)
6
cf. the above quoted statement (ibid).
it is not even featured within the Impress splash dialog equivalent [Fig. 3.39]. More interesting, the Impress
GUI obviously presents the blank slide opener quite prominently – in the corresponding PowerPoint dialog,
the subordinately aligned “blank presentation” radio box, however, will yield but a readily–layouted, initial
title slide.
All things considered, the proactive, self–prompting nature of this “splash” dialogue, as well as the rather
striking widget order and choice suggestion within the dialog window itself do in fact point towards an un-
derlying, “guiding” function as apparent with the application’s HCI paradigm.
Interestingly, however, with further versions of PowerPoint, Microsoft’s UI engineers have obviously opted
to partly remove, or at least lessen the “prominence”1 of this apparently “over–obtrusive” (Müller 2004, p.
198), initial selection dialog window.
The corresponding user prompt, though un-

changed in its ensuing (1998) Macintosh
adoption [Fig. 3.2], did enjoy gradual modifi-
cation with subsequent releases of Microsoft
Office: While its immediate (2000) successor
merely contained an appropriate “optional-
ity”2 checkbox, removed the obviously promo-
tional “tip” component and gently altered its
widget alignment towards a more balanced
choice presentation within the initial, default3
dialogue box [Fig. 3.3], later versions of Mi-
Fig. 3.2: Startup Dialog as (automatially) displayed in PPT/MAC 1998
crosoft PowerPoint (2002, 2003) even entirely
4 5
discarded the exclusive, self–prompting dialogue windows from the
application’s UI functionality due to usability evaluations reporting
the underlying “pop–up paradigm” to be “obtrusive” (Flynn 1997,
p. 4) and comparatively “annoying” (Jacsó 2001, p. 22) from a user
point of view.6
Therefore, where PowerPoint 2002’s corresponding, “new Presen-

tation” tab thus displays an entirely re–grouped, linear ordering of
actually still the same options [Fig. 3.4], its 2003 [XP] equivalent re-
places this initial proposition set with an unrelated “initial starting
tasks” panel focusing on the parenting office suite’s online offerings
[Fig. 3.5] that only links to the previously exhibited creation choices
through the rather unimposing “create new presentation” task wid-
get [Fig. 3.6].
Fig. 3.3: Opening Dialog as Displayed within
PowerPoint 2000 for Windows.
1
“In a graphical user interface (GUI) environment, […] features [are] prominently displayed […] through the provision of a […] dialog
box…” (Lonardo et al. 1995, p. 57)
2
“Don’t show this dialog again.”
3
Berkeley, 2000: “By default, the user is [prompted] by a pop–up dialog box…” (p. 55)
4
“Self–prompting interface”: cf. Schild et al. 1990, p. 87
5
cf. Jurvis 1996 (“a dialog box is a pop–up window that is typically modal and that is activated from a frame…”) pp. 55ff.
6
“[The] Pop–up window dialog […] is particularly annoying…” (p. 22)
Quite notably, the new alignment observable with more recent releases of the PowerPoint GUI, in reducing
the “obtrusiveness”, or exclusivity of the initial slide creation tasks itself
through the attachment to an optionally actionable side tab, considera-
bly deprecates the aforementioned template and wizard options in fa-
vour of the more common “blank/new”, and “open presentation” tasks.
This observation essentially points towards an
altered understanding, or prioritization, of
the application’s feature offerings: Where the
aforementioned, earlier versions of Power-
Point visibly focus and advertise their rather
newly–implemented “automation” function-
ality1 through an initial, self–prompting GUI,
the more recent releases gently realign these
now apparently quite unpopular features2 Fig. 3.4: Lateral “Opener” Tab in
PowerPoint 2002 for Windows
towards more inaccessible,3 (i.e. middle and
lower) areas of an optional side tab [cf. Figs.
Fig. 3.5: Lateral option tab

3.5–7].
displayed on PowerPoint for
Windows 2003 prog. launch Interestingly, where current (XP 2003, OS X 2004) versions of PowerPoint [XP]
now necessitate three “link–clicks”4 within this lateral tab in order to access the
previously initial prompt for an appropriate slide layout selection [Figs. 3.8a,b], the application’s earlier
(1997, 2000) releases in turn implemented this design choice through an initially mandatory, pop–up dialog
window [Fig. 3.7].
3.2.3 “Blank” Presentation: Mandatory Layout Selection

If we, in terms of an assumedly “unguided”, logical walkthrough, assume
the subsequent selection of a blank presentation sheet and in supposed
ignorance of the previously discussed, “AutoContent advertisement”
splash screen’s subtle, guiding influence, the last–mentioned, pre–XP ver-
sions of PowerPoint automatically trigger another self–prompting win-
dow obligatorily prompting the user for an appropriate “slide layout” se-
lection determining what contents to place into the first presentation
slide. Fig. 3.6: Lateral “opener” tab within Mi-

crosoft PowerPoint 2003
Thus, even prior to providing access to the conceptual outlining function
of the program (or any other function, really) which might assist the user in formulating the actual content
and structure of the presentation to be given, the application demands an initial design choice in terms of its
visible layout. As Maulitz (2003) correspondingly noted, “graphical content [thus] begins even before true
‘content’.” (p. 929)
1
cf. Seachrist 1996, p. 24
2
cf. Godin 2001, Parker 2001, Brown 2002
3
Rationale: linear ordering from top to bottom (cf. van der Veer 2003, p. 20), Fitt’s law [as discussed above]
4
cf. Wolf et al. 2004: document–link–clicks [“fewer document–link clicks indicate [...] a more streamlined application workflow, [and
thus], more confidence in making a correct document choice”, p. 581]
Clearly, such HCI guidance1 might be interpreted in terms of presenting a likely–looking target to the ample
critique rigidly attacking an assumed preference of “form over substance” (Khan 2001, p. 36) as quite fre-
quently attributed to the software itself (Bly 2003, Borne 2003, Keller 2003, Turkle 2004).
Nonetheless, it should equally be noted that this

design choice, albeit inescapably “imposed”2 at
program launch, actually just explicitates a usu-
ally rather obvious process due to the very point
of time the layout selection is prompted: Since
the aforementioned, “slide layout” window is
imperatively launched at start–up time of the ap-
plication, the selection of an obligatory “title”, or
“starter slide” appears somewhat obvious at this
point. Correspondingly, the exclusive dialog Fig. 3.7: “New Slide”/Template Selector (PPT97 for Windows)
window applied in earlier3 versions of Power-
Point [Fig. 3.7], as well as the more recent “layout tab” [Fig. 3.8a,b] both aptly place and pre–select the ap-
propriate starter slide towards the top–left corner of the window, as in line with the western reading direction
(van der Veer 2003, p. 20) and lateral positioning as posited through Fitts’ law.
3.2.3.1 Bulleted Text Slides: The Likely Design Choice

It may equally be noted that, in terms of a subsequent content slide insertion
that will be discussed at a later point within this chapter, the “archetypal”,4
bulleted text slide noticeably represents the subsequently logical choice in the
course of left–to right reading direc-
tion and topmost positionment, not
merely observable with older [Fig.
3.7] versions, but equally Power-
Point’s most recent representatives
[Fig. 3.8b, 3.37]. Again, this becomes
more visibly obvious in comparison to
the corresponding Impress equivalent,
Fig. 3.8a: Layout Selector tab
where a truly blank slide is presented
in PPT2K2 for Windows
most promiently in terms of Fitts’ Law
[Fig. 3.40].
However, another startling fact associated with this apparent guid-

Fig. 3.8b: Layout Sel. tab (Office X for Mac)
ance towards the initial starter slide selection is that, by supposing a
“blank presentation” selection from the previous splash dialog,5 an actually “blank” [cf. Fig. 3.37], that is,
empty presentation sheet without any preconfigured, or even self–prompting design suggestions was to be
1
“At this point, a series of Slide Layouts are presented – every new slide must have a slide layout.” (Strutin 2003, p. 47)
2
Fridlund / Glaser 1993: “PowerPoint allowed [the user] various changes […], but imposed a number of [other] selection difficulties…”
(p. 83), Walker 2002 (“PowerPoint imposes […] a rigid, structural framework…”, p. 7),
3
Note: The automatic pop–up dialogue is both present in PowerPoint’s 1997, as well as in its 2000 release.
4
White 2003: „In short, it‘s the [...] familiar narrative archetype...“ (p. 12), eq. cf. Morgan 2003, p. 63
5
see above
expected. The GUI–suggested title slide [Fig. 3.10],1 even auto-

matically loaded upon the commonly applied “File › New” menu
option within newer versions,2 tentatively points toward a pre-
disposition favouring this initially defined slide layout [Fig. 3.26b].
That means, that an assumedly “blank” presentation isn’t actually
empty, or “blank” per se, since a predetermined (albeit rather sim-
ple) “default template” (Hesse & Hesse. 2003)3 appears rather per-
sistently implemented within the application’s HCI paradigm.
This equally holds true when applying an assumed “escape” be-

haviour within this context: If the user cancels the aforementioned
slide layout selection process or, alternatively, deletes the initially
selected starter slide, the application quite visibly prompts for an
appropriate insertion by expanding the entire workspace into an Fig. 3.9: Click to Add Slide View
“action button”4 simply labelled “click to add slide” [Fig. 3.9]. The (PowerPoint 97 for Windows)
latter subsequently defaults back to our initially discussed “slide
layout” selector, arguably suggesting an insertion of the aforementioned, default title slide [Fig. 3.10].
3.2.3.2 GUI Evolution: The Trend Towards Automatic Template Disposition

Interestingly, however, Microsoft UI engineers have
apparently attempted to gradually “smoothen”5 the
above described workflow even further: Consequently,
its 2002, 2003 [XP] and (2004) MacOS X releases,6
while lessening “AutoContent” and “Design” guidance
through its realigned, lateral option tab,7 automatically
initialize the application with our aforementioned,
predefined “starter” template readily containing the
corresponding title and subtitle text fields. Moreover,
the commonly applied “New” icon [Fig. 3.11], top–
left–most and thus rather prominently placed in terms
of our previously discussed GUI paradigms,8 entirely
skips the aforementioned layout selection dialog and,
Fig. 3.10: “Tabbed” view after title slide insertion (PPT2K.WIN) without any further user interaction embarks upon
1
Discussion: see preceding paragraph (top–left position, pre–selection)
2
Note: Applies to PowerPoint 2002, 2003 [XP] and PowerPoint v. X (MacOS X Edition); previous releases (1997, 2000) automatically load
the above discussed layout selector.
3
“PowerPoint presentations, unfortunately, […] often disregard the rules of "information design," [since] many of them seldom get be-
yond the default template.” (Hesse & Hesse 2003, p. 39)
4
“PowerPoint comes with several built–in responses […] i.e. transforming the entire slide area into an Action Button…” (Tomei/Balmert
2000, p. 70)
5
cf. Seachrist 1996 („Prior NSTL evaluations of this [i.e. presentation] software category have shown that testers like the programs that
smooth or eliminate design decisions”, p. 24)
6
For the recently published MacOS release (not as thoroughly tested within this analysis as PPT’s 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2003 versions),
see Dreier 2004, p. 53
7
see the appr. discussion above (AutoContent and AutoDesign features now subordinately positioned within optional „New Slide“ tab on
the right
8
Top–left position: Attractive GUI “real estate” (Tognazzini 2002) both in terms of Fitts’ Law and the western, left–to–right, top–to–bot-
tom reading direction, cf. van der Veer, 2003
“new slide” creation process with its standard title slide layout [Fig.
3.10].
The intuitively similar “File › New” command from the top–most Fig. 3.11: Leftmost “new” icon button (PPT2K3)
menu tab, however, corresponds to a slightly different action
within this context: Instead of directly defaulting to slide insertion, an appropriate “template selection” dia-
logue window is automatically opened [Fig. 3.12], or, as with 2000+ releases, prompted for via the lateral
option tab. Nonetheless, regardless of which design is finally selected, the standard layout selection dialog
[Fig. 3.8] equally reverts back to the suggested “starter slide” insertion.
3.2.4 Post–Title Slide Editing

Chronologically following our initially posited walkthrough schema, the default workflow thus characteristi-
cally defaults any slide creation process inside the PowerPoint GUI with an initial, standard “title slide” lay-
out [Fig. 3.10]. Through appropriate pre-selection, this consequently represents the logical outcome if the
user merely presses enter twice. At this point, the application’s GUI has certainly experienced a number of
changes in terms of its slide editing options presented at this point of time: Most notably, its 2000 product
release introduced default outline and notes editing panes as immediately visible GUI components within its
standard workspace.
3.2.4.1 Outline and Notes View

While the “display promotion” of these components clearly
debits itself to the fact that (even though the corresponding
functionality had already been provided in earlier versions)
both had previously been used rather unsatisfactorily, the ac-
tual effects of this GUI modification remains somewhat
contradictive in terms of the resulting slides’ aesthetic and
conceptual attributes: While the notes pane —at least in the-
ory— may offer the possibility to transfer considerable Fig. 3.12: Template Selector (PPT97 for Windows)
amounts of abstract, textual data from the visible slide
component towards a presenter–centric notes pane (Gebhardt 2004), the visual effects of outline–based ed-
iting, although certainly helpful in terms of thought organisation and structure,1 do in fact tend towards
“text slide”2 proliferation,3 as will be discussed in the following.
3.2.4.2 Text Boxes as Action Buttons: The self-prompting UI

Observing the central area of our slide workspace, however, the most immediately visible GUI elements are
certainly not the laterally displayed, conceptual panes, but the actual text boxes prompting for appropriate
action: Similar to the “click to add slide” commands seen in [Fig. 3.9], title and sub–title fields infamously4
demand the user to simply add appropriate, textual content at this point.
1
cf. Finkelstein 2004b, p. 18: „Hierarchy and PowerPoint“
2
Findler & Flatt 2004, p. 224
3
cf. Finkelstein 2004c: „PowerPoint [tends to] [...] add bulleted text on the slide.“ (p. 10)
4
cf. the „parodied“ (Brown 2002) version on Harpold, L. & Sippey, M. (Eds.) Click to Add Title, Oakland, CA, 2000, URL:
http://www.clicktoaddtitle.com [accessed 17.10.04]
Due to their considerably large display size and central positioning, these “contextual action buttons” clearly
represent the by far most obvious and immediate GUI widgets within the limits of the entire screen area in
terms of Fitts’ law.1 Consequently, the application’s underlying, conceptually presumed workflow schema, as
Parker (2001) states, virtually “shepherds”2 the user towards certain actions through the obviousness and
immediacy to be observed with its displayed HCI components.
The natural flow previously supposed through pop–up dialogue windows and “click–here” text labels as dis-
cussed above does, however, come to something of a stop with the completion of this initial, “title” slide.
Where, due to the “obviousness” of its associated GUI components, the entire workflow process could be
interpreted as somewhat linearly driven, even “wizard–like” (Randall & Pedersen 1998) up to this point,3
such obvious guidance sees itself partially interrupted prior to the insertion of a new slide. Unlike the rather
obvious, linked text boxes and self–prompting selection dialogs, no single, equally “obtrusive” GUI widget
(such as a “Next” button as integrated into PowerPoint’s corresponding wizard) would hint toward self–as-
suming, subsequent action as directly and immediately as previously observed.
3.2.4.3 Text Focus: PowerPoint as a Word Processor

According to Fitts’s law (cf. Tognazzini 2002),4 buttons and action icons laterally aligned around the central
workspace, or “slide area”, might of course provide indications towards the application’s possible, “sug-
gested” actions at this point. However, an inspection of the actual buttons displayed and, moreover, com-
parisons with particularly PowerPoint’s companion text editing software Word, show interesting similarities
between the two different programs’ icon panels: Besides “rudimentary”5 drawing capabilities rather un-
prominently placed towards the bottom,6 both Words’ [Fig. 3.13], as well as PowerPoint’s [Fig 3.14] sym-
bol tabs primarily focus on word processing functionality.
Despite some minor differences

in terms of text–editing func-
tionality,7 the fundamental un-
derstanding of PowerPoint as
nothing more but “a word Fig. 3.13: Standard Word for Windows (97) icon tab configuration
processor for slides”8 is conse-

quentially shared among a
number of researchers such as
Su et al. (2002), Zongker, and Fig. 3.14: PowerPoint (97) default icon tab configuration: Emphasis on word processing
Salesin (2003). Of course, it
1
cf. Tognazzini, First Principles of Interaction Design, as cited above
2
“PowerPoint templates insist on a heading followed by bullet points, so that the user is shepherded toward a [certain] frame of mind...”
(Parker 2001, p. 78)
3
“Microsoft [...] emphasises wizard–like dialog progressions...” (Randall/Pedersen 1998, p. 63)
4
Determining factor at this point: spatial proximity from artwork area to surrounding task buttons (i.e. minimal distance)
5
“PowerPoint's drawing tools and auto– shapes are absent from Keynote but will not be missed. The Keynote philosophy seems to be that
pictures should be created with a professional graphics program; it is for presenting pictures, not making them.” (Hartford 2004, p. 13)
6
Note: Since the reading direction, in this case, is from top–left to bottom right (van der Veer, 2003, p. 20), the tab is not intuitively en-
countered. Moreover, it is not positioned at the outer extent, but three icon–rows above the lower screen edge, thus making it somewhat
hard to navigate to (cf. Tognazzini 2002)
7
„PowerPoint is different from a word processor in that a user must first click on an object (e.g. title) and then edit the object’s properties
8
Zongker / Salesin 2003, p. 306
may appear equally surprising to find that other scholars finding PowerPoint, unfortunately, to “ not handle
text too well” (Kaminski 2002). Still, as Rensberger (2004) notes, the application’s workflow does in fact
tend to encourage scenarios in which “the presentation consists mainly of text” (p. 33).
Besides the aforementioned word–processing features for editing the actual (textual) content, an essentially
quite “limited” palette of drawing options
either found too low–level for flow–chart
creation (Findler & Flatt 2004)1 or “re-
dundant” (Hartford 2004),2 general,
stylistic modifications, and concurrent
slide insertion are clearly the HCI options
most prominently offered via both icon
tab and menu bar at this point.
However, while “colour scheme” adjust-

ments [Fig. 3.18] and template selection
Fig. 3.15: Template Selector (PPT97): Identical, Spatial Layout Structure
(equally referred to as slide “style”, or “de-
sign”) offer the possibility to slightly
tweak font and colour settings, the actual slide layout, or general, visual principle remains entirely un-
touched. Just as previously observed with PowerPoint’s initial template selector [Fig. 3.12], all available
templates follow and inherit the very same, hierarchical enumeration (or “bullet”) schema I initially dis-
cussed in Chapter 2. Likewise, hovering over “alternative”, available options in terms of design templates
[Figs. 3.15–17] yields an interesting, structural sameness innate to all of the design options intrinsically
made available with the application’s original distribution.
3.2.4.4 Layout Selector: Cosmetical Changes

Meanwhile, the slide layout selector ―an automatically opened dialog box as implemented into 1997 and
2000 versions [Fig. 3.8]— sees itself positioned in an increasingly deprecated fashion with more recent re-
leases of the application: Where, in earlier ver-
sions, layout selection menu items and iconized
buttons had been aligned right next to (or be-
low) the more intuitive “insert new slide” wid-
gets [Figs. 3.17–21] and most prominently
placed within the “Format” menu tab [Fig.
3.22],3 this ordering finds itself somewhat re-
versed in favour of the aforementioned “style”
and template selections [Fig. 3.23].
Exemplarily, while tentatively “hidden away”

into a “miscellaneous”, contextual sub–hierar
Fig. 3.16: Template/Slide “Design” Selector (PPT2K for Windows)
1
Note: Unlike programs like Visio or Mind Mapping utilities, PowerPoint merely provides low–level, graphical modification options, but
no logical relationship or graphing capabilities. Findler & Flatt 2004: “Shockingly, [..] PowerPoint does not lend itself easily to [the] ex-
tension and abstraction [needed] for the definition of logical, functional flow charts.” (p. 224)
2
“PowerPoint's drawing tools and auto– shapes are absent from Keynote but will not be missed. The Keynote philosophy seems to be that
pictures should be created with a professional graphics program; it is for presenting pictures, not making them.” (Hartford 2004, p. 13)
3
Note: Representing the top–most menu item within the central „style“ pane, the option receives the most prominent, or „intuitive“ place-
ment, according to Tognazzini (2002)
chy inside PowerPoint’s (2002) second–row icon tab, with PowerPoint’s 2002 [XP] release, the “style” wid-
get sees itself positioned even more prominently positioned on the very button panel than the somewhat
self–assuming “new slide” widget [Fig. 3.24], thus putting further emphasis on cosmetic template selection.
3.2.5 The Next Step: Inserting a New Slide

As discussed earlier, a strictly sequential workflow as e.g. proposed within the cognitive walkthrough meth-
odology found itself somewhat difficultated both through the missing of an arbitrarily identifiable task goal,
as well as due to the variety of design options presented through the GUI: A neatly obvious workflow as-
sumption as previously posited by “Click here to add title” commands subsequently appears somewhat ab-
sent at this point of time.
Nonetheless, besides the aforementioned, stylistic, and

word–processing options made available through the
application’s lateral GUI widgets, an intrinsically logic
step with the completion of the initial “starter” slide
clearly represents the insertion of a subsequent, new
Fig. 3.19: “Floating”
window towards slide slide.
insertions (PPT97)
Thus, despite the lack of an immediately obvious, cor-
responding action button, PowerPoint’s graphical user interface includes a
multitude of “interaction opportunities” to conclude this step. Regardless of
menu– [Fig. 3.25], button– [Fig. 3.24], or shortcut–based task comple-
1
tion, however, the actual “insertion protocol” certainly represents the more
interesting aspect of the default workflow at this point.
Fig. 3.17: Template Selector Tab

3.2.5.1 Streamlined Slide Insertion: Defaulting the Bullet Slide (PowerPoint 2002 for windows
Consequently, UI development does in fact point towards a certain
“streamlining” of corresponding design choices: While PowerPoint’s 1997 and 1998 releases mandatorily
prompt for an insertion via the aforementioned layout selection
dialog, its 2000 successor displays multiple opt–out (“do not
show in the future”) implementations at this point, thus partly
eliminating the obligation for potentially varying slide layouts.
2
Moreover, more recent versions of PowerPoint entirely skip the
aforementioned layout selection process in defaulting to its
“standard”, bulleted schema [Fig. 3.6] as an
intrinsically proposed slide layout. Even
though, clearly, this pre–selection can be
Fig. 3.18: Color Scheme Selection (PPT97–2K) changed via an optional “layout” tab [Fig Fig. 3.20: “New
3.8a,b], Murphy (2002) notes that a sur- Slide” icon (PPT97):
most “obvious” UI
prisingly ample majority of users “rigidly follow the originally proposed framework” (p. choice?
1
Note: Default insertion upon Command–M [Strg–M]. Historically attributed this way
since the N was reserved for New Presentation, the neighbouring choice in terms of keyboard mapping.
2
Applies to 2002, 2003 [XP] and MacOS Xversions of PowerPoint
46). Moreover, the preference of stylistic changes over actual layout modification [as discussed above in
terms of recent PowerPoint releases] and corresponding widget absence on PowerPoint’s (2002–04) UI pan-
els [Fig. 3.24] further lowers statistical likelihood of derivations from this default suggestion.
3.2.5.2 Outline Editing

Interestingly, both 1990s’ and current releases of PowerPoint endorse text–affine slide editing in rather
similar ways: Nonetheless, while more recent versions provide directly visible access to textual outline func-
tions, earlier releases more visibly deviate through the AutoContent wizard functionality, deprecated in its
2K editions probably due to its then somewhat lessened unpopularity (cf. Parker 2001, Godin 2001, Brown
2002)
At any rate, an application of Power-

Point’s outline does not merely pro-
vide an internal structure, or catch-
word support for the actual presenta-
tion. In fact, instead of outputting the
outline structure onto the inner notes Fig. 3.21: PPT97: Top menu order
pane, the entire content sees itself

Fig. 3.22: PPT2K: Format menu
automatically inserted into the actual
slide display forming our afore-
mentioned, hierarchically structured bullet–point (or, alternatively, an
1
enumeration) scheme, thus evidently focusing on bulleted text display.
More interesting even, the apparently “tedious” slide insertion process
is entirely skipped within this context through the automatic addition
of subsequent slide entities with the (textual) insertion of top–level out-
line phrases: Fig. 3.23: PPT2K3: Changed ordering
There is, in fact, little difference between taxonomy outlines and PowerPoint presentations – they are usu-
ally one and the same. This explains why most presentations look the same.
As shown in [Fig. 3.30], each of the category headings is also the heading of a slide, and the bulleted list
items are the bulleted lists on the slide. But the similarities don’t just appear at the slide level. It turns out
that our entire PowerPoint production process supports this [bulleted] outline paradigm
in one form or another.
2
(Atkinson 2005, p. 7)
Meanwhile, earlier PowerPoint versions clearly focused on wizard, or “guide” tech-
nology previously thought to represent a “popular
choice” (Sabella & Booker 2003) from an amateur
3
user perspective. Promoted particularly via amply in- Fig. 3.24: PPT2K3: Generously sized
Fig. 3.25 [PPT2K] 4
troduced, “obtrusive” helper agents to unaskedly “new” icon leading to the insertion of
the “standard”, bulleted text slide.
1
Note: This structure is equally observable in the Template preview [3.15–17] as well as the Slides Master
2
Actual material in press. Content and page references provided “as is”, quoted from Atkinson’s initial first–chapter manuscript (dated
20.9.04) of “Beyond Bullet Points”, Courtesy Microsoft Press
3
“One feature of the program which probably makes the software a popular choice is its presentation ‘wizard’.” (Sabella /Booker 2003, p.
207)
4
“Obtrusive ‘Tips’ found in previous versions of Microsoft products...” in: Suite Harmony, Computer Reseller News, Vol. 709 [11.11.96]
p. 210 – see also Flynn 1999, Burns 2001
propose template and wizard use during

various phases of the creation process [Figs.
2
3.27–29], these wizard–driven process re-
sults equally default to the aforementioned
outline view for further editing, albeit read-
ily “enhanced” with pre–selected design
templates and already inserted text sugges-
tions [Fig. 3.30]
3
“Then, there’s the semiotics”: In terms of
PowerPoint’s much–cited assistant func-
tionality, it is particularly the applied
wording and its ubiquitous, self–prompting
2
nature, that hint towards a certain,
“pushy” style in the promotion of the ap-
plication’s AutoContent wizard: Expres-
sions such as “good–looking”, “impressive”
[Fig. 3.29], and “outstanding” [Fig. 3.33]
Fig. 3.26: Click to Add Text: “Tabbed” PPT2K3 view with outlines and notes.
distinctively exhibit an ample advertising
affinity.
3.2.5.3 Click–Here Workflow

Beyond the particularly text–oriented outline editing and
AutoContent issue discussed above, an even more relevant aspect
can certainly be seen in possible, suggested “text endorsements” as
observed within the “visually–oriented” slide view, not leastly since
the latter clearly represents the most accessible editing mode pre-
ferred by the majority of users.
Fig. 3.28: Help text for “black/white view”:
Correspondingly, just as previously suggestions toward template-centric editing
observed with the aforementioned, pre–insertion [Fig. 3.9] and title slide
“action buttons” [Fig. 3.10], heading and bullet boxes on the actual “con-
tent” slides themselves equally prompt for corresponding, fairly text–
focused editing within the graphical slide viewpane [Fig. 3.26] right after
the insertion of a “new”, unmodified slide.
Since, with pre–2000 versions of the application, the “naked”, WYSIWYG

Fig. 3.27: Ob-
trusive Helper: slide view, bare of any lateral outline or note panes, enjoyed an un–tabbed
“Clippy”, Power- screen–filling workspace on program launch [Fig. 3.31], such “Click to add
Points Agent (97)
Text” commands can obviously be understood as highly immediate,
1
“Obtrusive ‘Tips’ found in previous versions of Microsoft products...” in: Suite Harmony, Computer Reseller News, Vol. 709 [11.11.96]
p. 210 – see also Flynn 1999, Burns 2001
2
[Fig. 3.27] shows the „standard“ help options un–askedly proposed by „Clippy“ (Burns 2001, p. 37) inside the unedited starter slide,
[Fig. 3.28] an assumedly „erroneous“ help message upon „switch to b/w mode“ selection (interestingly advertising template and wizard use
as well, instead of the requested b/w switch explanation), and [Fig. 3.29] the„obtrusive Tip of the Day“ (Rubin 1995, p. 83) as initially
displayed
3
Naughton 2003b, p. 6
demanding “action prompts” in terms of Fitts’ law: Not only are the interactive “text widgets” positioned
centrally and thus highly accessible in terms of workspace–relative proximity (cf. Tognazzini 1992, 2002).
Moreover, the virtual, spatial extensions of these click–sensitive textboxes themselves (particularly the bul-
let–driven, “click to add text” field), occupying more than half of the entire screen area, do indeed tend to
1
put strong, visual emphasis on corresponding, “text–centered interactions” within this context.
3.2.6 Re–Iteration, Discussion

While it makes little sense to profoundly evaluate the
possible UI paths and various options available to the
user at this point, a logical continuation of “our” walk-
through sequence, which, due to the immediacy and
2
proactiveness of largely self–opening dialog windows
and “auto–assumed” GUI widgets such as the “com-
manding” text boxes discussed above, may be inter-
preted as logically provided, or even conceptually en-
couraged particularly in the context or the recent, even
more “streamlined” editing workflow up to this point,3
can most consequentially be seen in the quite “repeti-

Fig. 3.26b: Click to Add Title: Slide view (PPT X for Mac)
tive” re–iteration of characteristic HC–interactions as
discussed above:
You only need to type in a few words for a heading, type bulleted list items, and you’re done. Just insert a
new slide, and repeat for the next one. The category heading and bullets are linked in an inseparable rela-
tionship…
4
(Atkinson 2005, p.7)
Obviously, the intrinsically assumed, logical consequence particularly stemming from highly immediate, al-
most “commanding” UI suggestions is clearly to simply follow the advised protocol, “add text” as promi-
nently suggested by the
user interface, and, with
this, to essentially “fill in
the blanks” that appear
readily provided through
Fig. 3.29: Promotional help texts The suggestive nature of “Clippy’s” proactive commentary (PPT97)
the application itself, at
the completion of which the “new slide” command is iterated over once more, respectively yielding another,
characteristically bulleted slide prototype.
Thus, although this kind of editing mode does not represent an actual “Auto–Content” wizard that would
put forward even actual content proposals for selected occasions [Fig. 3.32], it certainly resembles the latter’s
“guided” functionality rather closely, in that the application’s pre–loading template schema does in fact en
1
Geisler et al. 2001, pp. 260, 270
2
equally referred to as „self–prompting“ (Seachrist 1996), or „implicit“ assistance (Sellen/Nicol 1990, p. 152)
3
cf. the standard, bulleted slide layout autmatically preloaded by default in all recent (2002, 2003, 2004/OSX) releases of the application,
as discussed above
4
Cited material currently “in press”, page index as provided by manuscript thus subject to change. Confidential preview dated 20.9.04,
Courtesy Microsoft Press
courage a distinct, bulleted structure and style. The close correlation between “care–free” wizards and
structural templates sees itself equally reflected in Schrage (2002), positing wizards as process–oriented
1
“software templates”.
3.3 Bullet–Point Aetiology
3.3.1 Predetermination or Freedom of Choice?

One may argue that essentially, the user’s choice does not see itself in any way limited through the “sugges-
tive” GUI put forward by PowerPoint, since, despite obvious, visual interaction proposals, all choices and
tools are unrestrictedly available to the user. None-
theless, the basic assumption that PowerPoint’s aver-
age customers are particularly not to be found
amongst IT– or even design–sophisticated “power us-
ers” (Pirner 2001, Kaminski 2002) gives way to a
more general analysis on user behavior at this point:
Firstly, as initially posited, the question of how easy

or conversely, how hard different design choices are
being made for the user (Atkinson & Mayer 2004, p.
2
5) principally drives our understanding of how this
presumably less design–proficient clientship would
thus tend to use the program. Since, as seen with Fig. 3.30: The AutoContext wizard, reverting to an outline view
various GUI attributes discussed above, the applica-
tion does indeed tend to facilitate text–centric slide design through “streamlined” design suggestions and
self–prompting “tips”, we are somewhat tempted to believe that the “bulleted” design schema appears to at
least superficially represent the application’s generally encouraged, underlying visual paradigm.
Secondly, the implementation of alternative, tentatively more “visual” or “photographic” approaches to slide
design do in fact present themselves somewhat tedious at first sight: Exemplarily, PowerPoint’s initial “slide
layout” selector [Fig. 3.8] noticeably excluded corresponding, “image–only” design propositions. Conse-
3
quentially, Newman (2003) notes that, despite previous propositions cited by Civalleri (2003), “Creating a
‘slideshow’ of photos should be a lot simpler than the process [put forward] by PowerPoint” (p. 9):
Since the initially proposed, bulleted text outline fills the screen, one doesn’t need to seek out other visuals for
the slide. In case additional graphics should be needed, typically small photographs, illustrations or charts
are typically inserted amid the outline itself, without changing its fundamental structure.
4
(Atkinson, p.7)
1
“Then again, the world’s most influential software company also created ‘wizards,’ software templates that help users comprehend the
process of preparing PowerPoint slides” (Schrage 2002, p. 23)
2
“Most PowerPoint presentations look a particular way because the PowerPoint tool has features that make particular tasks easy. Power-
Point makes it easy to use templates, so we use templates. PowerPoint makes it easy to use bulleted lists, so we use bulleted lists” (Atkinson
& Mayer 2004, p. 5)
3
Newman refers to the „tedious“ process described in Civalleri’s paper „Using Photoshop and PowerPoint to make a new–fashioned slide-
show“ as rather ineffective in terms of the unterlying design workflow (cf. Newman 2003, Civalleri 2003)
4
Cited material currently “in press”, page index as provided by manuscript thus subject to change. Confidential preview dated 20.9.04,
Courtesy Microsoft Press
Although, to be fair, it should be noted that the application includes corresponding “slide show” function-
1
ality as early as with its most recent release and has been making image–centric layouts at least subordi-
nately available through an optional, second–row selector tab [Fig. 3.8a,b], the more interesting question at
this point is how the above–discussed design “facilitations” and proposals as derivable from PowerPoint’s
graphical user interface and workflow schema itself may generally have “shaped” user behavior from a long–
term point of view: How “obediently”, then, have users reportedly followed these design proposals, and,
consequentially, how rigidly do customers currently apply such “bulleted” design paradigms?
Since, theoretically, “everything is possible” in terms of user inter-

action and corresponding design choices, PowerPoint “basically al-
lows you to create just about any sort of visual aid imaginable”
(Shepherd 2004, p. 44). Consequentially, one might assume that
derivations from the initially proposed, “bulleted” framework could
at least represent a somewhat commonplace phenomenon.
3.3.2 The “Template Obedience” Phenomenon

2
Nonetheless, a cross–section of characteristic PowerPoint presenta-
3
tion and “business templates” (Morgan 2003) yields the general
impression that, besides the initially discussed data, or business
graphics slides and occasional “flow charts” put together via
4
rudimentary, illustrative offerings provided by the application, the
5
Fig. 3.31: “Click here to add text:” Virtuously followed
“default” bullet–point paradigm clearly represents the most com- suggestions? (PPT97)
6
monly applied, “predominant” design schema:
Much reliance is placed on simple bullet point presentation.

(Forrester 1997, p. 1022)
As Parker (2001) points out, “there seems to be no great impulse to fight the [bullet–point–endorsing] in-
7
fluence” as exercised through the software (p. 78). Particularly findings cited in Murphy (2002) shed some
light on the assumedly unanimous, bullet–point adoption strategy framed by Parker as “shepherd[ing]” be-
haviour:
The BBC has reported how rigidly some PowerPoint users stick to the templates provided by the Content
Wizard. The users assumed that the set of templates provided by Microsoft was based on established formats.
The Microsoft representative cited by the report admitted that the templates were put together on an ad hoc
basis, and it was never intended that they be followed rigidly.
1
applies to: PowerPoint 2003 [XP] and 2004 [MacOS X]
2
Note: Obviously (and admittedly), this can be considered but vaguely representative.
3
“The usual business slide is covered with words.” (Morgan 2003, p. 138)
4
Note: Unlike programs like Visio or Mind Mapping utilities, PowerPoint merely provides low–level, graphical modification options, but
no logical relationship or graphing capabilities. Findler & Flatt 2004: “Shockingly, [..] PowerPoint does not lend itself easily to [the] ex-
tension and abstraction [needed] for the definition of logical, functional flow charts.” (p. 224)
5
cf. Camp & Cogan 1988, p. 71
6
“At a minimum, a presentation format should do no harm. Yet the PowerPoint style routinely [...] dominates [the] content.” (Tufte
2003b, p. 118)
7
“It is hard to shake off AutoContent's spirit: even the most easygoing PowerPoint template insists on a heading followed by bullet points,
so that the user is shepherded toward a staccato, summarizing frame of mind.” (Parker 2001, p. 78)
This raises the issue of how much a productivity tool can influence the thinking of the presenter...
(Murphy 2002, p. 46)
3.3.3 Adoption Rationales

1
These broadly shared, “commonly accepted beliefs that guide behaviour” expressed in the above cited find-
2
ings do not only find surprising echo even in scholarly publications (cf. Creighton & Adams 1998) —
moreover, they equally provide an interesting rationale to the vast “predominance” as currently observed
3
with the bullet–point format (Tufte 2003a,b): Despite the fact that these assumedly “tried–and–true”, bul-
4 5
let–pointed layout templates actually lack an appropriate, theoretical or experience–driven, “expert” basis,
scientifically founded, professional design and communicative effectiveness are simply assumed by the ma-
jority of users —otherwise, as is believed, MS engineers wouldn’t have implemented these particularly–styled
suggestions in such an actively promoted, large–scale fashion, “correct”? (Evans 2000, pp. 217)
More fundamental reasoning attempts, however,

equally point to the fact that, even if bulleted
templates were to be removed from the previously
observed workflow routine, bullet–point
predominance would most likely not diminish on
any short–term basis, since, due to the very intensity
and duration of its software–driven application, a
certain intrinsication, i.e. subconscious, inner
adoption would subsequently lead to an essentially
Fig. 3.32: The AutoContent Wizard unreflected inert application of such patterns.
In terms of socially connected user behaviour, the above–cited “shepherd”

effect (Parker 2001) has consequently been viewed as an ostensible,
6
“prudent lemming principle” (Henderson, 2000). According to the latter,
presenters would simply have taken up fellow users’ HCI behaviour,
7
applying similar “heading and bullet–points” schemata essentially as the
“lowest common denominator” known to the individual. With regard to
8
this so–called “herd behaviour”, not necessarily the software itself (or its
9
assumed, underlying format endorsements), but rather an associated, al-
most “sociological” phenomenon might have contributed to bullet points’
current–day, “epidemic use” (Flintoff 2002, p. 13).
Fig. 3.33:
„Clippy“: active Auto-Content Promoter?
1
cf. Atkinson / Mayer 2004, p. 2
2
cf. pp. 84–86;“Embedded in the wizard is a great deal of expert knowledge...” (Creighton & Adams 1998, p. 86)
3
“Professional templates [are] tried–and–true PowerPoint slideshow that corporate audiences are used to seeing” (Regenold 2003, p. 33)
4
Quin / Norton 1999: „The templates designed to assist the [...] user are [all] created by experts...“ (p. 7)
5
“It is [very] surprising that there is little research that informs its use. This research vacuum has been filled by conventional wisdom...”
(Atkinson / Mayer 2004, p. 2)
6
cf. Henderson 2000, p. 1248
7
Parker 2001: „Even the most easygoing PowerPoint template insists on a heading followed by bullet points, so that the user is shep-
herded toward a staccato, summarizing frame of mind” (p. 78)
8
Henderson 2000, p. 1249
9
“This [PowerPoint ] software [...] reduces all thought to headers and bullet points.” (Kitcatt 2001, p. 14)
More substantially even, Möller (2003) simply posits the

1
“basic knowledge structure”, or “skill” of enumeration alleg-
edly taught in every infant’s fundamental education as part
of any given culture, to reason the “natural–ness” of bullet
point application.
3.3.3.1 Software–Independent Principle?

Thus, even though a number of bullet–point–endorsing
features can clearly be derived from the graphical user in-
terface and default workflow of one single application as
discussed above, the underlying, conceptual “bullet” princi-
ple sees itself somewhat decoupled from this particular
product, and be it, as is the case with Microsoft’s Power-
Fig. 3.34: AutoContent Wizard (PPT X for MacOS X)
Point, the by far dominant representative of this category.
Obviously, neither could PowerPoint claim to be the first software application to produce pullet–pointed
presentation slides, nor have bullet endorsements and pre–loaded template schemas (both features that have
only been introduced at a later stadium of the product’s lifecycle) “spear–headed” any such development. In
2
fact, the application has even been considered a “second–generation”, late adopter in terms of the above–
discussed functionality. cussed functionality.
This, in turn, points to the idea that

PowerPoint’s “bullet–centric” character-
istics can be seen as a result of either its
“ad–hoc” implementation as mentioned
above, as a consequence (thus: reactive
update necessity) stemming from already
available functionality with its competi-
tors, or a combination of both: Since lin-
ear bullet lists might certainly have repre-
sented a familiar idea, even “disease” in
terms of visual aids during the initial
years of “presentation software” imple-

Fig. 3.35: Suggestive Ordering: The “Project Gallery”? (PPT X for MacOS X)
3
mentation, its underlying, “bullet–centric”
concept might indeed have presented the most wide–spread belief and thus something of a logical conse-
quence, or prototype for on–screen adoption.
1
“Some basic knowledge structures include process, comparison, generalization, enumeration, and classification” (cf. Cahmbliss, & Calfee,
1998, Mayer 2001, p. 51)
2
“As a second–generation product, PowerPoint was not the first with software in this category…” (Antonoff 1989b)
3
cf. Flintoff 2002, “A case of visual aids disease”, p. 13
3.3.3.2 “Alternative”, non-PowerPoint Bullet Implementations

Exemplarily, Miller (1988) points to the introduction of “auto–template files” far prior to the implementa-
1
tion of comparable functionality within the PowerPoint product. Similarly, while Shirky (2001) has ob-
served automatic, even “unwanted” insertion of bullet points with PowerPoint’s text–processing companion
2
Word, Regenold (2003) has identified template–driven functionality pointing towards corresponding,
“bulleted” slide paradigms within essentially all available, “uncelebrated competitors” to Microsoft’s market
3
leader, such as Bandwidth Communications’ Charisma, Tonic Studios’ TalkShow, and Corel Presentations.
At an increased level, Reilly (2004) describes the standard,

slide–making workflow observed with OpenOffice.org’s
Impress tool [Figs. 3.39–40] as even further bullet point
centric, identifying the application to even “force” the user
4
into a rather stringent, predefined slide editing framework.
Simultaneously, when reviewing the previously dominant
Freelance software by now–IBM distributor Lotus, Shore
(1994) notes that PowerPoint had merely borrowed much
of its “usability features”, such as the self–prompting dialog
Fig. 3.39: OpenOffice Impress: Truely “empty” slide sugges- function discussed above [Figs. 3.1–3.2], from its Freelance
5
tion instead of template promotion Graphics counterpart.
Similarly, while PowerPoint’s currently most direct “challenger” Key-

6
note (Austen 2003) has been claimed to “devastate” its contender, or
7
at least put its “best aesthetic efforts to shame”, a number of text–
and bullet–point–endorsing concepts, particularly the symptomatic
“Click–to–add–Text” functionality, see themselves almost identically
adopted into Apple’s alternative, Carbon–driven framework [Fig.
3.36].
Format–wise, an orientation towards bullet points appears much

more neatly identifyable, not leastly since mandatory “bullet”, or
“item” fields are directly derivable from the format definition itself: Fig. 3.40: Impress: Interestingly different order-
In case of Keynote’s XML–based, internal slide representation APXL, ing and pre-Selection in “New Slide” tab
for instance, “every slide” rather strictly defines the application of

“bullet lists” on every slide:
Every slide has a bullet list, and every bullet list contains at least one bullet.
(Apple 2003, p. 4)
1
Miller 1988: “To use Persuasion, you typically begin by selecting an auto–template file...” (p. 58)
2
“I often find Word trying to add bullet points or numbers where I don't want them.” (Shirky 2001)
3
cf. Regenold 2003
4
“The first slide offers you a place to enter your slide title, a picture on the left and your bullet points on the right. Using the default font
size, the bullet point area forces you to work with only four or five lines. [One can] use the slides and bullet points for a prompt...” (Reilly
2004, p. 47)
5
“In the ease–of–use area, PowerPoint takes its cue from Lotus Freelance Graphics. Upon invoking PowerPoint, a dialog box asks the user
to choose from five options. Two are new: the AutoContent Wizard and the Pick a Look Wizard. Other options include opening a tem-
plate, a completely blank presentation or an existing presentation.” (Shore 1994, p. 2)
6
“In terms of style, Keynote devastates PowerPoint” (Austen 2003, p. 86)
7
Lahey 2003: “A business application to not only rival Microsoft's PowerPoint, but one that puts PowerPoint for Mac OS X to shame.”
(p. 28)
Tessler 2003: “Keynote is powerful enough to design presentations that put PowerPoint's best aesthetic efforts to shame.” (p. 36)
1
However, while Apple’s XML “flexible” element framework visibly concentrates on a fairly rich set of graphi-
cal objects, the OSCOM–certified SlideML markup, already discussed, in parts, within my previous work
(Voswinckel 2003, p. 168), presents itself considerably more stringent in these terms: Where APXL provides
representations of virtually any imaginable, bitmap,– text,– or vector–based object, SlideML quite rigidly
limits its schema syntax down to
linearly sequenced bullet items and,
“optionally”, some imagery. Conse-
quently, Udell (2003) concludes his
corresponding format evaluation de-
scribing the language “less attractive”
in terms of markup flexibility than
even “the good, old HTML stan-
2
dard”.
3.3.3.3 Discussion
In conclusion, the attributive GUI
discussion outlined above clearly
yields a number of features that dis-
tinctively suggest application–side
Fig. 3.40: Suprisingly Similar, “Click-Me” Workflow: Apple’s Keynote for Mac.
guidance towards our initially dis-
cussed, header–topped, bulleted slide
3
schema (cf. Parker 2001, p. 78). Particularly, the automatic insertion of characteristic bullet–point tem-
4 5
plates upon hitting one of the quite prominently positioned “new slide” buttons [Figs. 3.25, 3.38, 3.26b],
6
immediate, “Click–to–add–Text” workflow [Figs. 3.26a,b,3.31], and heavily “promotional” tendencies to-
wards AutoContent use [Figs 3.1–3, 3.29, 3.32–33, 3.35] (not to mention functionality and output of the
AC Wizard itself) point to considerable favouring of this paradigm.
However, due to the fact that virtually all competing products, in fact, precisely follow that very same
schema, this tentatively observed guidance function should not necessarily imply any “blaming” on parts of
the software, since the aforementioned, underlying characteristics observed, exemplarily, with the Power-
Point GUI, might equally be interpreted as simply the logical continuation of an already intrinsic, bullet–
centric orientation in the business world as outlined in chapter II (cf. Fryxell 2000, Möller 2002).
Therefore, the obvious hints towards bullet point–endorsing GUI features within Microsoft’s PowerPoint
application do not axiomatically mean that the software itself would, in turns, represent the actual source, or
7
reason of today’s observed “bullet–point ubiquitousness”. Moreover, the fact that a number of the applica
1
“[Jobs] bragged that it used an open file format–in contrast to the format a little–known program from Microsoft, called PowerPoint,
uses. Apple's CEO said that because Keynote had an XML–based file format, developers could create programs that queried databases and
automatically created presentations, among other possibilities.” (Deatherage 2003, p. 128)
2
cf. Udell 2003, p. 44
3
“It is hard to shake off AutoContent's spirit: even the most easygoing PowerPoint template insists on a heading followed by bullet points,
so that the user is shepherded toward a staccato, summarizing frame of mind.” (Parker 2001, p. 78)
4
Good, spatial extension (particularly in relative terms) as in [Fig. 3.25] and left–most positioning [Fig. 3.38] point to prominent naviga-
tional features in terms of Fitts‘ law (cf. Tognazzini 1992, 2002)
5
referring to PPT 2002, 2003 (XP), and 2004 (X)
6
“PowerPoint [..] heavily promotes its [..] intelligent Presentation Conference Wizard...” (Jefferson 1996, p. 69)
7
“The ubiquitous bullet points [are] hard work in terms of readability” (Smith 2003, p. 35)
tion’s template–driven and self–prompting features, as discussed above, have indeed been adopted from ap-
1
propriate functionality within earlier competitor software, point to the understanding that its implementa-
tion rather represents something of a reaction to an already existent, popular trend, “common acceptance,”
or at least a slight tendency towards the aforementioned, “bullet–point laden” slide characteristics in busi-
ness presentation (Harris 2004, p. 48).
Nonetheless, the sheer “pervasiveness” and end–user distribution of the PowerPoint application itself (cf.
2
Anción et al. 2003) if not the only origin of current–day “bullet point predominance” as strongly suggested
3
by Tufte (2003a,b), probably represents one of the most coherent rationales towards its understanding:
Where, on top of the already existing tendency towards this paradigm, an ubiquitously available software
product —such as PowerPoint— would indeed “tend to dictate the way in which [the] information is
structured and presented” (Simons 2001, p. 6), this wide distribution may not necessarily represent the only
reason to the encouraged format’s inflationary use – nonetheless, the software most certainly hasn’t lessened
the appeal and application of “bullet–intense” slide styles either.
Thus, while various indications point towards a tentative endorsement of the bulleted format on parts of the
graphical user interface, an actual “responsibility”, or even “blaming” of the software itself appears less ap-
propriate at this point, not leastly since many of the factors associated with bullet point application still re-
main somewhat unclear. Nonetheless, it should equally be noted that, although scholars have frequently
posited the “user to shoulder the blame” (Holmes 2004, p. 100), that both generally accepted habit (or
4
“groove”, as Gates (2002) termed it), and further, GUI–driven favouring of bullet point–centric features,
may indeed have substantially influenced user behaviour, and consequently, the overall slide design tenden-
cies discussed in chapter II.
3.3.4 “Sociological”, Aesthetic and Long-Term Effects

However, while the current ubiquousness of the bullet–point format as an aesthetic manifestation of pres-
entation visuals sees itself little disputed at least within scholarly publications (Gershon & Page 2001, Good
& Bederson 2002, Cyphert 2004, Holmes 2004), its actual effect on informative, didactic and persuasive ef-
fectiveness has remained subject to quite substantial, theoretic discussion in the last couple of years.
Unlike the factually existing, guiding functionality built into PowerPoint’s GUI, which has been argued
throughout this chapter to indeed manifest in the form of analytically extractable, even “objectively observ-
5
able” workflow aspects as previously discussed, the individual, and particularly, an assumed, general percep-
tion and effectiveness of these aesthetic and stylistic characteristics onto the audience clearly present them-
selves significantly more evaluation–resistant.
Clearly, an investigation into even just a small subset of these rather “soft” aspects would clearly require a
broad understanding of the sociological and psychological issues concerned. Moreover, in order to satisfy-
ingly approach the intricate “audience response” question involved, cognitive psychology actually entails a
1
see previous discussion: Miller 1988, Shore 1994
2
“A key benefit of using Microsoft [PowerPoint] is that [it is] ubiquitous in the business world...” (Andal–Anción et al. 2003, p. 36)
3
“Years before today’s slideware, presentations at companies such as IBM and in the military used bullet lists shown by overhead projec-
tors. But the format has become ubiquitous under PowerPoint.” (Tufte 2003b, p. 118)
4
“It’s easy to slip into [this] groove… Not surprisingly, […] bullet–point rhythms have become de rigueur in the world's offices, confer-
ence rooms, convention centers, and showrooms.” (Gates 2002, p. 45)
5
cf. the underlying principle as formulated in Grove et al. 1995: “Since the information collected in the present research basically involved
[the] recognition of four objectively observable cues, little concern over reliability should exist.” (p. 221)
fairly strict methodology onto any research into this direction, for its results to be valid, or at least applicable
to this work.
However, since this rather software– and concept–oriented work obviously lacks both background and ac-
cess to appropriate research tools and resources, the following writing shall therefore just briefly cover the
currently published discussion on this issue, in order to provide at least some, corresponding insight in ad-
vance towards the following writing.
3.3.4.1 Form and Perception

Nonetheless, when reviewing the available literature as regards the actual effects and perceptive impact of
“presentation format manipulation” on the audience, as one study terms it (Almer et al., 2003), it soon be-
comes clear that most papers pay disappointingly little reference to the required, psychological methodology
but rather concentrate on general statements in terms of communicative effectiveness or, alternatively, re-
volve around philosophical discussions on McLuhan’esque theories:
Exemplarily, Zuckmann (1999) not only cites Johnson (1997) stating both presentation software and the
applied formats themselves as “by its very nature not value–free”, but equally calls upon “arguments made by
Max Weber and Marshall McLuhan that form has a critical impact on content” (p. 19).
These assumptions see themselves equally echoed by Stanford’s Clifford Nass (1998), who refers to the
above–described, template–driven workflow as “trying to be creative on a standardized form. Consequen-
tially, Nass concludes that “any technology that organizes and standardizes tends to homogenize”. Zuck-
mann (1999), in turns, adds that due to the application’s aforementioned AutoContent features, particularly
Microsoft’s PowerPoint “may homogenize more than most.”
3.3.4.2 Is the Medium the Message?

Despite the unfortunate lack of appropriate, psychological studies or even singular experiments in this re-
1
gard (Faraday & Sutcliffe 1997), the “concepts raised in Marshall McLuhan’s famous saying, ‘The medium
2
is the message’” may in fact exhibit interesting correlations to our initially questioned, “general impact”
question in terms of the actual, individual or general effects on persuasion and cognition that the technology
3
and its underlying, “standardized bullet–point format” may have:
The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium
―that is, of any extension of ourselves― result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by
each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.
4
(McLuhan 1964, p. 7)
Clearly, presentation aesthetics, i.e. the form in which content is delivered or, as would be the case with
presentation slides, visually accompanied, doubtlessly exercises a distinct influence of persuasive appeal,
memorization, as well as the overall liking of the entire speech:
1
“None have attempted to track subjects viewing a complex multimedia presentation... An appropriate study [could] examine comprehen-
sion of the presentation by testing free recall, in which subjects would write down what they could remember of the presentation.” (Fara-
day / Sutcliffe 1997, p. 272)
2
Marion 2002, p. 25, as cited from McLuhan & Fiore, 1967
3
“In the case of business communication, PowerPoint’s prefabricated screens and bullet points […] may seem more standardized than
they actually are.” (Connor & Wong 2004, p. 229)
4
cited from Brown & Kulikowitch 2004, p. 19
The medium of instruction influences the acceptance and processing of the content. Thus, how information
is delivered is crucial.
(Marion 2002, p. 25)
Since PowerPoint, due to the aforementioned, guiding principles as part of its GUI concept, as well as its
functional offerings in terms of outlining, note–taking, animation, and further “bells and whistles” (Adams
1
2003), doubtlessly represents considerably more than “just a medium”, MIT’s Sherry Turkle, director of the
institute’s “Initiative on Technology and Self”, posits that Microsoft’s presentation software in particular
2
“does more than merely provide a way of transmitting content”:
It carries its own way of thinking, its own aesthetic…

In that aesthetic, presentation becomes its own, powerful idea.
(Turkle 2004, p. B.26)
3.3.4.2.1 Generalized, Quasi-Philosophical Analysis

Consequentially, much of the currently published critique has appropriated this idea in order to put forward
mostly quite generalized analysis: Besides a supposed “emphasis upon flash and special effects rather than
3
content and thought” as associated with the software’s graphical and multimedia offerings, “the biggest
4
criticism of PowerPoint presentations is certainly that it flattens the discussion”:
By summarizing and bullet–pointing, much of the richness and passion that makes a good presentation
great is simply missed.
(Goldstein 2003, p. 20)
5
Based on this assumption, particularly the “fragmenting” summarisation feature underlying PowerPoint’s
bulleted template characteristics are argued to rather obstruct discourse, active processing and, in its conse-
quence, a cognitively constructive interaction with the subject discussed. As Nass (1998) points out, the
“elimination” of the actual thought process, discourse and elaboration towards an issue, which, by its very
nature, is not appropriately mirrored in the strictly fact–oriented, abbreviative bullet points, would thus fi-
6
nally result in an essentially superficial, “counterproductive” inferred cognitive processing:
In particular, the popular PowerPoint templates (ready–made designs) usually weaken verbal and spatial
reasoning, and almost always corrupt statistical analysis.
(Tufte, 2003a, p. 2)
3.3.4.2.2 Hampered Effectiveness

Moreover, according to Wareham (2000), the very uniform, “consistent” aesthetics resulting from Power-
Point’s template–driven standardisation would equally impede an emotionally “arousing” interaction with
the presented content: Since the rough, spatial layout of each slide presents itself typically identical to that of
its siblings due to the underlying, template–normed bullet arrangement, the resulting presentation aesthetics
would, consequently, appear decidedly uniform throughout the entire slide sequence.
1
Smith 2004, p. 519, Searle 2004, p. 9
2
Turkle 2004, p. B.26
3
Borne 2003, p. 81
4
Goldstein 2003, p. 20
5
cf. Peterson 2001, Tufte 2003c, Rotella et al. 2003: “PowerPoint–like sentence fragments [exhibit] more mirrored surface than depth,
but this superficiality has its attractions” (p. 67)
6
cf. McNally 2000
1 2
Reported effects not merely include an innate “dullness”, “tedium”, and even “sleep–induction” upon the
3
audience, but moreover, a tendencially impeded memorisation process:
Assessment shows that […] any improvement in overall learning and comprehension was statistically insig-
nificant.
(Bowe et al., 2000, p. 1)
4
Since particularly the “visual learner”, as Stary (1997) notes, would typically store information affine to
5
variant, spatial layout properties such as where and how images or text are positioned on a certain page,
6
Shaw et al. (1998) found PowerPoint’s template–driven “homogeneity” and sequential bullet listings, in
7
contrast, “remarkably hard to remember” (p. 42).
3.3.4.2.3 Memorability Aspects

Furthermore, Tufte (2003a,b) has posited the underlying, linear slide organization, as well as the sheer mass
that the “informationally superficial” bullet–point format consequently implies as further reasons to the os-
8
tensibly “low memorability” of its thus–delivered content. This argument sees itself equally reflected in
PowerPoints’ denouncement in terms of an alleged “intellectual reductionism” (Cyphert 2004, p. 80): A
9
substantially “compressive” nature innate to PowerPoint’s characteristic bullet–point aesthetic has, in turn,
equally enjoyed rather broad criticism in terms of its fairly fragmented, mnemonic paradigm even calling
10
upon H.G. Gadamer’s philosophies of “truth and method”:
To this end, PowerPoint slides superficially bullet out propositions in mnemonically “savvy” format. How-
ever, such data–mindedness misconstrues memory as a psychological faculty for receiving and containing
transmitted signs [in the shape of] fill–in–the–blank question patterns…
(Mattson & Duff 2004, p. 342)
3.3.4.3 Valid Criticism, Lacking evidence

In recent years, a number of scholars have therefore quite overtly “raised questions” (Owen 1999) about
both the cognitive and persuasive appeal underlying presentation visuals’ commonly applied “bullet–sheet”
paradigm.
Nonetheless, the overall effects of this particular presentational style on the audience have, until the present
day, received but rudimentary, scientific evaluation: While the previously outlined critique “does indeed
have a point”, as Schrage (2003a,b) points out, its underlying rationale —albeit expostulating considerable
reasoning— has remained largely unsubstantiated until the present day.
1
cf. Barns 2003, p. 61, van Zweitanz 1995: “Flip chart bullets make for dull reading at best and frustration at worst.” (p. 714)
2
cf. Cyphert 2004: “The software holds promise for attractive, exciting, dynamic presentations, but monotony, vacuity, and tedium seem
to be the reality” (p. 80)
Atkinson (in Press): “Although a template provides uniformity, it is also boring and tedious to see the same visual [layout] slide after slide.”
(p. 7 in Manuscript. thus subject to change. Confidential preview dated 20.9.04, Courtesy Microsoft Press)
3
cf. Brown 2001, Wareham 2001, p. 67 (“this very consistency can send an audience to sleep”), Hazelwood / Gutner 2003, p. 118
4
cf. Gardner 1988
5
cf. Stary 1997, pp. 17ff.
6
“Every PowerPoint presentation […] looks exactly the same, [possesses] similar depth (which is to say, none) and is substantially homo-
geneous” (Clarke 2001, p. 46)
7
see also Morgan 2003, p. 138
8
Bullmore 2000, p. 10
9
Templer 2001: “Compressing the complexity of life into bullet points is almost too much to bear.” (p. 43)
10
cf. Gadamer 2002, p. 16
In that, researchers have failed to provide revisable findings, or any kind of “proof”, to factually circumstan-
tiate the “masses of research with decidedly subjective analysis” (Kakutani 2004, p. 10) that have been laid
out to the aforementioned discussion. Despite impressive quantities of published writing on the subject,
both critical (e.g. Brabazon 2002) and defensive (e.g. Holmes 2004) contributions see themselves almost ex-
clusively footed on “anecdotal evidence” (Zuckerman 1999):
The available evidence on multimedia is largely anecdotal, and the broader empirical literature […] has
yielded mixed results.
(Butler & Mautz 1996, p. 259)
Although Harris (2004) claims to have identified “a growing body of research” fleshing out the aforemen-
1
tioned, bulletpoint–discernant suggestions, Faraday and Sutcliffe (1997) have, in turn, pointed to the cur-
rent lack of methodologically valid material, stating that “none” have actually attempted to track the various
subjects involved during such a “complex multimedia presentation” (p. 272).
3.3.4.4 Related Research

Even though there may in fact be rather scant scientifically revisable evidence available that would directly
and immediately apply to this specific, “presentational” issue in terms of bullet points, presentation soft-
ware, and the use of PowerPoint in particular, in the following I would nevertheless like to discuss a number
of interesting studies (Robinson et al. 1999, Mayer et al. 2001), as well as supplementary research (Shaw et
al. 1998, Gershon & Page 2001, Good & Bederson 2002, Goosens 2003, Hill & Helmers 2004) that es-
sentially does appear highly valid equally within the specific context of this work, and particularly when in-
cluding issues of “information visualisation” as a central, comparative dimension.
3.3.4.5 Missing referential, comparative dimension

Apart from the apparent lack of study–based, scientifically traceable evidence, the most startling fact about
the aforementioned, rather “unsubstantiated” investigations into the subject is certainly an evident lapse in
terms of methodology, in that virtually all of the above discussed fail to provide an appropriate, comparative
dimension.
3.3.4.5.1 Graphic-Chart and Bullet-Point Effectiveness – as compared to what?

The entirety of currently published material, as well as presently available studies, whether Simons et al.’s
(2000) “Presentations/3M study” or Guadagno et al.’s (2003) slide analysis, all merely provide a singular,
2
generalized view onto the currently applied, chart– and bullet–based “aesthetic paradigm”, but simultane-
ously, and distinctively don’t provide any sort of visual alternative:
As with Simons et al. (2000), the exact same, graphical representation of identical data merely enjoys super-
ficial aesthetic enhancements throughout the study e.g. in terms of colouring, shading, and other cosmetic,
visual effects. Nonetheless, the fundamental visualisation principles remain basically untouched during this
investigation.
1
Harris 2004, p. 48
2
cf. Hoogland 2003, p. 10
3.3.4.6 On the Outlook for Visualistic Alternatives

Within the context of our observation, however, we shall not be overly interested in stylistic changes such as
1
how and where exactly e.g. textual content is to be displayed. The more interesting question is certainly
2
how the actual content itself might be converted, transformed, and re–shaped “towards the visual realm” in
terms of an alternative, information visualisation premise (cf. Card et al. 1999).
This means, that in the following, we will equally need to investigate a possible, fundamental change to the
understanding of what actually needs to be visibly displayed in accompaniment of an oral speech, and how
such a visualisation can effectively work to improve the overall, persuasive and cognitive appeal of a presen-
tation.
Quite naturally, as these considerations may essentially imply transforming, or shifting the now comfortably
bulleted text content from the actual slides towards a narrative equivalent, our understanding of “present-
ing” itself would equally change from simply “turning your back to the audience and reading what’s on the
slide” (Cyphert 2004, p. 48) towards an actual (albeit certainly more demanding), persuasive and dialogical
speech, or “discussion”.
3.3.4.7 Current Approaches: Presenter Convenience

Obviously, presently applied approaches to slide design and multimedia–driven presentation overtly focus
on the presenter’s convenience: As discussed earlier within the previous chapters, both outlining and tem-
3
plate–driven slide design features make it particularly easy for the speaker to create “text–heavy”, bulleted
4 5
outlines (where previously, hand–held index cards had been used) that can even serve as a “visual crutch” to
6 7
be “hidden behind” and literally read off the screen:
Indeed, most PowerPoint presentations are in fact speech outlines put together for the speaker’s benefit, not
the audience’s.
(Morgan 1997, p. 39)
8 9
Similar to the findings discussed in Atkinson (2005) and Cook (2003), computer science and graphic de-
sign emeritus E.R. Tufte (2003b) concludes that current “slideware may help speakers outline their talks,
but convenience for the speaker can be punishing to both content and audience” (p. 118).
Clearly, what presently appears convenient and effortless for the speaker himself during the slide creation
10
process and the actual speech, and moreover, what now seems to be a “generally accepted” paradigm
1
“If your words or images are not on point, making them dance in colour won’t make them relevant.” (Tufte 2003b, p. 118)
2
cf. Sartorius 2000, Kumpf 2000 (“from the textual realm to the visual realm”, p. 401)
3
cf. Stroupe 2000: “verbal discourse as text–heavy, grey chunks that [should] be made visually presentable…” (p. 609)
4
Mazen 2000: “In one of the early presentations […], a presenter read most of her part from index cards” (p. 312) – see also Basset 1998,
p. 75
5
J. Endicott: “Without a visual crutch, the outcomes [are] much better than with the computer–assisted approach”, as quoted in Zielinski
2004, p. 25
6
“It suits many insecure presenters just fine to hide behind a barrage of screen activity, but it rarely serves the overall presentation – or the
audience – very well.” (Endicott 2002, p. 20)
7
“The ‘bullet points’ that pour off the screen at audiences should be kept clean and sparse. They are not there to be read off verbatim–yet
it is amazing how many lecturers do just that.” (Maulitz 2003, p. 929)
8
Note: in press, publication date as provided by publisher [Microsoft Press]: Feb. 2005, page refs. subject to change. “Since the text out-
line fills the screen, […] most people don’t use the ‘notes’ area, because their complete outline is on the slide itself, and there is usually no
need to spend time writing out additional information”, pp. 7–8 (in manuscript)
9
“The words on the slides are mere notes, outlines [for the presenters themselves] to peruse at their convenience.” (Cook 2003, p. 25)
10
cf. Forrester 1997, p. 1022
throughout the business world and academia does not automatically and necessarily represent effective
communication.
3.3.4.8 Reconsideration in Terms of Cognitive Effectiveness

In fact, the following discussion shall show that our currently so naturally and undoubtingly applied schema
exhibits fairly weak, cognitive effectiveness, and particularly tends to lack the “persuasive appeal” that had
previously been assumed: “Unfortunately”, as Atkinson & Mayer (2004) point out, the aforementioned,
text– and bullet–heavy features and techniques, actually “contradict current research in cognitive science.”
(p. 5). Similar to our findings discussed within this chapter, Reimold et al. (2003) have equally noted that,
while PowerPoint’s “detailed scheme suggestions” may appear “tempting to go for” in terms of appropriat-
1
ing its straightforward model outline, “this can [actually] be a mistake”:
[A presenter is] not so much giving a company overview as [rather, he is] persuading, motivating, and
challenging. [However], the PowerPoint scheme contains nothing useful for this.
2
(Reimold et al. 2003)
3.3.4.9 Research Towards a Visualistic Alternative

Therefore, in the following I will present research material, mainly from a cognitive science or psychology
point of view, that shall not merely provide evidence towards an alternative, primarily visualistic approach to
presentation slides (as opposed to the currently applied, text– and bullet–centric paradigms), but further-
more answer questions as to what the audience would evaluate as a “memorable” and “persuasive” presenta-
tion.
Although a number of these singular studies themselves might naturally not appear immediately directed at
presentation visuals, or even more specifically at their possible application within software–driven presenta-
tion approaches, the evidence accruing from the bulk of this research is in fact highly valid to our specific
interest, in that it may provide possible indications as to what type of visual content might prove suited par-
ticularly in terms of our previously established persuasion intent.
1
cf. Reimold et al. 2003, back matter [ no page no. inf. supplied ]
2
ibid.
4 Visual Persuasion: Rhetorics, Visualisation, and

Explorations into Cognitive Science
4.01 Underlying Hypothesis
Obviously, all research to be discussed within the following chapter sees itself axiomatically motivated by the
underlying hypothesis of “true visualisation”, implying an actual emphasis on pictorial approaches and par-
ticularly “visual imagery” (Kosslyn 1980) to exhibit significantly more powerful cognitive and persuasive at-
1
tributes than the currently exercised, “aberrantly visual” display of simple text, typically assuming the shape
2
of “unimaginative, visually monotonous” (van Allen, 1997) structures such as “linear lists, outlines”, and
the aforementioned bullet points.
In that, an illustrative, spatial representation of particularly abstract information is herein posited as more
memorable and convincing than its textual, sequentially bulleted equivalent. This concept sees itself simi-
larly reflected in the concepts raised by Good et al. (2002), particularly within the context of our initially
defined speech scenario, and moreover in connection with the above–discussed role held by presentation
software:
As a result, a presentation tool may exercise a larger portion of the memory resources of the audience if it
employs a spatial, visual display in combination with the verbal discourse.
(Good / Bederson 2002, p. 40)
To this regard, in the following I will attempt to discuss visualisation theory from a “presentationally moti-
3 4
vated” perspective, thus expanding now “commonly accepted”, rather general models within cognitive sci-
ence, particularly Mental Imagery (Thomas, 2002) and more specifically Paivio’s (1986, 2001) Dual Coding
5 6
and Picture Superiority approaches towards an own, software–applicable concept of “visual persuasion”.
4.1 Persuasion Theory

Since our aforementioned, central persuasion intent shall therefore represent both means and end to the pre-
7
viously posited, “live” presentation setting, it appears reasonable at this point to firstly set out more specifi-
cally what we want to achieve within such a scenario: Clearly, when we give a speech, we not merely want to
bring forth an idea (or several of them) as convincingly and persuasive as possible, but also attempt to alter
8
our recipients’ attitude, beliefs, and knowledge towards the presented subject, as well as ourselves.
Beyond having the audience evaluate the presented material as simply “a good idea”, however, we further-
more seek to equally —and substantially— change the opinion and, subsequently, actions of our viewers.
1
“The [average] PowerPoint presenter [assumes that] in using slides, he has appealed to the visual learner. But the usual business slide is
covered with words, and what visual learners need is pictures…” (Morgan 2003, p. 138)
2
cf. Good / Bederson 2002, p. 40
3
cf. Ginis / Leary 2004, p. 60
4
Brabowsky 2003: Mental imagery as presently “quite accepted” (p. 11)
5
cf. Paivio et al. 1968 (Why are Pictures easier to recall than Words?), 1973 (Picture Superiority in Free Recall: Imagery or Dual Coding?)
6
cf. Scott / Batra 2003, Messaris 1997
7
Martin (1996) characterizes a presentation through the term “live narration” (p. 14)
8
In these terms, Pylyshyn (1984, p. 130) has overtly rejected Newell’s (1990) “knowledge” terminology on the following grounds: “the
term knowledge raises philosophical eyebrows (strictly speaking, it should be called belief)”, cf. Von Eckardt 1995, p. 162
1
Quite naturally, at this point, it appears particularly interesting to “nail down” the specific aspects and
methods that might objectively drive such a persuasive process, as well as “shed some light on the funda-
mental aspects of memory and cognition” involved (Glenn 2004, p. 12). More explicitly, this obviously still
quite general, “broad” theoretic knowledge would necessitate some kind of conversion and application onto
2 3
our above defined, “presentational”, and “visualistic” context (i.e. visualisation in terms of displaying picto-
rial representations, as opposed to bulleted text).
As Winn & Beck (2002) point out, a large variety of studies “demonstrate […] that the persuasive power”
particularly in the aforementioned, visual approaches “exists, and are leading the way to a better under-
standing of how that process works” (p. 18):
We know that images do persuade, and any good undergraduate program in marketing, advertising, or
public relations includes the learning of specific methods for using images to influence viewers, opinions,
beliefs, and actions.
(Hill 2003, p. 125)
4
However, while “these picture–based methods”, according to Hill (2003), “are based mostly on past prac-
5
tice, and sometimes on empirical studies”, persuasion theory still sees itself firmly based in the study of texts
6
(Peterson 2001), and more specifically the reading of “persuasive narratives” (Murphy & Alexander 2004).
Thus, although we shall be more interested in actual, persuasive aspects within the speeches’ accompanying
7
visuals, a derivation of the fundamental, “rather broad” cognitive theory and concepts underlying “persua-
8
sion as a dynamic, multidimensional process” towards more image–centric approaches at a later step ap-
pears reasonable at this point, not lastly since “only recently have visual elements begun to receive the same
degree and sophistication of research attention as the linguistic element”. (McQuarrie & Mick 1999, p. 37)
4.1.1 “Classic” Persuasion Theory

In its fundamental definition, the “traditional” perception of persuasion differs surprisingly little from our
initially assumed intention, in that “we speak of persuasion as an interactive process through which a given
message alters an individual’s perspective by changing the knowledge, beliefs, or interests that underlie that
9
perspective” (Miller, 1980).
10
However, a closer inspection of this “research–based” approach to persuasion processes shows that, apart
from the aforementioned emphasis on text, hitherto literature quite overtly focuses on “social”, style– and
speaker–centered aspects of persuasion theory rather than the more elemental communication criteria we’d
be interested in.
1
“[We] hope to nail down a persuasive explanation of the phenomenon, as well as shed light on some fundamental elements of memory
and cognition” (Glenn 2004, p. 12)
2
cf. Petty / Cacioppo 1988, Hersh 1997: “Presentational skills include the ability to […] speak clearly, persuasively, and coherently about
oneself, ideas, and data. The ability to communicate —to make sense of and present clearly…” (p. 19)
3
Quaiser–Pohl / Lehmann 2002, p. 257
4
“Picture–based Persuasion Processes”, cf. Miniard et al. (1991)
5
Hill 2003, p. 125
6
“The history of visual images and elements in rhetorical scholarship in the U.S. is relatively short and thin. Although speech teachers
have encouraged the use of vivid imagery and visual metaphors in student speeches and despite the attention paid to visual aids in public
speaking textbooks and class performances, most early rhetorical scholars took words as their primary objects of analysis.” (Peterson 2001,
p. 19)
7
Murphy & Alexander, 2004:“In our research, we have adopted a broad definition of persuasion, one that allows us to draw on literatures
in both persuasion and conceptual change” (p. 337)
8
ibid, cf. paper title
9
cf. ibid.
10
Atkinson (2005, in Press), p. 10
Exemplarily, Hovland et al.’s (1953) seminal “Yale Persuasion Studies”, as well as Cialdini’s more recent
1
(2001a,b) “Persuasion Science” theories visibly concentrate particularly on aspects of “speaker credibility”
in terms of outfit, speaker behaviour, and simple cause–and–effect principles and “trigger features” such as
2
“liking”, “social proof”, and “scarcity”, which Cialdini (1993) even frames “in Click–whirr terms” (p. 5).
4.1.1.1 Simplistic, Sociological Trigger Phenomena

Even though these sort of “triggered” phenomena clearly possess their own, attention–grabbing appeal, they
certainly fail to grasp the entirety of psychological, social, and communicative aspects involved in such a —
doubtlessly complex— persuasion process: To believe that apart from a number of “automatic”, essentially
3
unconscious “tricks” (Cialdini 1993), a “multidimensional process” could be “harnessed” in such a simplis-
tic fashion would certainly not pay sufficient reference to the various aspects and channels at play:
Where, in terms of Lasswell’s (1948) “transmission model of communication”, most text–centric persuasion
approaches cover but a single aspect (namely the “Message” channel), the aforementioned studies equally
present themselves clearly limited to the “who”, “whom”, and “how” aspects, the latter of which not even
being part of Lasswell’s original formula.
Clearly, we might rather be interested in a more “complete” model of persuasion, equally taking into ac-
count “lateral” aspects such as cultural knowledge (as, according to McQuarrie & Mick (1992), the “basis
4
for normative interaction and persuasion”), and particularly our initially posited concept of “visualisation”.
While, in traditional media studies, it had not been until recently that particularly “research in advertising
5 6
began focusing more attention on visual persuasion”, the even more “complex”, computer–aided visualisa-
7
tion concepts have not been theoretically addressed to their entirety yet, not lastly since “visualistic” studies
have, until the present day, “not been found to be self–consistent” (Jörgenson et al. 1995, p. 412).
4.1.1.2 Means of Persuasion

Due to these obvious shortcomings apparent with more recent persuasion studies, it appears reasonable to
analyse and theoretically evaluate the various aspects involved based on what Aristotle (1991) termed as “all
available means of persuasion” (pp. 26f.): The tri–pillared model of Scientific Rhetoric that sees itself directed
at the very, “oral speech” scenario (Walsh & Pretti–Frontczak 2002) we initially targeted:
Everything we currently know about the art of persuasion today in our mass marketing era actually rep-
resents a legacy of thinkers who lived 2400 years ago.
(Thompson 1998, p. 1)
For Aristotle himself, this model distinctively signified the ability, “to recognize the persuasive power inher-
ent within all things on earth” (p. 11). While “this conceptual definition of persuasion” still remains to be
“operationalized” and substantiated through current, empirical studies from cognitive science and psychol-
8
ogy (Murphy et al. 2002), an application of the fundamental model initially laid out in what has been
1
cf. Hovland / Janis / Kelley 1953, pp. 19–48
2
Cialdini 1993: “Click and the appropriate tape is activated; Whirr and out rolls the standard sequence of behaviours” (p. 3), “There
seems to be a click, whirr response to attractive people. Like all click, whirr reactions, it happens automatically, without forethought.” (p.
125)
3
Murphy & Alexander 2004: “Persuasion As a Dynamic, Multidimensional Process” (p. 337)
4
cf. Scott 1994, p. 253
5
Winn / Beck 2002, p. 19
6
“However, automatically generated visualizations […] are more complex.” (Naharro–Berrocal et al. 2002, p. 773)
7
Quaiser–Pohl / Lehmann 2002, p. 257
8
“When we sought to operationalize this conceptual definition of persuasion for empirical study, we turned to variables that have their
roots in the psychological literatures on persuasion and conceptual change.” (Murphy/Alexander 2004, p. 338)
framed as “scientific rhetorics” (Maccoby 1992, Heil 2002) therefore presents itself as an appropriate basis
for theoretical analysis within Aristotle’s “tripodal framework” (Orren 2000).
4.2 Approaches within Aristotle’s “Scientific Rhetorics” Tripod

This basic schema, as it turns out, has not merely maintained its validity and persuasive practicability for
over 2.500 years – moreover, Aristotle’s tripod continues to serve as the main, theoretic basis and “subject of
1 2
study” (Johnson 1999) for any, “operationalized” research on persuasion processes:
The unusual adaptability and usefulness make classical rhetoric an extraordinarily powerful way of
studying texts —written, visual, painted, or any other kind— and their contexts.
(Welch 1996, p. 23)
Based on this realisation, Winn (2000) has found rhetorical theory useful for the analysis of “any communi-
cation medium” imaginable, particularly positing an empirical, visualistic perspective that I would equally
apply within the following writing:
Let class rhetoric serve as the theoretical foundation for a new and exciting area of research… Building on
this premise, we will look at studies that apply rhetoric to visual design.
(Winn 2000, pp. 155f.)
Since Aristotle’s theoretical model, unlike rather aspect–specific approaches as outlined above, not merely
applies to select features such as the textual message itself or presenter attributes, but rather contains an in-
terpretative view on various aspects involved during a presentation and, in such, the persuasive process, in
the following I shall review persuasive aspects (with an implied emphasis on visualisation) within each of the
“rhetorical approaches”, categories, “appeals” (Thomas 1998, p. 21) or simply “means of persuasion” as ini-
tially posited by Aristotle:
Aristotle held that artful persuasion must consider three essential and related rhetorical approaches, if it is to
prove convincing: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.
(Murphy & Alexander 2004, p. 338)
4.2.1 Ethos
The first of these three elements, ethos, is generally conceived in terms of “the speaker's credibility and
trustworthiness” (Miller et al. 2004, p. 8). Clearly, this approach represents the rhetorical aspect that has
been most intensively investigated on: As explained previously, most fundamental persuasion studies of the
last century (Hovland et al. 1949, 1951, 1953, Cialdini 1993, 2001a,b) have essentially focused on this par-
ticular aspect.
Few surprisingly, as Benoit & Smythe (2003) conclude, “support for the claim that source credibility is di-
3
rectly related to attitude change is generally positive”:
Auditors who perceive the source to be credible are likely to produce fewer unfavourable thoughts and
should experience more attitude change than auditors who believe the source is disreputable.
(Benoit 1991, p. 19)
1
“Rhetoric’s theoretical texts were the subjects of study when students learn logic, persuasion, style—and memorization and enunciation
or delivery.” (Johnson 1999)
2
“Psychological researchers, ourselves included, have taken those three means of artistic persuasion and have operationalized them as an
array of person, task, and text variables that shape the persuasion process.” (Murphy/Alexander 2004, p. 339)
3
Benoit & Smythe 2003, p. 104
The basic fact that a speaker, whose reputation can generally be said to be “good” would be treated less criti-
cally or approached with more respect than a presenter with assumedly bad representation might, by itself,
appear rather obvious and self–understood.
However, from a scientific point of view, Cialdini’s (1993) additional comments that even superficial at-
tributes such as wearing “well–tailored business suits” (p. 227) holds rather little intellectual leverage.
4.2.1.1 Visualistic Perspective

From a “visualistic” perspective, the ethos approach most certainly represents the least resourceful category in
terms of pictorial, or image–based visualisation principles: Clearly, on an aesthetically superficial level, not
merely Cialdini’s rather “shallow”, outfit–based suggestions (“dress is a good example”, p. 173), but equally
the applied, accompanying visuals might be able to contribute to the overall appearance of the source (i.e.
1
the presenter, in our particular case).
From our, “visualistic” perspective, the use of supposedly “serious”, sound–standing and professionally de-
2
signed presentation slides might thus possibly augment source credibility (Hocks 2003), which would in
3
turns have “cheesy–looking, amateurish” (Endicott 2002a), or even “flashy”, clip–art–intensive template
material “most often associated with Microsoft PowerPoint” (Simons 2004b, p. 24) appear somewhat less
appropriate within this context.
Nonetheless, the emphasis of “ethical appeals” (Thomas 1998, p. 21), as well as correspondingly operation-
alised, cognitive research (Hovland et al. 1949, 1951, 1953, Cialdini 1993, 2001a,b) has obviously not ap-
proached this particular aspect just yet, since ethic aspects currently appear rather intrinsically connected to
merely speaker–centered, socio–psychological studies on values and appearance attributable to the presenter
as an individual himself.
4.2.1.2 Soft Factors

Thus, as evident, or even “straightforward” as ethos’ underlying credibility assumption might appear (Tsfati
4
2003), source credibility and especially the aforementioned, ethical aspects have remained but a fairly “soft
factor” (Spitzer 2004, p. 9) within the overall, persuasive framework, particularly in comparison with the
“strong appeal” of emotionally (Hill 2003) and argumentatively knit messages (Yunxia & Hildebrandt 2003,
5
p. 97).
Consequently, Benoit and Smythe (2003) find it important to point out that even “highly credible sources
do not always enhance persuasion —an evidence [that] tends to be overlooked in the literature on rhetorical
theory” (p. 104). Therefore, ethical factors see themselves mentioned “more as a historical footnote” than an
6
equally–weighed category within the realm of persuasion–focused effects research (Murphy et al., 1997).
1
For an anology, see particularly Winn / Beck (2002) for a corresponding considerations on e–Commerce web sites: “The appeal to credi-
bility of e–commerce sites is dependent on recognizability, compatibility, assurance, and reliability. E–commerce sites that establish a
strong corporate image or rely on familiar product brands take advantage of recognizability: design efforts that are directed at image mak-
ing have a positive effect on the customer.” (p. 20)
2
For a “critique [of] the rhetorical and visual features of professional presentations [in terms] of ethos, and the hybridity of forms and
identities”, see Hocks 2003, p. 645
3
Borne 2003, McKenzie 2003: PowerPoint as inferring an “emphasis upon flash and special effects rather than content and thought.” (p.
81)
4
“This hypothesis might sound intuitive. The rationale behind it is indeed simple [and] straightforward…” (Tsfati 2003, p. 161)
5
“Our three analysed texts are strongly influenced by the persuasive orientation as explicated by Greek rhetoric. They give a strong nod to-
wards logos, and the discovery of arguments and their location, which is also the dominant persuasive orientation…” (Yunxia & Hilde-
brandt 2003, p. 97)
6
cf. ibid.
4.2.2 Pathos
By contrast, as Winn (2000) notes, Pathos —the emotional appeal— has indeed been found to “play a key
role in a presentation’s persuasive power” (p. 155), just as Chase (1991) had initially observed “pathos–ori-
ented, deliberative persuasion” to constitute “the key feature” of what he termed “consumerist” (thus, in our
1 2
context, “audience–centered” ) approaches.
4.2.2.1 Motivation Theory and “Arousal”

Clearly, as Benoit and Smythe (2003) point out, the assumption that particularly more enduring persuasion
requires “motivation and ability” has been documented in many studies, using a variety of motivational and
ability variables: Persuasive argumentation clearly represents a more important determinant of persuasion
3
when recipients are motivated and able to process attitude–relevant information than when they are not.
4
Thus, from a motivational standpoint, our assumption of an emotionally, or simply “pathos–driven” per-
suasion has been proven true particularly in term’s of Weiner’s (1990, 1992) “arousal theory”, stating that
motivation, attention and interest greatly increased when the audience is “emotionally aroused” by appro-
priate material (cf. Mayer 2001, p. 117).
This “emotional arousal”, in turns, has equally been defined as “triggered” merely by a number of distinct
sources:
Communicators have relied on concrete, vivid messages to be more personally meaningful, more emotionally
arousing, and as a result, more influential.
(Bator & Cialdini 2000, p. 539)
As this quote suggests, the vividness of a message appears to cardinally determine the influence (and, as a
consequence, the degree of persuasiveness, cf. Cialdini 1993) within a message. Nisbett and Ross (1980) have
rather precisely defined such vivid information as corresponding to
a) our initially posited pathos criteria [“it grabs us emotionally”, Bator/Cialdini 2002]
5
b) the intrinsically imaginative realm, and in that, functions of mental imagery,
6
c) sensory, temporal, or spatial immediacy.
4.2.2.2 Vividness and Imagery

Particularly in relation to the above–posited, “motivational” rationale and evidence stemming from arousal
7
and motivation theories, Monroe’s “motivated sequence pattern” (Monroe et al. 1999, pp. 142–163) points
8
to the “use of vivid imagery” in order to more effectively emphasize “listener benefits”.
Monroe himself refers to this particular step as “the visualisation step”, mainly consisting in drawing out an
imaginary picture that “must be capable of attainment”. Moreover, as the author repeatedly points out, these
visualisations “must be vivid.”
1
cf. Morgan 2003
2
cf. Chase 1991, Parker & Hildebrandt 1996, p. 236
3
Stary 1997, p. 16, Benoit / Smythe 2003, p. 102
4
Freund 1999, p. 44
5
Nisbett / Ross 1980: “It is specific and triggers our imagination”, cf. Bator / Cialdini 2000, p. 540
6
“It [has to be] immediate in a sensory, temporal, or spatial way” (ibid)
7
cf. Weiner 1990, 1992, Kintsch 1980
8
„Use vivid imagery to show your listeners how they will profit…”
Particularly the two leading researchers on persuasion–focused, “new rhetoric” theories, Perelman and Ol-
brechts–Tyteca (1992) have answered to this challenge in postulating that “the desired element receives the
greatest amount of presence from being directly perceived. The phenomenon of presence, then, is inherently
1
linked to visual perception”.
Based on this understanding of “vividness” and, consequently, its implied concepts of presence and immedi-
2
acy, Hill (2002, 2003) has formulated a compelling “theory of visual rhetorics” that directly addresses these
issues:
In psychological research, a concept that parallels the concept of “presence” in many ways is the variable that
psychologists call “vividness”. Vivid information takes the form of concrete and imagistic language, personal
narratives, and particularly pictures…
In that, photography doubtlessly carries more epistemic force than a verbal description because the existence
of the photograph proves the existence of its subject […] Photography seems more “real” to us, and the pho-
tograph is much more likely to prompt a visceral, emotional response.
(Hill 2003, p. 125)
4.2.2.3 Visualistic Approaches

Besides the obviously ample correlation between emotional appeal and persuasive effect in Hill’s writings
(“persuasive elements that prompt strong emotions in the audience tend to have an extraordinary amount of
3
persuasive power”), the author equally points to the fact that “vivid information also seems to be more per-
suasive than non–vivid information” (Hill 2003, p. 125)
Clearly, the more vivid the information, the more likely it is that the information will prompt an emotional
4
response from the receiver (Campos, Gonzalez et al. 1999). Within our context, it appears equally obvious
that “vividness, emotional response, and persuasion have all been shown to correlate with each other”
(Chaudhuri & Buck, 1995). Therefore, it appears little surprising that particularly Hill (2003) has strongly
suggested visualistic and pictorial approaches in order to emotionally appeal to the audience, quoting that
“in experiments, pictures have been demonstrated to be more persuasive than text.” (p. 125)
Specifically, Hill cites photography and other, “realist” visualistic approaches as appropriate means to con-
vince the audience in terms of our previously posited, pathetic appeal, not leastly due to the assumedly “am-
ple vividness” innate to photography (Hill, 2003).
4.2.2.4 Visualisation and Pathos

5
Clearly, even “conventional wisdom” would commonly, and logically, assume a rather close connection be-
tween the display, or, subsequently, perception of pictorial information, visualisation or photography (Hill
2003), with an implied, emotional appeal, “arousal” (see above), and, in its consequence, an equally strong,
emotional response from the side of the audience:
The power of visual impressions to arouse our emotions has been observed since ancient times.
(Gombrich 1972, p. 46)
1
equally quoted in Hill 2003, p. 125
2
also published in Hill & Helmers 2002, pp.
3
Hill 2003, p. 125
4
ibid.
5
cf. Atkinson / Mayer 2004, p. 2
Nonetheless, although a number of scholarly texts have acknowledged the importance of researching this
“visual rhetoric” in various contexts (Barton & Barton 1985, 1993, Horton 1990), Winn (2000) points to
the above–cited Gombrich (1972) as “the only author to specifically connect pathos to the visual, highlight-
ing the under–representation of pathos in the visual rhetoric literature.” (p. 157)
Interestingly enough however, in a subsequent, joint paper (Winn & Beck, 2002), the author later cites a
1
number of supplementary studies particularly from the field of advertising research in order point out pic-
ture superiority effects (a phenomenon to be discussed at a later point within this chapter), as well as visual
2
persuasion phenomena, concluding that the “impact of feelings” (i.e. emotions) does in fact strongly corre-
late to an existing “persuasive power in visual design” (p. 18).
Not surprisingly, Jörgenson et al. (1995) have therefore referred to a “somewhat blurry” notion of Visuali-
sation to “affect the emotions and, at its zenith, the passions in others” (p. 414). This view, in turn, sees it-
3
self equally reflected in findings on “audience engagement” within our initially defined presentation sce-
nario: Particularly “the learner”, i.e. an audience interested in information conveyance or even “educational”
effects, will, according to Webster and Ho (1997), “be enticed by the vividness or fidelity of the presenta-
tion” (p. 71).
4
This “strongly correlating” picture between vividness, emotion, pathos, and persuasion, sees itself conse-
5
quentially connected to rather pedagogical effects as well: Not lastly in terms of our initially discussed mo-
tivation theory (Weiner 1990, 1992), emotional arousal has been found to positively influence motivation,
interest and, subsequently, a positive persuasive and cognitive effect.
4.2.2.5 Pathos, Persuasion, and Memory

This sees itself equally reflected in Kintsch’s (1980) “emotional interest” theorem, which articulately con-
firms significant persuasive, cognitive, and even “pedagogical” effectiveness within emotionally charged au-
dience communication. Similarly, Naharro–Berrocal et al. (2002) cite research efforts on the “educational
effectiveness” of particularly software–driven applications to “agree in the necessity of active involvement of
users” (p. 771)
More recently, neuroscientific research (Kazui et al. 2000, 2003) has cited the aforementioned, “emotional
arousal” effect to even possess considerable, “enhancing” potential towards retention and declarative mem-
6
ory: In application of an “illustrated story paradigm”, —a construct that shall find equal mention within
this work’s practical concept— a number of studies (Cahill et al. 1995, Hamann et al. 1997, MacDonald
2003) have determined improved memorization functionality, as well as surprising “storage” capacity within
an assumed, “emotional memory” —even with Alzheimer– and Amnesia–impaired patients. Not surpris-
ingly, as Kazui et al. (2003) note, “the effect of emotion on memory [and] mechanism[s] underlying the
emotional modulation of memory have received greater attention […] particularly in recent years.” (p. 224)
These results show very clearly how closely related emotion and cognition, thought and feeling actually are –
the one cannot be investigated without simultaneously taking into account the other.
1
cf. Edell / Staelin 1983, Edell / Burke 1987, Childers / Houston 1984, Miniard et al. 1991, Burke / Edell 1989
2
“It has been over 20 years before research in advertising began focusing more attention on visual persuasion” (Winn & Beck 2002, p. 18)
3
cf. Webster and Ho (1997): “Audience Engagement in Multimedia Presentations” (paper title)
4
cf. Hill 2003, Chaudhuri / Buck 1995
5
According to Knudstrup et al. (2003), researchers have equally stressed “the importance of imagery vividness” in the use of visualization
techniques (e.g. Anthony et al. 1993, Ayres et al. 1999). Vividness has also been found to moderate performance of individual's visual art
ability and their creative mental synthesis task (Morrison and Wallace 2001)
6
Kazui et al. 2003, p. 222
1
(Spitzer 2002, p. 167)
4.2.2.6 Emotions, Image, and Cognition

In conclusion, pathos, i.e. emotional stimuli, and more specifically applied to presentation visuals, “vivid”
information —which, according to Hill (2003), sees itself best represented in actual, “real–life photogra-
2
phy”, as well as “enactive imagery” (Goosens 1994, 2003) — has been found to possess an ample, persuasive
appeal (Winn 2000, Winn & Beck, 2002). Moreover, particularly the last–mentioned, “photographic
visuals”, as Scott (1994) notes, do “have the potential for cognitive impact” as well (p. 256):
Research investigating possible links between spatial layout, emotion and cognition has suggested that emo-
tional state can influence seemingly unrelated aspects of cognition.
3
(Riener et al. 2003, p. 227)
That means that not merely the above discussed memorisation features see themselves greatly enhanced
through persuasion–oriented, emotional appeals (Kazui et al. 2003), but also, that pathos–driven, visual
4
material has been found to result in positive, cognitive and intellectual responses.
4.2.3 Logos
5
Finally, logos —the “rational appeal”, as Thomas (1998) notes— is doubtlessly viewed as a central pillar, if
not the only actual, driving force within the framework of Aristotle’s rhetoric tripod:
While the two preceding artistic supports seemingly appear more peripheral, it is the logical and reasonable
substance that should be the major part of a communicator’s presentation... Logos exercises a tremendous
influence on western thinking including today's business communication.
(Yunxia & Hildebrandt 2003, p. 93)
6
This literally, “logical argument”, i.e. the rational, evidential underpinning of a speaker’s rhetoric, sees itself
manifestly dominated by actual reasoning and assumedly “neutral”, thoughtful presentation of facts. Evi-
dently, a number of writers (Kennedy 1963, 1980, Campbell 1998, Yunxia et al. 2003) conclude that, par-
ticularly in western cultures, the entire, supposedly three–legged persuasion complex actually sees itself
7
“largely based on a logical approach”.
4.2.3.1 Logos and Visualisation

Assuming such obvious emphasis on a logically structured, rational argument, one might consequently as-
sume that the most appropriate, if not the only way, to visually accompany and support such an intellectual
process would be in the form of text–oriented slides: Unlike with quantitative data, or pure “business fig-
ures” that appear convertible into reasonably corresponding graphs or “charts” following a set of pre–defined
rules (e.g. Tufte 1983, Few 2004a), particularly the presentation of abstract and complex reasoning would
8
axiomatically appear “next to impossible” (Bertolini 2002).
1
„Manually“ translated – original (German) text: „Diese Ergebnisse zeigen sehr deutlich, wie eng Emotion und Kognition, oder Gefühl
und Denken, miteinander verbunden sind; das eine kann man nicht untersuchen, ohne das andere in Betracht zu ziehen“.
2
Goossens 2003: “Enactive imagery has a stronger potency to elicit appraisal and emotional experience” (p. 132)
3
Eq. citing Gasper / Clore, 2002
4
cf. Mayer 2001, pp. 15–17, Benoit / Smythe 2003, p. 100
5
cf. Thomas 1998, p. 21
6
cf. Yunxia / Hildebrandt 2003: “Logos originally occurs in philosophy, metaphysics, rhetoric, and even religion…” (p. 92)
7
ibid, p. 97
8
“[The concepts presented] remain almost entirely abstract, […] even resistant to systematic parsing, [and] almost impossible to visualize
without a significant admixture of imaginative input…” (Bertolini 2002, p. 1054)
The basic assumption underlying this “impossibility” claim is, essentially, that information contained within
the actual “presentation files” (i.e. the “PowerPoints”, or data files embedding the accompanying slide in-
formation), is generally believed “irreversibly lost”: If one merely displays a picture, or “visual metaphor” to
an imaginary, given concept in the shape of one, single photography, it appears more than evident that the
information contained within this image may not be equivalent to the original concept itself.
Moreover, the “difficulty” to actually find appropriate, visual metaphors, particularly towards rather abstract
and complex material, is usually cited as a major obstacle to image–centric visualisation. Not lastly since im-
agery, with its vague, semiotic ambiguity, leaves interpretative room even for reasonably precise, visual
1
equivalents to the original concept, appropriate knowledge on actually existing, powerful, metaphor–based
2
imaging solutions is still rather unheard of in the business world.
Thus, since displaying the entire, full–text content on screen would prove somewhat challenging to the au-
3
dience (Möller 2002), as a consequence, the “fragmentation” of the original material into shorter (albeit still
textual), modular bits and their representation in the form of “bullet points” has doubtlessly represented the
usual practice until the present day.
4.2.3.2 The Elusive Visualisation Promise

Nonetheless, the entire discussion on the “inappropriateness” of these highly fragmented bullet points out-
lined within the previous chapters actually represents an obvious artefact from the aforementioned, “visuali-
4
sational” compromise: Since research for an appropriate (i.e. actually pictorial) visualisation currently ap-
5
pears challenging, or even impossible to many business individuals, many presenters simply revert to dis-
6
playing plainly speaker–focused outline notes (Cook 2003, Morgan 2003, Atkinson 2005).
However, while this seemingly convenient approach has enjoyed considerable criticism in terms of its un-
7
derlying, aesthetic and “summarization” features “on a very shallow level” (Abram 2004), Morgan (2003)
points out that the textual, bulleted paradigm of “visualisation”, at its substantial, theoretic foundation, can-
not be objectively viewed as “visualisation” per se, since it basically represents but visually projected, “propo-
8
sitional” (i.e. verbal) information, and as such, more of a “processing challenge” to the cognitive system
than an actual aid (Mayer 2001):
The [average] PowerPoint [assumes that] in using slides, he has appealed to the visual learner. But the
usual business slide is covered with words, and what visual learners need is pictures.
(Morgan 2003, p. 138)
1
cf. Stary 1997, pp. 10–13, John–Steiner 1997: “While language is a socially constructed and conventionalized mode of expression, no
corresponding single visual language exists.” (p.34)
2
cf. Terberg 2004, p. 18 (“photos appropriate for your subject matter do exist”), and Rosenzweig 2001, p. 565 („one single source for an
array of diverse images”)
3
“If [we] didn’t have bullet points, [we] would copy and paste large chunks from web pages and e–mail, badly formatted excel numbers
and, most of the time, write huge amounts of rambling text with BOLD formatting and colours directly into the actual presentation
slides.” (Möller, 2002)
4
cf. Kamei, 1993
5
see the discussion outlined above
6
“The words on the slides are mere notes, outlines [for the presenters themselves] to peruse at their convenience.” (Cook 2003, p. 25),
Note: Atkinson manuscript still in press, actual quote content and page references subject to change.
7
“On a very shallow level, I sometimes think that the well–educated communities in which we travel have a congenital distrust and hatred
of the success exemplified by Microsoft and PowerPoint” (Abram 2003, p. 27)
8
cf. Barkwosky 2003, p. 11
4.2.3.3 The “Cognitive” Rationale

Clearly, beyond the above discussed “difficulty”, or plain “laziness” (Möller 2002) as to approach, find, or
even think about appropriate, equivalent visualisations, another, fundamental rationale behind the hitherto
text–centric slide appearance is simply that thought, logic, and particularly enumerable facts have always, al-
1
beit unconsciously so, been connected to the use of “bulleted text slides” (Zielinski 2003a, p. 36).
4.2.3.3.1 Text as an Affine and Appropriate, “Logical” Form of Expression?

Since text has traditionally been considered an entity primarily associated with the vague concept of ration-
alism, logic, and fact, visually representing such concepts in a bulleted manner certainly appeared an appro-
priate equivalent to this understanding: Not lastly in light of the aforementioned importance of logos within
the western world, an emphasis on linearly enumerated, textual facts might, then, be interpreted as some-
thing of a logical consequence to this conception.
2
In terms of a rudimentary, commonly–assumed, psychological model (Clark 1991), this has long been at-
tributed to the compatibility of logical processes to text–based approaches:
Following the standard line, the left hemisphere is the logical hemisphere, involved in speech, reading, and
writing. It is the analytical hemisphere that evaluates factual material in a rational way and that under-
stands the literal interpretation of words. It is a serial processor that tracks time and sequences and that rec-
ognizes words, letters, and numbers.
(Bruer 1999, p. 650)
Nonetheless, not only Mattson and Duff (2004) have noted that, particularly in terms of “the aforemen-
3
tioned bullet points”, such “data–mindedness” both actually “misconstrues memory as a psychological fac-
ulty” (p. 342), as well as its underlying, “prescientific representation” of how the brain supposedly works “is
4
simply too crude to be scientifically or practically useful” (Chabris & Kosslyn, 1998). As Bruer (1999)
points out, “what brain scientists currently know about spatial reasoning and mental imagery provides
counterexamples to such simplistic claims as these.” (p. 652)
4.2.3.4 Reasoning within the “Visual” Domain
The ubiquity of visual metaphors in describing cognitive processes hints a nexus of relationships between
what we see and what we think
(Card et al. 1999, p. 1)
The “simplistic” assumption of particularly speech–accompanying, visually displayed text as simply “com-
patible”, or “affine” to the domain of logical thinking has actually been evaluated as rather “problematic folk
psychology” (Clark 1991) than an actually efficient approach to persuasive or even cognitively effective pres-
entation.
In fact, cognitive psychology has long established an alternative understanding of how the mental compre-
hension, memorization, and persuasion processes involved e.g. in terms of our initially defined presentation
scenario actually work: Unlike with the “popular idea” of the two separately functioning, “cognitive” and
1
“How many bulleted text slides could I replace with something more visually stimulating that will get my audience thinking about the
same point?” (Zielinski 2003a, p. 36)
2
“Cognitive science is the goldrush of the mind. Everybody’s searching for it. Worse still, everybody claims to be finding it. For all that, I
believe the place of mind in cognitive science is highly problematic.” (Clark 1991, p. 1)
3
“The outline [is used] as a mnemonic in the form of text–on–screen (the aforementioned bullet points)” (Maulitz 2003, p. 929)
4
„Any model of brain lateralization that assigns conglomerations of complex mental abilities, such as spatial reasoning, to one hemisphere
or the other, as our folk theory does, is simply too crude to be scientifically or practically useful” (Chabris & Kosslyn 1998, p. 8) as equally
discussed in Bruer 1999, p. 650
1 2
“visual” brain halves (Brier 1999), cognitive scientists work with a rather schematic (or “logical”), mental
model that involves visual, and verbal information processing (cf. Mayer 2001, p. 46).
3
These so–called “dual channels”, despite corresponding research activity (Kosslyn 1988, Farah et al. 1989,
Marks 1989), do not actually correlate with the aforementioned hemispheres (Bruer 1999), not lastly since
both have been shown to be actively involved e.g. during visual processing (Thomas 1990, Kosslyn et al.
1995).
4
Under this, scientifically substantiated perspective, the aforementioned, “text–affinity” assumption, as Pos-
ner & Raichle (1994) note, “is clearly false.” (p. 95) Actually, not only is the verbal channel “easily over-
5
loaded” with the processing of both orally delivered speech content and textual slide display, but also logi-
cal, cognitive and thought processes are, unlike the popular assumption, by far not exclusively limited to the
non–visual, or “textual” domain:
In fact, as Finke et al. (1996) point out, “there is considerable evidence that much of our everyday thinking
is based on the formation and transformation of visual images” (p. 45). Clearly, a broad abundance of cog-
nitive–psychological studies and neuroscientific evidence manifestly point to the fact that thinking processes
heavily rely on inert, visual functions and domains of mental imagery both for memory and cognition, as
well as real–time problem solving (Arnheim 1969, Cooper 1990, Ferguson 1977, Finke et al. 1989, 1986,
McKim 1980, Pinker 1986, Shepard and Cooper 1982):
Imagery is not only associated with fantasy and the imaginary, but also, and perhaps more importantly,
with prototypically cognitive functions such as memory, perception, and thought.
(Thomas 2002, p. 1147)
4.2.3.5 Thinking and Visualisation

6
Not merely the rather left–hemispherical realm of “creative thinking” (Finke et al. 1996), but equally purely
7
logical, rational thought processes have thus been identified as closely related, if not actually dependent on,
visual activity, and as such, to mental imagery: This actually inner, mental representation of pictorial infor-
8
mation (in the absence of the appropriate immediate sensory input) has therefore often been informally de-
scribed as “seeing in the mind's eye”, “mental imagery”, or simply —visualization (Thomas, 2002).
4.2.3.5.1 Scientific, and “Creative” Thinking

According to cognitive science, even strictly logic–based reasoning has therefore been found to only work in
application, or at least strong correlation, with such imaginary, visual structures. Exemplarily, Finke et al.
1
“’Right brain versus left brain’ is one of those popular ideas that will not die” (Bruer 1999, p. 650)
2
cf. Thomas, 1990
3
cf. Paivio 1986, Baddeley 1992
4
“There is an abundance of neuroscientific evidence…” (ibid)
5
“If text is both presented on the screen and narrated, research shows that it can overload the verbal and visual channels and make it ex-
tremely difficult to understand what you’re trying to say.” (Atkinson 1995, p. 11)
see equally Zielinski 2003a, p. 36 (“an audience’s focus will either lie on the visual or on the presenter, not both simultaneously”), and
Mayer 2001, pp. 61, 129ff, 147ff.
6
“Such accounts are suggestive of the importance of visualization in creative thinking and discovery, but […] empirical methods are
needed” (Finke et al. 1996, p. 45)
7
i.e. the very “logos” appeal discussed within these paragraphs
8
Kosslyn 1995: “Visual mental imagery is "seeing" in the absence of the appropriate immediate sensory input; imagery is a "perception" of
remembered information, not new input… Surely images cannot be actual pictures in the head; there is no light in there, and who or what
would look at the pictures, even if they were there?” (p. 267)
(1996) have provided interesting accounts on particularly scientific and mathematical thought based on
1
such mental imagery approaches:
The words of the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanisms of
thought. The physical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less
clear images which can be voluntarily reproduced or combined.
2
(Einstein 1949, p.142)
Thus, not merely a directly associated, “visuo–spatial reasoning” process has been proven to fundamentally
3
drive practical, problem–solving mechanisms —moreover, the underlying, inert symbolic imagery appara-
tus, said to both support cognitive reasoning, understanding, and memorization features (Douville et al.
2002), is now considered experimentally substantiated (Paivio, 1971, Kosslyn 1994, Thomas 2002).
4.2.3.6 “External” Visualisation

Footing on this “now generally accepted” model of inner, mental imagery (Barkowsky 2003, p. 11), the en-
tire realm of both scientific (Owen, 1999), numeric (Few 2004a,b,c) as well as abstract scenario visualization
(Gershon et al. 2001, Good et al 2002) consequently sees itself well–founded on top of the visual imagery
hypothesis outlined above. This, in turn, serves as an appropriate rationale to interpret “visualisation” as a
4
“brain–compatible” communication channel, or “bridge”, for mapping (or rather, seamlessly importing)
outward, “external visualisations” (Crapo et al. 2000, p. 220) onto an equivalently corresponding, internal
image representation:
Underlying the concept of visualization is the idea that an observer can build a mental model, the visual
attributes of which represent data attributes, in a definable manner.
(Robertson, 1991)
In fact, “outward” visualisation approaches, in applying actually pictorial information in the shape of “vivid”
5
imagery (Hill 2003) or “spatial displays” such as maps and graphic organizers, have indeed been found to
more aptly map to our inner, visual representation of information. As a result, as Robinson et al. (1996,
1999) have provided experimental evidence to an enhanced processing of particularly visually transmitted
data:
The study showed that visual displays, graphic organizers and concept maps facilitated a more spatial en-
coding of the information than the textual displays.
(Good / Bederson 2002, p. 40)
Thus, not only can visualisation strategies aid in gaining actual “insight” (Senay et al. 1994) and thus help to
“see the unseen” (McCormick et al. 1997) —moreover, mental imagery, and its concomitant, outward rep-
6
resentations have equally been demonstrated to facilitate, and “play an important role” in effective, dynamic
problem solving” scenarios (Sadoski & Paivio, 2001):
Our ability […] to solve problems becomes increasingly inferior to our ability to use an external visualiza-
tion to solve the same problem.
1
“Moreover, there are many accounts, most of them based on anecdotal reports, of the role that visualization plays in the creative process.
For example, many famous scientists have described how mental imagery contributed in an essential way to a key discovery or insight”
(Finke et al. 2002, p. 45)
2
cf. Einstein’s other, visualisation–centric statement: “My particular ability does not lie in mathematical calculation, but rather in visualiz-
ing effects, possibilities, and consequences.” (as quoted in Pinker, 1997)
3
cf. Kosslyn’s (1980) “mental scanning” experiments, as well as, Shepard & Cooper’s (1982) “mental rotation”
4
“One of the many discoveries researchers have made about how we learn is the importance of the visual to memory, [having] a whole,
brain compatible learning experience [take] place” (Koechlin et al. 2003, p. 26)
5
cf. Good / Bederson 2002
6
cf. Douville et al. 2002, p. 107
(Crapo et al. 2000, p. 220)

1
Not surprisingly, a “large number of researchers” have reported that both “creative insight” and problem–
solving performance greatly improve with the application of appropriate visualisations (Waisel 1998, Ro-
skos–Ewoldsen et al. 1993, Pinker 1996, Hong and O’Neil 1992).
According to Crapo et al. (2000), “at least two” explanations for this phenomenon are offered in the litera-
2
ture: The more common is certainly, that visualization extends working memory by using the “massively
3
parallel” architecture of the visual system to make an external representation function as an effective part of
working memory (Larkin & Simon, 1987).
4.2.3.7 Image Theory

Another important area of graphics research that could lend assistance in such “visuo–cognitive” mecha-
nisms (Janssen 2001) is Image Theory, as an “established and active agenda for researchers” (Tan & Benba-
sat, 1990). According to Crossland et al. (2000), Image Theory argues that “constructions —such as “im-
ages”— can be used to increase the efficiency of information assimilation and problem solving” (p. 15).
Nonetheless, besides offering substantial aid in (per se rather visually oriented), trivial decision–making and
4
problem–solving tasks (“visuo–spatial reasoning”), visualisation paradigms, and with it, the underlying
Mental Imagery theory as outlined above have most notably been recognized to fundamentally drive pri-
marily cognitive functionality within our “mental framework” (Maguire et al. 1999): Since the internal rep-
resentation of data has been experimentally proven to substantially consist in actual, mental images, appro-
5
priate visualisations now offer a way to aptly store particularly “complicated”, or even “abstract”, external
information in the shape of corresponding, visual symbol systems:
Serving as a kind of mental blackboard, mental imagery plays an important role in both the understanding
and memorability of concepts.
(Douville et al. 2002, p. 107)
In conclusion, it has clearly been found that equally in terms of logos, i.e. rational argumentation, reasoning,
as well as logically challenging problem–solving tasks, both mental imagery and visualisation concepts can,
6 7
and do “play an important role” within the “mental framework”.
[Our] results support the notion that relational reasoning is in fact based on visuo–spatial mental models.
(Ruff et al. 2003, p. 1241)
More fundamentally, experimental evidence even points towards substantial, visually oriented mechanisms
8
in terms of storing, retrieving, and mutually processing information: Similar to the concept of Gestalt psy-
chology, a number of researchers (Kosslyn 1980, Tye 1991, Rollins 1992, Sadoski and Paivio 2001) has
9
therefore reached the conclusion that our —cultural— “language construct” is simply “employed” in de
1
Crapo et al. 2000, p. 220
2
cf. Baddeley, 1992
3
cf. Crapo et al. 2000, p. 220
4
cf. Thomas, 2002
5
Hill 2003, p. 125: „An [appropriate] reaction can be prompted even by abstract symbols of complex cultural concepts…”, Douville et al.
2002: “Mental imagery strategies can also serve to help students concretize abstract concepts in ways that facilitate more effective problem
solving.” (p. 109)
6
“Mental imagery and its concomitant representations have been demonstrated to play an important role in dynamic problem solving”
(Sadoski & Paivio, 2001, Douville et al. 2002, p. 107)
7
“Brain regions activated when a mental framework was provided by a relevant picture…” (Maguire 1999, p. 1843)
8
i.e. the interpretation, comprehension and conversion of ingoing information, the internal reasoning on „inert knowledge“ (van Allen
1997), as well as the outward retrieval and communication process.
9
John–Steiner 1997: “Language” as a “socially constructed and conventionalized mode of expression” (p. 34)
scribing an “inner, visual world” (van Allen 1997) which, in reality, sees itself represented through “quasi–
1
pictorial arrays as a distinct form of computational representation”:
Pictures, then, most probably represent the original mode of knowledge presentation in humans.
(Mayer 2001, p. 67)
4.2.3.8 Persuasion, Cognition, and Mental Imagery

Even with this, basic understanding assumed true, however, the actual link from memory, mental imagery,
and cognitive issues to our initially posited persuasion intent must still appear somewhat indefinite: to what
extent might the aforementioned, cognitive aspects, then, be suited to affect the overall persuasiveness of a
presentation? If, as proposed by Good and Bederson (2002), “a presentation tool may exercise a larger por-
tion of the memory resources of the audience if it employs a spatial, visual display in combination with the
verbal discourse” (p. 40), would this automatically improve its persuasive influence as well?
Evidently, “logical” aspects of presentation discussed within the previous section were not merely found to
represent the “by far most important” component western approaches to persuasive rhetorics (Kennedy
1963, 1980, Campbell 1998, Yunxia et al. 2003) —moreover, as experimental evidence suggests, this very
2
logic–based, “deductive” reasoning and problem–solving mechanisms equally appears to be rather closely
3
connected to both “visual imagery”, and visualisation approaches (Finke et al. 1996, Crapo et al. 2000,
Douville et al. 2002).
As a consequence, the importance of such an effective visuo–spatially driven reasoning can deductively be
interpreted as equally beneficial towards inherently persuasive presentation approaches: Speech–accompany-
ing visuals that aptly appeal to such “visuo–cognitive”, mental properties (Janssen 2001) would, in turn, not
merely enhance actual reasoning, but, as a consequence, improve its persuasive appeal as well.
4.2.4 The Fourth Pillar: Memory

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the “cognitive functions” that the aforementioned, visual imagery
4
approaches have been reported to enhance (Thomas 2002) are clearly not limited to merely rational, deduc-
tive reasoning and spatial problem–solving: In correlation with the experimentally confirmed, positive im-
pact that visually supported, emotional stimuli possess towards retention and memory functionality as previ-
ously discussed (Kazui et al. 2003), so does the entire persuasion process (obviously supported by both the
above discussed, emotional and rational “appeals”) heavily rely on the memorability of the concepts dis-
cussed:
Consequently, Perelman and Olbrechts–Tyteca (1992) have early recognized that the challenge for a rhetor
arguing for any particular position is to “make the elements in the situation that are supportive of that posi-
5
tion stand out for the audience members, to make these elements more salient and memorable”.
“Presence,” as the term is used by Perelman and Olbrechts–Tyteca would, in turn, refer to the extent to
which an object or concept is foremost in the consciousness of the audience members. As previously dis-
cussed, Hill (2003) particularly cites the application of “vivid”, photographic imagery to establish such
memorable (and thus, persuasive) propositions:
1
cf. Kosslyn 1980, Rollins 1992, Thomas 2002
2
Knauff et al. 2002, p. 203
3
cf. Shepard and Cooper, 1982, Kosslyn, 1980
4
“Imagery is not only associated with fantasy and the imaginary, but also, and perhaps more importantly, with prototypically cognitive
functions such as memory, perception, and thought” (Thomas, 2002)
5
cited from: Hill, 2003, p. 125
The desired element receives the greatest amount of presence from being directly perceived. The phenome-
non of presence, then, is inherently linked to visual perception.
(Hill 2003, p. 125)
4.2.4.1 Rhetoric and Memory

Similarly, Thomas (1998) posited memory, although “generally neglected in the treatises of Cicero and
other ancient rhetoricians”, to actually represent “the fourth part of the rhetorical process” (p. 21):
The message that is truly memorable will stand a better chance of circumventing communication overload
and registering in the minds of the audience. Thus, the ancient canon of memory —reconsidered as memo-
rability— can be seen as a critical element of rhetoric in the information age.
(Thomas 1998, p. 22)
Again, this presumption sees itself reflected, particularly in connection with visual imagery, in Yates’ (1966)
seminal historical work on the significance of imagery mnemonics in Ancient through Renaissance thought.
1
Many of these accordingly applied mnemonic techniques, as Thomas (2002) notes, did in fact “involve im-
2
agery”: Because rhetoric, or the “art of public speaking”, required a great deal of memorization, these an-
cient rhetoricians heavily relied on Aristotle’s “Model of Memory” (Wittrock, 1988):
This model emphasized putting the points of a speech in linear order and then representing each point with
a familiar object that was easily retrievable from memory.
(Douville et al. 2002, p. 107)
3
Interestingly, many defenders of the previously discussed bullet–point paradigm have particularly cited the
aforementioned, “linear listings” as artefacts from previously applied, “greek” mnemonic techniques.
4
Holmes (2004) exemplarily argues that “bullet points”, viewed in terms of a “presentational paradigm”, had
simply “replace[d] the mnemonic techniques [as] handed down from the Greeks.” (p. 100)
Nonetheless, as we can clearly recognize from the above quoted scenario, rhetors such as Aristotle and Si-
5
monides had by no means used simple, language–based line items for their oratory: In rather early acknowl-
edgement of the mnemonic potential inherent to visualisation, pictorial representations, or even “spatial
5
mnemonics”, can clearly be exemplified as the apparently preferred rhetoric technique at the time (cf. Yates
1966, Highbee 1979, Wittrock 1988, Johnson 1997, Thomas 2002, Douville et al. 2002).
4.2.4.2 Memory, Cognition, and the Persuasion Process

An obvious correlation between cognition, memorization/memorability, and our previously discussed, rhet-
orically–supported “scientific persuasion process” (Maccoby 1992, Heil 2002) can therefore be rather evi-
dently identified, not merely in light of Aristotle’s visual mnemonic approach to rhetorics:
6
Clearly, from a logical standpoint, a speech should not only be “superficially convincing”, but equally exer-
cise its persuasive power from a more long–term perspective: If the emphasis purely lies on “overwhelming”,
or impressing an audience on a rather shallow level, viewers, doubtlessly, might vaguely feel “somewhat con-
vinced” directly after the presentation. However, similar to concerns uttered in Parker (2001) and Godin
1
Note: the notion of particularly image–supported mnemonics shall find further mention towards this thesis’ practically–oriented discus-
sion.
2
cf. Douville et al. 2002, p. 107
3
cf. Fryxell 2000, Holmes 2004
4
Brothen 1998, p. 2
5
“By imagining his stories as buildings, Simonides tapped that potential for spatial mnemonics” (Johnson 1997, p. 12)
6
“The evidence they consider, although superficially convincing, is often slanted, occasionally deliberately, but more often as a result of
carelessness and defects in study design” (Morgan, 1997)
(2001), the overall impression can habitually be phrased as “pretty fancy presentation... but what was it
1
about?”
More often than not, all anybody remembers —including the speaker— is that a bunch of slides got shown.
(Searls 1998)
4.2.4.2.1 Memorability as a Key Factor for Persuasion

Therefore, as previously discussed with Aristotle’s rhetoric concepts raised in Thomas (1998), the “ancient
canon of memory” —reconsidered, in our context, as memorability— can be seen as a “critical element of
rhetoric in the information age” (p. 22). As Hovland’s early Yale Persuasion Studies illustrated, the obvious
“need for cognition” (Cohen et al. 1955, 1957) proved an essential, even indispensable feature of the entire
persuasion process:
Hovland [thus] assumed an intrinsic relation between memory and persuasion…
(Lee 1998)
This assumption is supported by experimental evidence from cognitive science, as well as advertisement and
consumer research: Exemplarily, Bator and Cialdini (2000) point out that, while “simply getting the audi-
ence's attention is a difficult task, an equally challenging process is providing the message […] in such a way
that audiences will readily store it in memory” (p. 529).
In advertising research, Miniard et al. (1991) have connected this very notion of cognitive responses, and
“message storing” (Te’eni et al. 2000, 2001) within the persuasion process to our focal concepts of visualisa-
tion, mental imagery, and truly pictorial presentation through what they termed “picture–based presentation
2
processes”:
Pictures have been shown to enhance the impact of persuasive communication…
Pictures often play a major role in persuasive messages. A reliance on pictorial stimuli makes considerable
sense given the variety of ways in which they can facilitate persuasion.
(Miniard et al. 1991, p. 92)
3
Little surprisingly, experimental results have shown that particularly photographic (i.e. “vivid”) imagery not
4
merely acts as an “attention–getting device” (cf. Finn 1988, McKenzie 1986) within the persuasive context,
but has moreover been proven to positively affect message learning processes by equally enhancing the
memorability of other semantic information (Childers and Houston 1984, Lutz and Lutz 1977).
Furthermore, the very same, pictorial imagery has been found to even influence “post–message attitudes”
(Mitchell and Olson, 1981), i.e. the more enduring effect of attitude change we hoped for in terms of our
5
initial definition of “persuasion”.
4.2.5 Comprehension and Persuasion

Going beyond the notion of sheer memorability and thus expanding our understanding of persuasive mes-
sage–processing into an actual comprehension process, not only have we seen from the previous discussion
6
that, within our particular, “presentational context” (Smith 1998), “mental imagery plays an important role
1
Gebhardt, Matt, “Don’t Leave Your Audience Thinking, ‘Pretty Fancy Presentation ... But What Was It About?’”, Inside Microsoft
PowerPoint, 9 (10) : 16, Louisville: Elem. K Journals, Oct. 2002
2
cf. Miniard et al. 1991 (paper title)
3
cf. Hill, 2003
4
Miniard et al. 1991, p. 92
5
ibid, p. 93
6
Smith 1998: “presentational context” in terms of “perceptual realism”, and “aesthetic prescriptions” (p. 327)
1
in both the understanding and memorability of concepts”, —moreover, both “active processing” (Wittrock
1989) and the subsequent comprehension of messages have equally been recognized to profoundly correlate
with the persuasion process.
4.2.6 “Educational” Context

Consequently, a number of scholars (Hynd 2001, Alexander 2002, Murphy et al. 2001, 2004) have even
2
gone so far as to posit that, on a “metaphorical” level, persuasion and teaching (or, when observed from the
other side, “learning”) are actually one and the same:
Persuasion is a cornerstone of the educational process.
(Murphy et al. 2004, p. 337)
Thus, when teachers, according to Murphy (2001), “orchestrate their lessons” with the intention of touch-
ing their students’ emotions as well as their minds, presenting both sides of an argument or incorporating
the diversity of a learner’s knowledge, beliefs, and interests into educational lessons, they are actually en-
3
gaged in persuasion.
4.2.6.1 Teaching as Persuasion, Persuasion as Education

Indeed, as Murphy and Alexander (2004) note, a considerable number of scholars “within the educational
community” have argued that meaningful learning and effective teaching cannot occur in the absence of
persuasion (cf. Mason 2001, Vosniadou 2001)
In terms of the actual correlations between cognitive understanding, memorisation, and long–term (“ac-
tive”) learning and the persuasion process, a number of different scenarios are cited in the literature: For in-
stance, Murphy (2001) particularly points to the fact that an individual’s ability to process a given message
subsequently affects the likelihood of the message to prove persuasive. Consequently, those with greater
4
comprehension skills are more apt to process the content of a persuasive message “at a deeper level” than
those whose comprehension skills had been determined as “weak” (Dole & Sinatra 1998, Petty & Cacioppo
1984).
Moreover, according to Murphy and Alexander (2004), persuasion is equally considered reliant on the com-
prehensibility and meaningfulness of its underlying, base message (cf. Alexander & Jetton 1996). Thus, when
readers are unable to grasp the meaning or perceive its relevance, they are, in turn, rather “unlikely” to be
persuaded (Dole & Sinatra 1998, Eagley 1974).
Accordingly, Murphy (2001) concludes that, “by conceiving of teaching as a persuasive process, teachers are
encouraged to look at classroom discourse and teaching materials in a new light”, since particularly persua-
sion–centric communication towards students could subsequently result in a more profound, convincing,
and effective learning experience (p. 227).
In turn, both the persuasive, and the associated learning process are generally considered rather “closely
5
connected”, correlating objectives (Toncar & Munch 2003). This assumption, as Long et al. (2001) note,
1
Douville et al. 2002, p. 109
2
“Such metaphors can serve to capture the prevailing philosophical orientations toward teaching as well as signal trends in research and
practice of the time” (Murphy 2001, p. 224)
3
cf. Murphy / Alexander 2004, p. 337
4
Murphy 2001, p. 225
5
“This is an important research issue for both academics and practitioners because although many tactics are often used to gain viewers’
attention, gaining attention is one objective, while persuasion and learning are distinctly different objectives.” (Toncar / Munch 2003, p.
39)
appears valid particularly when considering that “persuasion and learning are both interactive processes di-
rected at altering our beliefs and knowledge” (p. 269).
With this link between cognition, memorisation, understanding, and even a more long–term, educational
process evidently established within the scope of our initially defined persuasion scenario, we can therefore
mutually reinterpret cognitively, comprehensively, and pedagogically effective communication as equally
beneficent towards the very persuasiveness of that same process: If a message is delivered in a way that it is
1
well–remembered and understood in terms of coherent, “constructed knowledge”, this learning effect logi-
cally implies, in turn, a positive impact on the persuasiveness of the message as well (Benoit and Smythe,
2003):
Attitude change that occurs because the auditor thought about and accepted the arguments in the message is
likely to persist longer, predict behavior better, and resist counterpersuasion more than attitude change from
the more superficial reflection on shortcut cues.
(Benoit & Smythe 2003, p. 101)
This “pedagogical” view of comprehensible and memorable information as implicitly more convincing sees it-
self equally reflected in Olbrechts–Tyteca (1992), Thomas (1998), Mayer (2001), Areni (2003), Murphy
and Alexander (2004). Moreover, Atkinson and Mayer (2004) have posited even more specifically towards
the context of this work, that “research on multimedia learning is highly relevant to the design of Power-
2
Point presentations”.
4.2.6.2 Learning, Multimedia, and the Presentation Context

Accordingly, UCSB cognitive psychologist Mayer (2001) has investigated into the cognitive effects that the
3
use of multimedia, and more specifically, the interrelation between text and imagery may entail. Not sur-
prisingly, Mayer gauges particularly the use of “explicatory illustrations” and relevant imagery as “education-
ally effective” and reasonable within the context of printed material (Mayer & Gallini, 1990):
The Multimedia Principle: students learn better from words and pictures than from words alone.
(Mayer 2001, pp. 63ff.)
However, while Mayer (2001) equally points out that within the context of illustrated, academic textbooks,
the resulting interdependency between text and images appeared rather close with both elements “mutually
4 5
complementing each other”, the “communicative scenario” during an orally delivered, “live” presentation
obviously implies a set of distinct premises:
6
Since “talks”, as Don Norman points out, “are by their very nature superficial”, the entire content structure
has to be organized distinctively from rather intensive, time–consuming readings as with the aforementioned
textbook scenario: Clearly, as Zielinski (2003a) notes, “an audience’s focus will either be on the visual or on
the presenter, not both simultaneously” (p. 36).
1
Constructivism, or „constructivist learning“, cf. Mayer et al. 1999, Mayer 2001: Learning as “a sense–making activity in which the
learner seeks to build a coherent mental representation from the presented material” (p. 13)
2
cited from: Cliff Atkinson and Richard E. Mayer, “The Cognitive Load of PowerPoint”, Los Angeles, Calif.: Sociable Media, Inc.,
27.2.2004, URL: http://www.sociablemedia.com/articles_mayer.htm [accessed 22.11.04]
3
Mayer 2001: Multimedia as „the presentation of material using both words and pictures” (p. 2)
4
“Although the verbal and pictorial representations may complement one another, they cannot be substituted for one another” (Mayer
2001, p. 68)
5
cf. Grill et al. 2003, Wu et al. 2002
6
as cited in Simons 2004, p. 28
1
Nonetheless, with the current predominance of “simple text slides”, a major restriction can be viewed in
terms of the typically fairly high pace of such presentations (Mamykina et al. 2001): Since many of the
2
screens contained in the actual slide set are usually rather “quickly flashed”, coordination and shifting be-
tween reading the slides, listening to the speaker, and mentally “merging” these two elements increasingly
represent an actual challenge to the audience’s cognitive capacity, particularly during characteristically
3 4
“lightning–fast”, or so–called “rapid fire PowerPoint presentations”.
Such fast–paced, complex visual messages […] may exceed the cognitive capacity of most people.
(Raymond 2003, p. 59)
Thus, in order to further explore this phenomenon, it appears reasonable at this point to apply a more co-
herent model that might be suited to provide an integral explication (and possible solution) to the scenario
outlined above. Due to its experimental consistency and far–reaching popularity within the psycho–cogni-
tive research community, Paivio’s (1986) Dual Coding hypothesis and Baddeley’s (1992) model of Working
Memeory doubtlessly provide the most appropriate and well–established theoretical footing to our discus-
5
sion (Mayer 2001).
4.3 Dual Coding and Channel Separation

According to Paivio and Baddeley, “the mind” can basically be modelled with a “hypothetical, networked
system of nodes of information” (Butler & Mautz 1996) basically consisting of two symbolic subsystems:
the verbal, and the imagery.
That means, that the two types of information (auditory–verbal, and visual/pictorial), are actually processed
and stored independently from each other:
Psychological hypotheses suggest that human memory does encode spatial information distinctly from verbal
information.
(Good & Bederson 2002, p. 40)
This systematic independence of the two, so–called “channels”, have in fact been substantiated by empirical
evidence, mainly in the shape of cognitive–psychological studies (Paivio 1968, 2001, Thomas et al. 1994,
Clark et al. 1991, Sadoski et al. 2001, Mayer 2001, Baddeley 1992, 1999).
According to Annett and Leslie (1996), any item can thus be encoded in a verbal–linguistic symbolic system,
in a non–verbal symbolic system or in both. Each system is further assumed to provide specific, basic “repre-
6
sentational units”: Verbal representations, or “logogens” as described by Morton (1969, 1979), and imagi-
nal representations, or “imagens”, posited to encode modality specific information about non–verbal experi-
7
ences (Clark & Paivio 1987).
4.3.1 Channel Interference, Limited Capacity, and Split–Attention Effects

Thus, while, in terms of the dual channel hypothesis, the processing of both purely visual information (e.g.
photography) through the visual channel and auditory information (i.e. a speech) via the verbal subsystem
1
cf. Pajares et al. 2002, p. 162
2
Samson 2003, p. 4
3
“He sadly had to skate over the surface somewhat in his lightning–fast but very attractive PowerPoint show.” (Parker/Allmark 2003, p. 8)
4
“DaimlerChrysler… is […] well–known for [its] rapid–fire PowerPoint presentations” (Wall Street Journal, New York, 12.3.01, p. A1)
5
“The concept of separate information processing channels has a long history in cognitive psychology…” (Mayer 2001, p. 46)
6
Annett / Leslie 1996, p. 448
7
ibid, p. 449
1
are easily managed and even cognitively interrelated, already the processing (i.e. “reading”) of written text,
as Mayer (2001) notes, appears to represent something of a “challenge” to this cognitive apparatus:
So far, cognitive processing of pictures takes place mainly in the visual/pictorial channel, whereas the cogni-
tive processing of spoken words takes place mainly in the auditory/verbal channel […]
The presentation of printed text in multimedia messages tends to create an information processing challenge
for the dual–channel system […]
As you can see, when verbal material must enter through the visual channel, the words must take a complex
route through the system and must also compete for attention with the illustration [processed] via the visual
channel.
(Mayer 2001, p. 61)
2
Clearly, in terms of a static, “time–honored” reading environment (e.g. the aforementioned, scientific text-
3
book example), this evident, “mental challenge”, and its implied, temporal processing delay might still ap-
pear somewhat tolerable, not leastly since the interference (or “channel competition” from additional, audi-
tory information) presents itself rather negligible. Moreover, this kind of reading can even be interpreted as
not necessarily time–critical within the scope of such a “private reading” scenario as defined by Gould
(1999).
4.3.2 Oral Presentation Context: Processing Challenges

However, in the context of a “live”, narrated presentation, both display time of the applied (text–)slide vis-
4
ual, and, at an even increased degree, the “inherently one–dimensional” (Crapo et al. 2000), narrated
speech content pose an ample, temporal restriction to the cognitive processing system: As previously cited in
Zielinski (2003a), listener attention, consciously as well as unconsciously shifts between the auditory/verbal,
and the essentially “visual–linguistic” content, i.e. text as, theoretically verbal content, displayed in a visual
form.
When words are presented visually —as on–screen text— this places an additional load on the visual in-
formation processing channel.
(Mayer 2001, p. 152)
5
Particularly when this attention is not directed e.g. through the speaker himself, and even more so when
6 7
textually “overloaded slides” are merely “flashed by rather quickly”, the overall, “information processing
efficiency”, as Bryant and Hunton (2000) put it, is caused to “fluctuate” (p. 144).
When the attention of the listener, and, in turn the two parallel information channels and are thus encour-
aged to “compete with each other”, then, according to Moore et al. (1986), “information interference is the
result” (p. 858). In presentational practice, this phenomenon has, not surprisingly, therefore been observed
1
cf. Moore et al. 1996
2
“Clearly, the time–honored traditional method for presenting instructional messages – providing an explanation in the form of printed
words – does not seem to work so well” (Mayer 2001, p. 23)
3
“Words […] require some mental effort to translate.” (ibid, p. 67)
4
“Language is inherently one–dimensional, sequential. This is necessarily so because sound waves arrive at the ear of the listener over time.
Vision, by contrast, is not one–dimensional…” (Crapo et al. 2000, p. 220)
5
“Every now and then, call attention to a slide, then bring them back to you.” (Widener 2003, p. 7)
6
cf. Agosto 2002
7
Samson 2003, p. 4
1
to “actually impede [overall] attention”, not lastly through an implied encouragement of “collective, public
2
reading” (Gould 1999) instead of listening to the speaker himself (Kaminski 2002, Beckwith 2003)
Feinberg and Murphy (2000) have, in turn, equally pointed to such a “split–attention–effect” (Chandler
3
and Sweller 1991) in terms of text, graphics, and the actual narration “competing”:
Because the mental resources of working memory can be overloaded, any information that ignores cognitive
load may interfere with the process of acquiring knowledge…
(Feinberg & Murphy 2000, p. 353)
4.3.3 Cognitive Evidence and Related Research

From an “educational perspective”, cognitive psychologist R.E. Mayer (2001) has certainly provided the
most resourceful, empirical evidence for what he terms “cognitive load”, and “capacity–limit” hypotheses:
If text is both presented on the screen and narrated, research shows that it can overload the verbal and vis-
ual channels and make it extremely difficult to understand what you’re trying to say.
4
(Atkinson 2005, p. 11)
5
In a number of experiments, Mayer experimentally substantiated that students actually learn better from
exclusively pictorial, visual displayed and simultaneous narration than from the same display with addi-
6
tional, “on–screen text” (Mayer/Moreno 1998, Moreno/Mayer 1999, Mayer 2001, pp. 141–143).
More importantly even in terms of our “presentation scenario”, when Mayer compared invariantly narrated
presentations, accompanied by an illustrated, visual (“on–screen”) animation with a similar configuration
including additional, textual commentary within the visual display, both recall and comprehension proved
noticeably worse in the text–on–screen scenario (Mayer/Anderson 1991, Kalyuga et al. 1989, Mayer et al.
7
1999, Mayer 2001, pp. 147ff.)
Retention and transfer both go down if the narrator's words appear on the slide at the same time (e.g., when
a presenter reads bullet points from the slide).
(Simons 2004c, p. 28)
4.3.4 DCT | Consequences

Clearly, Mayer’s studies illustrate the insight that our “time–honored, traditional method for presenting
8
[…] in the form of printed words” does, apparently “not seem to work so well”: Both memorability and
comprehension (and thus, in turns, an underlying, “ratio–persuasive” appeal) see themselves rather nega-
tively affected through the use of text–oriented, speech–accompanying “on–screen” explanations. Kalyuga et
al. (1989) even more generally substantiated this impression, positing “any multimedia situation” to improve
when such “redundant material is removed” (p. 2).
1
“It can actually impede attention. Military analysts conjecture that recent appropriations from Capitol Hill have stalled because Congress
cannot decipher the Army’s complex and tedious slides.” (Kaminski 2002)
2
“When prospects gaze at slides, they are not looking at what you are selling: you. If you darken the room for dramatic effect, your prob-
lem only grows more dramatic. Now your prospects are not looking into your eyes – where relationships are made – and they are not lis-
tening to you. They are reading.” (Beckwith 2003, p. 125)
3
“Cognitive load generated by irrelevant activities, such as text and graphics competing, can impede skill acquisition.” (Feinberg/Murphy
2000, p. 355)
4
Note: Atkinson manuscript still in press, actual quote content and page references subject to change.
5
Mayer / Moreno 1998, Moreno / Mayer 1999, Mayer 2001, pp. 141–143
6
“Student learning is improved when unneeded words are removed from a multimedia presentation” (Mayer 2001, p.129)
7
“Students learn better from animation and narration than from animation and on–screen text” (ibid, p. 147)
8
cf. Mayer 2001, p. 23
An appropriate deduction of this empirical evidence towards current, presentational practice consequently
1
suggests the thought that the now “ubiquitously” applied approach involving textual, bulleted “visuals” that
typically consist of hardly a brief outline of the actual speech itself might, then, be reinterpreted as some-
2
what “redundant” within any orally narrated presentation context:
3
Where, in case of an overly “fast paced” presentation, the above described “channel interference”, or “split
4
attention” effects tend to cause a “processing challenge”, or even “overload” (Atkinson and Mayer, 2004)
within an auditor’s cognitive system, an, in comparison, just “lightly filled”, accompanying text slide con-
tributes equally few to the actual narration —not leastly since the very same content is already being simul-
taneously narrated by the speaker himself:
If you are talking about quality, having the word “Quality” on the screen adds little to your point. On the
other hand, if you want to explain what an aardvark looks like, there are no words that can do it as effec-
tively as simply showing a picture.
(Kaminski, 2002)
Corresponding to the aforementioned, experimental results, textual, “on–screen–content” that actually cor-
5
responds precisely, at times “even verbatim”, to the orally delivered speech as exemplarily cited within Ka-
6
minski’s statement, has empirically been deemed “cognitively counterproductive”, if not “redundant” at
best (Mayer and Moreno, 2003).
The consequence materializing from this discussion can clearly be framed in terms of an assumed, “verbal–
pictorial” scenario (Najjar 1995), wherein understanding, memorization and overall learning would be im-
proved through information presented via separately auditory (the orally narrated “speech”), and visual (the
actually “pictorial”, image–centric slides simultaneously displayed) channels. Accordingly, Murray et al.
(1998) equally found this “dual–modality” presentation schema “most effective in ensuring high compre-
hension”, furthermore describing these findings as “consistent with those of other researchers across a variety
of communication settings” (p. 31).
Consequently, in order to actually and aptly visualise thus–narrated presentation content, in the following I
would like to focus on the discussion of truly “visualistic” approaches in terms of finding appropriate, “vis-
ual metaphors” (Morgan and Reichert 1999, Darby 2000, Phillips and McQuarrie 2004). To this regard,
we shall particularly be interested in the understanding of mental imagery and picture superiority effects as the
underlying, theoretical concepts.
4.4 Mental Imagery and Picture Superiority Phenomena
4.4.1 Dreaming Evidence

Obviously, much of the mental imagery discussion I already outlined previously within this chapter has
7
marked out the obvious advantages of purely visualistic information (i.e. actual, “pictorial imagery”) not
1
cf. Tufte 2003b: “The [bullet point] format has become ubiquitous under PowerPoint.” (p. 118)
2
Kalyuga et al. 1989, p. 2
3
cf. Mamykina et al. 2001, Raymond 2003, p. 59
4
Mayer 2001, p. 61
5
Maulitz 2003, p. 929
6
Wheathersbee 2000, p. 16
7
cf. Kindler 1999, 2003, Edens et al. 2001, p. 217: The semiotic perspective of pictorial imagery questions “the relationship between vis-
ual perception and cognition and their role in the creation and response to visual signs and symbols, and other sensory, perceptual, and
cognitive modalities involved in semiotic processes” (Kindler 1999, p. 346).
merely in terms of spatial reasoning, but increasingly in terms of integral, intellectual efforts as well: While
Drose and Allen (1994) particularly pointed towards the important “role of visual imagery in the retention
of complex ideas”, an example that might more vividly reflect our idea of images as “the mind’s underlying
engine” is probably the realm of dreaming:
Obviously, most recalled dream experiences are reported as resembling an immediately–“lived”, visual expe-
rience rather than, as had been previously posited, “a purely discursive, linguistic performance” (Woody
2003, p. 333). Consequently, the actual frequencies of dream recall had been experimentally related to
1 2
mental imagery ability (Foulkes 1999, Walczyk and Taylor 2000, Hobson 2002), “not language ability”.
Since dreams certainly represent our most immediate mirror to cognition, or the “inner self”, it appears but
few surprising that an appropriate transfer from image–based dreaming to actual thought and recall would
equally interpret mental imagery as the “driving force” behind intellectual and practical capabilities (Woody
2003): As Kindler (2003) points out, psychologists, as well as cognitive psychologists have increasingly ap-
proached concepts of the so–called, “visual brain” (Zeki 1999) and “visual intelligence” (Hoffman 1998).
4.4.2 Mental Imagery as a Generally Accepted Assumption

Thus, although so–called “description theory” still finds defenders particularly from philosophical faculties
(Pylyshyn 2002), Thomas (2002) notes that a large amount of psychological and neuroscientific studies
have “undermined much of its appeal” in recent years. Besides the impressive, “mental rotation” and “scan-
ning” experiments during the early 1980s, (Shepard and Cooper 1982), particularly Tye (1991), Rollins
(1992, 1999) and Barkowsky (2002) have provided “persuasive defences” of the conceptual legitimacy of
3
quasi–pictorial arrays as a distinct form of computational representation.
Subsequently, as Barkowsky (2003) points out, mental imagery as a visualistic concept within cognitive psy-
chology now enjoys rather “broad acceptance” within the scientific community as an appropriate concept
and functional model “of how the mind works” (Pinker, 1997). Furthermore, particularly in terms of the
actual learning, understanding and persuasion effect that we hoped to enlighten within this chapter, a num-
ber of interesting studies do indeed point towards an “advantage of visual and spatial metaphors as forms of
4
representation”:
While Mayer (2001), in pointing out the importance of memory, retention and transfer towards actual
5
learning and persuasion effects merely speaks of images as “more intuitive and closer to our visual sensory ex-
6
perience”, Hodes (1991) experimentally showed that instructional methods using “high imagery” subse-
7
quently resulted in an increased transfer through greater learning of procedural information.
4.4.3 Images as More Affine Carriers of Information

Similarly, Johnson’s (1997) assumption describing “our visual memory” as “much more durable than textual
memory” (p.12) sees itself reflected by the analytic findings described in Najjar (1995), who connected the
aforementioned, experimental results to the “dual–coding” theory explained earlier:
1
cited from: Knudstrup et al. 2003, p. 78)
2
Domhoff 2003: It has been found “that recall frequency best correlates with the ability to produce waking mental imagery, not with lan-
guage ability.” (p. 1987)
3
Thomas 2002, p.
4
Woody 2003, p. 341
5
cf. Mayer 2001, pp. 15–17
6
“Pictures allow holistic, nonlinear representations of information” (ibid, p. 68)
7
cf. Knudstrup et al. 2003
It appears that information presented through the pictorial channel is more salient and better remembered
than information presented through the verbal channel.
(Najjar 1995, p. 6)
This evidence points to an understanding that we not merely, externally observe and intellectually interpret
1
visual information, but that an estimated “85 per cent” (Johnson 1987) actually “think in pictures”
2
(Grandin 1995, Dukehart 1998):
Our understanding of anything ultimately reduces to a matrix of visual images; in short, we essentially
think in pictures.
(Glenberg & Teng 1998, p. 477)
The subsequent concept of images as both storage, retrieval and processing instance of thoughts is now
known as the picture superiority effect (Nelson et al. 1976, 1979, Paivio et al. 1968, 1973, Mandler 1991).
3
As experimentally shown, at least considerable portions of the mind evidently tend to preferably store and
reason about not only visual, but also and particularly semantic, contextual, and even quite complex infor-
mation (Wippich et al. 1998, Childers and Houston 1984).
4.4.4 Your Face Looks Familiar, But I Can't Remember Your Name
Beyond the idea of mere, visuo–spatial reasoning as discussed above (Terao et al. 2004), the evidence stem-
ming from the aforementioned studies thus points to the fact that i.e. the exhibition of purely imagery in-
4
formation such as in the shape of so–called “fluency techniques”, might be able to aptly evoke correspond-
ing, “visuo–cognitive responses” (Janssen, 2001). Such ability to remember (or, from a presenter’s perspec-
tive, to correspondingly arouse) distinct, mental images must certainly appear interesting in terms of an ap-
propriate, emotional and cognitive appeal that we initially posited as primary communication goals.
4.4.4.1 Picture Superiority Effects

In light of this, underlying hypothesis, Najjar (1995) consequently suggested that the aforementioned,
“picture–superiority” effect be based on the general notion of pictures as “providing access [to] meaning
more quickly and completely than words” —an assumption that sees itself equally reflected in the studies of
Nelson et al. (1976, 79), Smith and Magee (1980).
In conclusion, pictures have experimentally been found significantly “better than words” (Barnhart & Glen-
berg 1990), particularly in free recall. Mandler (1990), in turns, has depicted this insight more exemplarily
in terms of a rather common phenomenon: “Your face looks familiar, but I can’t remember your name…”
(p. 207)
4.4.4.2 Visual Imagery as an underlying Hypothesis

Clearly, the generally encountered and purported observation that the formation of an appropriate, “spatial
mental model” (Gilbert & Rogers 1999) not only aids memorization and recall, but furthermore even un-
derlies reasoning, thought, and mental processing, would logically lead us to the understanding that both
1
“Research on learning demonstrates that the ‘significance of the sense of sight in the process of learning and retention is 85 percent’”, as
cited in J.B. Dalrymple, Teaching and Learning Law With Graphic Organizers, Loyola Univ., Furman Univ. 1996
2
“Human beings think in pictures, not words” (Dukehart 1998, p. 48)
3
see the corresponding discussion outlined above.
4
“[…] Fluency techniques are [i.e.] mind–mapping and storyboarding – both methods for visualizing ideas and associations… By imagin-
ing themselves inside products or processes, for instance, employees use mental images summoned from the unconscious.” (Kiely 1993, p.
35)
learning and, consequently, persuasion processes might actually be more aptly facilitated by providing ap-
1
propriate imagery or, at least, an “interestingly” (or “divisively”) structured, “spatial layout” (Gilbert &
2
Rogers 1999, p. 246):
Thus, an entire, visual structure appears much more appropriate if all pages possess a visually diversified
layout applying graphical imagery than if it merely exhibited a dictionary–like, invariant appearance.
3
(Rosenboom 1997)
The currently applied, strictly uniform structure as implied by bullet–point text charts, however, has con-
trarily been stated to rather elicit a distinct, “visual monotony” (van Allen 1997). In terms of this oftentimes
4 5
even deliberately desired “consistency”, as Wareham (2000) notes, particularly “our” computerized “slide
show programs” have thus promoted the aforementioned, templated workflows in order to “enforce” and fa-
6
cilitate such aesthetic uniformity. Nonetheless, as Wareham goes on to argue, “that very consistency can
7
[literally] send an audience to sleep”:
If the aim is to keep the audience awake, then it is best to introduce a variety of layouts […] along with apt
but unusual images.
(Wareham 2000, p. 67)
4.4.4.3 Vivid, Heterogeneous Imagery as a Critical Precondition for Learning and Persuasion
Moreover, and even more dramatically so in terms of our initially posited persuasion intent, the aforemen-
8
tioned, “monotonous uniformity” has been proven to actually “undermine” emotional arousal (Weiner
8
1992), “cognitive motivation” (Crossland et al. 2000), and, subsequently, a desired, persuasive impact.
Clearly, if every single slide within a visually–accompanied presentation “looks the same” due to its “consis-
tent” template application, aesthetic interest (i.e. how the next slide will look like), emotional interest (low,
emotional appeal) and subsequently, cognitive interest will be negatively affected, as previously discussed
within this chapter.
Why in the world would you want a uniform look?
9
(Stewart 2001, p. 210)
4.4.5 Visual Appeal

“At the same time”, as Meyers–Levy and Malaviya (1999) point out, message placement applying “a highly
visual appeal” may in turn “facilitate [the] recipients’ processing of the target” (p. 58). Moreover, this
1
cf. Rosenboom 1997
2
Gilbert & Rogers 1999: “Participants memorize the spatial layout [...] [rather than] reading narrative texts” (p. 246)
3
Orig. German context: „So eignet sich das Gesamtbild [...] deutlich besser [...] wenn die Seiten ein abwechslungsreiches Layout und viele
Bilder enthalten, als wenn sie sich wie bei einem Wörterbuch ‚von weitem’ quasi gar nicht unterscheiden.“ (Rosenboom, 1997)
4
“These days, conference organizers say, ‘we’ll put [it] on PowerPoint for you. We want a uniform look’.” (Stewart 2001, p. 210)
5
Note: referring to presentation software as the focal, computational concept discussed within this thesis.
6
“Bullet charts are so tempting. They’re easy to whip up and they give the illusion (really a delusion) of being concise. But bullet slides are
—boring. One after another, they make one's eyes glaze over in a sea of text. They all look the same. And bullets have ‘forced equality’…”
(Wax 1995, p. 46)
7
cf. Kaminski 2002 (“PowerPoint can literally put the audience to sleep”), Brown 2001
8
“The persuasive impact of an otherwise compelling appeal could be undermined.” (Meyers–Levy and Malaviya 1999, p. 58)
9
“The price of giving a lot of speeches is having to listen to a lot of them. They’re all the same. One speaker finishes, his last slide saying
Thank You and giving his e–mail address. There is applause. The lights go up, he unplugs his laptop and leaves the podium, the emcee
introduces the next speaker. She walks up, mumbles inconsequentially while she plugs in her laptop. The lights dim and she shows her
first slide. It reads Good Morning. This starts at eight, goes to twelve, resumes at one, and ends at five. Somewhere a bird must be sing-
ing.” (Stewart 2001, p. 210)
“heightened fluidity”, as the authors go on to argue, might consequently and endurably “benefit persua-
1
sion”.
Thus, in close correlation with the rather cognitively–oriented mental imagery and picture superiority hy-
potheses discussed above, experimental evidence pointing towards an actually heightened, persuasive appeal
through visualistic approaches now gives way to an understanding of actual, “pictorial imagery” (cf. Kindler
1999) as an essential motor driving the “persuasive impact of visual […] electronic presentations” (Lind-
strom 1995).
“Pictures”, as Hill (2003) comments, do therefore not only present themselves as an apt means for cogni-
tively effective communication as previously described (Shepard et al. 1967, 1982, Paivio et al. 1968, 1973,
Childers & Houston 1984), but have equally found to possess “extraordinary persuasive power in a rhetori-
cal situation” (p. 125).
1
Meyers–Levy and Malaviya 1999, p. 58
5 Towards a Theory of Presentational Visualisation

5.1 Visualisation and Imagery-based Approaches
Clearly, the aim of visualistic studies does, in this context, not limit itself to the mere “generation of pretty
pictures” or vague creation of aesthetic representations within what Feynman referred to as a “half–assedly
1
thought–out–pictorial semi–vision thing”. Visualisation, per its very definition, essentially implies “creating
a mental picture”, and subsequently, to “recall or form mental images or pictures” of what has been in-
tended to “make perceptible to the mind or imagination” (Tegarden 1999, p. 6)
Thus, visualistic approaches have always been aimed at the understanding, memorization, and recall of
“complex concepts” (Jenkinson & Fraiman 1999). In that, visualistic theory sees itself evidently connected
rather closely to the dual coding and mental imagery theories we previously discussed throughout this
chapter.
However, even though both applications basically foot on these very premises, the realms of “scientific visu-
alisation”, “information visualisation” (Tegarden 1999, Card et al. 1999, Gershon et al. 2001), and on the
other hand “visual persuasion”, and “persuasive imagery” (Childers & Houston 1984, Miniard et al. 1991,
Scott et al. 1994, 2003, Hill 2003) have remained neatly separated until the present day:
While the “scientific” instance has certainly provided us with the more sophisticated rationale and theoretic
footing towards our original visualisation intent, very few studies even within the more recent and abstract
(thus, more relevant) field of “information visualisation” (Robertson, Card & Mackinlay 1999) have sup-
plied satisfying concepts towards an actual visualisation of truly “abstract concepts”, even though a number
of researchers (e.g. Card et al. 1999, Gershon et al. 2001) state otherwise:
Unlike scientific visualization, information visualization focuses on information that is often abstract, thus
lacking natural and obvious physical representation.
(Gershon & Page 2001, p. 33)
Clearly, unlike current, “number–crunching” visualizers, appropriate solutions that would equally be able to
aptly represent “abstract” concepts that are currently presented in merely textual form.
5.2 Insight, Not Numbers

Nonetheless, until now, every single instance or exemplary application of such “information visualisation”
approaches has always relied on rather conventional, data–driven approaches: Just like the aforementioned
2
domains of “scientific”, “business”, or literally, “data visualisation” (Foley & Ribarski 1994, Few 2004), all
3
of these implementations obligatorily require some type of “numerical input data” (Hagman 2000) in order
to be capable of automatically constructing a corresponding, visual representation.
Parallel to these, “number–crunching” implementations, even supposedly “visualistic” solutions such as Ger-
shon et al’s (2001) comic–style 2D maps, Barkowsky’s (2002) “mental visualisations”, and Good et al.’s
(2002) “zoomable interfaces” basically represent but geo–spatial implementations based on factually avail-
able, topographic data. While geographically “mapped, birds–eye” visualisations doubtlessly possess an am
1
cited in Jörgenson et al. 1995, p. 413
2
cf. McCormick et al. 1987, Owen 1999
3
Hagman et al. 2000: “Numerical input data are [mandatorily] required.” (p. 6)
ple, emotional and cognitive appeal, it appears obvious that, unfortunately, not all issues can be visualised
applying such 2D or even three–dimensional maps (Robertson et al. 1993, Wood 2003) —not leastly since
abstract notions such as “quality” might prove fairly challenging to automatically accommodate and visualise
within such a limited paradigm.
1
Thus, similar to rather specific applications such as medical visualistics, these instances essentially require
some kind of “quasi–geographical”, or, as in the case of medical visualisation, a rather specific, fully–detailed
context and therefore appear somewhat impracticable in terms of our rather “general”, concept–oriented
scenario.
5.2.1 Visualisation: High–flown promises, sobering reality

Sadly, all of the currently available, “information visualisation” implementations appear to function exclu-
sively within such predefined, visualisational contexts. In that, they are only capable of processing informa-
tion appropriately if the latter is provided in rather “computationally affine”, numerical form.
Thus, when claiming “information visualisation” to visualise and process “abstract data” (Card et al. 1999),
this “abstractness” actually, and quite ironically refers to an abundance of rather concrete, numerical figures
and input variables (Han et al. 2003, p. 106). Nonetheless, while visualisation theory repeatedly states to
foster “insight, not numbers” (McCormick 1987, Fuhrman et al. 2001), its corresponding applications have,
until the current day, failed to provide such insight that would be based on truly abstract, conceptual infor-
mation, or simply, ideas as previously supplied in textual form.
5.2.1.1 Beyond Maps and Number–Crunchers

On the other hand, more appropriate, graphically–oriented “fluency techniques” such as concept, and mind
2
mapping software (Kiely 1993), as well as Good and Bederson’s (2002) CounterPoint application seem to
be a step into the right direction, since they equally allow the processing of arbitrary, abstract contexts. Nev-
ertheless, none of the currently published approaches would also involve any sort of an actual transformation,
or conversion of the textual content itself: Sure enough, similar to the hierarchical, SVG–based “presenter”
3
described in my (2003) diploma thesis, a rather sophisticated visual context is provided through an auto-
matically rendered, graphical structure; the actual content itself, however, basically remains untouched as a
semantic instance.
Thus, while the problems of context, relationship, and structure would receive a factible solution within the
aforementioned approaches, the actual crux of the matter still sees itself somewhat un–tackled: Particularly
meaning and semantics of abstract issues are, in an assumed lack of appropriate, visual metaphors, mostly
being rendered in the shape of purely textual (albeit “beautified”), paragraphed objects.
5.3 Interactive Visualisation: The Iconic Promise

Nonetheless, while, in terms of visual “presentation programs”, the output still assumes the shape of either
“excel–esque diagrams” (Kozik et al. 2002) or characteristically “bulleted slides” as previously discussed, the
thus–eschewed issue of an actual, “metaphorical representation” of the concepts at question has, no doubt,
long been addressed in GUI engineering:
1
An example of this specific limitation is the entire publication list of the faculty of Computer Visualistics at the Univ. of Magdeburg:
http://isgwww.cs.uni–magdeburg.de/cv/pub/all_year.html#publist [accessed 26.11.04]
2
Good / Bederson 2002
3
cf. Voswinckel 2003, pp. 163ff.
5.3.1 Metaphoric representations: Pictures, Icons, and the GUI

Footing on Xerox Parc’s graphical, “direct manipulation” premises (Shneidermann 1982), particularly the
problem of human–computer interaction and its corresponding modelling in visual terms has been largely
approached within the GUI movement since the late 1970s:
With the GUI, the virtual world inside the computer is portrayed graphically on the display. This graphical
world is a metaphoric representation of artefacts in the office workplace, such as documents and folders.
Icons represent these artefacts on the display, where they can be manipulated with the mouse…
(Fishkin et al. 2000, p. 75)
Thus, particularly the icon as a pictorial representation of actual, “real–world” concepts (Beets & Kang
1992) has certainly been recognized as an appropriate replacement of previously text–centric tasks, objects,
and user commands (Nielsen 1993). Moreover, studies in visual semiotics (Saint–Martin 1990, Andersen
1990) have essentially directed both design and application of iconic and, overall, pictorial displays towards
an actually precise, understandable and identifiable representation in a “standardised” form (Gurak 2003):
Icons communicate by virtue of their inherent physical characteristics that make them look like the objects to
which they refer. Icons are intuitive, easy to learn, and often already familiar from previous experience. The
GUI’s traditional desktop icon of text document looks like a recognizable piece of office paper. A more gen-
eral example of iconic sign is a thin line of pixels on the screen intended to represent a geometric line.
(Marcus 1993, p. 105)
While Marcus (1993) points to a number of possible ambiguities and interpretative challenges apparent
with the design, application and recognition of these icons, it appears obvious that their pervasive use in cur-
1
rent–day GUIs (Gurak 2003), the web (Zalud 2000), and even structural programming environments (Beets
& Kang 1992, Gauthier 1999) would reflect something of a general acceptance and recognition of the over-
all, communicative effectiveness of such “iconic” HCI paradigms.
Thus, icons have not merely been recognized as highly effective for providing “visual clues” and delivering
information (Maciag 1994), but even gained acknowledgement towards an assumed, educational and per-
suasive effect: Based on a number of theories related to our previously discussed concepts of dual coding and
mental imagery (Paivio et al. 1986, 2001, Shephard et al. 1982), the syntactic use of icons has consequently
been posited as cognitively superior to its corresponding, textual representation:
Icon superiority over text has been well reported in research on recall and recognition…
(Niemelä & Saarinen 2002, p. 634)
5.3.2 Custom Implementations

Based on these assumptions, it appears reasonable that general concepts, algorithms, and ideas be realised
using such well–designed, iconic displays: Exemplarily, within the scope of my diploma thesis (Voswinckel
2003), I left the actual context phrase basically untouched, yet attempted to tentatively visualise, or at least
visually support the essence of a given, textual statement using fairly large–scale icon files.
During my research with the DICNE workgroup at Tec de Monterrey’s Mexico City computer science fac-
ulty, I subsequently expanded this framework to not merely accommodate the presentation of such ideas, but
furthermore have it function within an interactive, dynamic questionnaire application I worked towards
within the ITESM project.
1
“The most familiar example of icons comes from software interfaces. The Macintosh or Microsoft Windows desktop interfaces use icons
of file folders, disk drives, and trash cans to represent tasks and software functions” (Gurak 2003, p. 492)
5.3.2.1 “Iconic” application within the DICNE project

Thus, as [Fig. 5.1] shows, the “questionnaire prototype” of the XML » SVG presenter as developed for the
ITESM DICNE group project was then able to store and reproduce answers given to questions that had previ-
ously been fed into the prototype’s internal XML structure.
Beyond this extension
work actually just serving
to exhibit the power and
versatility of the XML » SVG
presenter, I then borrowed
from the aforementioned
“iconicity” paradigm in or-
der to code further, more so-
phisticated “visualisation
units” for the actual, “IEEE
1
prototype” of the DICNE
questionnaire: Not only
should the application be
able to read and process
question from a (MySQL)
database and display them
accordingly —the more
interesting goal was cer-
tainly to visualise both
Fig. 5.1: Modified XML » SVG Presenter: Accommodating data structures for the DICNE framework
process and question con-
tent in an attractive, motivating and functionally coherent manner.
The final prototype (Voswinckel 2004) thus dynamically generated the serialized question data using Tom-
cat’s well–tried Servlet engine in application of an obviously more image–based approach: As visibly apparent
from [Figs. 5.2-4], the mere, textual question data sees itself tentatively embedded into an image–based
realm in order to both make the general “setting” more memorable and, particularly, more motivating to the
user.
Figs. 5.2-5.4: Exemplary screenshots from the IEEE/DICNE Visualisation Prototype (cf. Voswinckel, 2003)
Nonetheless, the most interesting aspect in terms of “iconicity” is certainly raised by the interactive “simula-
tions” as depicted in [Figs. 5.5-6]: Albeit representing rather custom components, interactive answering,
icon–based representation, and the concept of “playfulness” (Webster & Ho, 1997) have been embedded
1
Since the entire development work was aimed at its subsequent publication with the IEEE’s 2004 e–Commerce Technology Conference
Proceedings (cf. Voswinckel 2004), the prototype was, somewhat jokingly, named appropriately.
into the implemented screens in order both achieve a more apt visualisation, as well as a significantly higher
motivation:
Figs. 5.5-6: The interactive quantitySlider component [Fig. 5.5]

and the icon-based Marketing Simulation [Fig 5.6, right]
Through the use of icons and particularly dynamically changeable, graphical representations on the screen
itself (i.e. the quantitative visualisation in Figs. 5.5, 5.6), the modules were consequently evaluated as
1
“highly motivating” and interesting to work on by the test audience, and thus found its way into the final
prototype presented at IEEE’s 2004 e–Commerce Technology Conference (Voswinckel 2004, pp. 314, 315)
For further, exemplary screenshots, please consult this document’s Appendix section (pp. 117ff.), the Insti-
2
tute’s CIANE/DICNE Website, or the corresponding IEEE Proceedings (cf. Voswinckel, 2004)
5.3.2.1.1 Discussion: Aspects of Playfulness and Iconicity

Clearly, beyond the aforementioned “ambiguity question” stirring from the predominant application of
1
icons and pictorial representations within the prototype (which, in a later review, was found “non–critical”
due to a general satisfaction with the icon–based solution), the question about an “exaggerated playfulness”
was raised in ITESM’s subsequent, colloquial discussion: Since we are generally used to text–centric com-
mands particularly in “serious” environments (cf. Norman 1993, Geisler et al. 2001) —wouldn’t “game–
3
like” interaction with the graphical GUI widgets and icons appear somewhat “over the top” (Ebeling 2004)?
However, as Webster and Ho (1997) argue, these concerns are clearly compensated particularly through
“audience–engaging”, presentational appeals that such “playful” approaches involve:
Engagement […] is conceptually similar to the state of playfulness, a construct increasingly applied to studies
of human–computer interactions. Results from pilot and main studies suggest that engagement in mul-
timedia presentations can be increased by developing presentations that provide more challenge, feedback,
presenter control, and variety.
(Webster & Ho 1997, p. 63)
While all of the aspects named by Webster and Ho appear surprisingly applicable to our DICNE prototype as
well, the assumed “playfulness” underlying such an interactive, icon–based visualisation can thus appropri-
ately be considered to also improve its overall, “felt” experience, not leastly since “designing presentations to
1
Held 29.7.2004 at Tec de Monterrey’s Mexico City campus
2
URL: http://mordor.ccm.itesm.mx/~01107690/dicne/quest or http://dia.ccm.itesm.mx/computacion/eespinosa [both accessed 29.11.04]
Note: For the database-driven Servlet version, please contact the author, since currently offline (Tomcat reinstall)
3
“Touches of […] over–the–top […] iconography and interactivity […] where crisp plain text will serve the same purpose…” (Ebeling
2004, p. 38)
1
be engaging”, as education researchers have argued, reportedly “facilitates learning” (e.g. Adelson 1992, Hsi
& Agogino 1993).
As the aforementioned “learning” effects within “multimedia presentations” that Webster and Ho (1997)
describe essentially lead us back to our initially targeted question on how arbitrary “presentation”, or
“speech” content can thus be appropriately visualised within an accompanying, computational context, the
question that appears interesting at this point is certainly how these experiences and concepts involved
2
throughout the DICNE prototype implementation can, then, be applied to such “computerized slide shows”
as well:
Clearly, the use of icons has not merely proven effective in standard application GUIs (Fishkin et al. 2000) —
moreover, work on the DICNE visualisation modules (Voswinckel 2004) has shown that icon–based interac-
tion and display can equally improve the understanding of concepts, user motivation and, as a consequence,
the overall UI and visualisation experience.
Consequently, so–called “iconic visualisation” techniques (cf. Gray et al. 1990, Post et al. 1995, Chau &
Bell 1996, Jung & Michaelson 2000) might be viewed as an appropriate means to equally implement more
general, “presentation–purpose” concepts as exemplified in (Voswinckel 2003), where an iconic display is
used to highlight, structure, and contextualise its adjacent, textual counterpart [Fig. 5.1].
5.3.3 Conceptual Icon–Mapping

Conceptually combining both the aforementioned, hierarchical XML » SVG presenter with already well–es-
tablished mind– and concept mapping implementations (Reese 1997, McAleese 1999) into an aesthetically
3
“iconized” schematic display could represent an interesting, logical consequence from these considerations:
Unlike current, rather “ad hoc” schema graphics actualised in PowerPoint, such an implementation might
combine an improved, more “professional” and appealing visualisation via appropriate, labelled icons with
an actually logical representation of the relationships between the involved objects as well: An “arrow” might
therefore not merely represent the skewish, non–semantic lines that are currently used, but rather signify i.e.
a hierarchical or mutual relationship.
Moreover, the already well–tried graphics engine as built into the XML » SVG presenter could be re–applied
4
in order to thus achieve a professionally–looking, truly “visualisational”, and logical representation of such a
connected schema diagram. An actually working prototype, however, might not be finalised until summer
2005.
5.3.3.1 Icon Critique

Nonetheless, in terms of an optimally persuasive, conceptual presentation, the “interconnected icon ap-
proach”, as termed by Shepstone (2003), carries somewhat less rhetorical leverage: Not leastly due to its ini-
tially defined purpose —the simplistic and immediately recognizable representation of singular, simplistic
tasks— the challenging representation of more complex, abstract concepts (such as “quality”) has indeed
been approached (i.e. Post et al. 1995), but, unfortunately, not satisfyingly solved until the current day:
Thus, although professional, high–resolution image providers such as XIcons and IconFactory (Kern 1997,
Griffiths 2004) now hold well–indexed icon archives with metaphorically quite powerful material available,
1
Webster / Ho 1997, p. 63
2
Martin 1996, p. 13
3
Braunschweig et al. 2000, p. 73, Molinaro 2002, p. 57
4
cf. Kamei, 1993
the “interpretation ambiguity” of the icons themselves appears to increase proportionally to the complexity
(or “abstractness”) of the concept to be visualised.
Due to its abundance of abstract, contextual content, however, rather “dry” concepts such as those that we
equally seek to visualise within our initially defined, arbitrary, “oral” presentation scenario would therefore
prove fairly hard to visualise within such a (spatially) narrowed, iconic framework.
Moreover, even though colour resolution, transparency features and particularly spatial extension of stan-
x 1
dard Windows and Macintosh platform icons have greatly increased i.e. up to 128 128 pixels, icons, by
their very nature, are still essentially too small and schematic to be considered “immersive”, “impressing”, or
2
even “emotionally arousing” on our required, “visceral level” (Nussbaum 1995, Thiel 2001), which is what
we found as vital pre–conditions to cognitive and persuasive effectiveness throughout this chapter.
3
Thus, not leastly since we targeted persuasion and comprehension on an “educationally effective”, imagery
basis, it appears reasonable to re–define “pictorial” visualisation in terms of finding appropriate, visual
metaphors from a schematic, strictly–put dimension as offered by the “icon approach” (Shepstone 2003)
outlined above, towards a more “vivid”, pictorial understanding of presence as described in Perelman et al.
4
(1992) and Hill (2003).
5.3.4 Presence, Realism, and Stock Photography

Similarly, Goodman (1976) has argued that the perception of a picture as “realistic” is motivated “not by
the quantity of information provided but by how easily it is read”. According to this interpretation, the
more stereotypical and familiar the conceptual classifications and modes of representation that generate an
5
image, the more natural and true it will seem.
In other words, we should understand the phenomenon of realism as a matter of matching learned codes so
closely that pure transparency of communication is achieved. This may be a good description of the kind of
realism operating in stock photography.
(Leja 2001, p. 491)
Interestingly, both Leja (2001) and Hill (2003) thus point to the use of photography, and more specifically
“stock photography” as appropriate carriers of such “vivid information”, not leastly since photo–realistic im-
agery is generally viewed as “much more likely to prompt a visceral, emotional response” (p. 125).
6
Besides an intrinsic, “epistemic force”, the most striking dimension innate to database and stock photogra-
phy is certainly its ample, metaphorical precision offered particularly through professional image providers:
7
Not merely can the offered material be evaluated as highly professional, “emotionally arousing” and thus
more “appealing” to the audience (Hill 2003) —moreover, a variety of associated, metaphorical expressions
1
cf. GUI Program News, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1.3.2002
2
Immersion, here, as understood “in the visceral way in which [the icon would] leave its impress, forming patterns of arousal and re-
sponse” (Nussbaum 1995, p. 281)
3
cf. Webster / Ho 1997, Hynd 2001, Mayer 2001, Naharro–Berrocal et al. 2002, Alexander 2002, Murphy et al. 2001, 2004
4
“The one child depicted in a photograph becomes undeniably more "present" to us, while the million individual children whose tragedy
and suffering are summed up in a statistic are not… Why?
The photograph carries more epistemic force than a verbal description because the existence of the photograph proves the existence of its
subject… The child in the photograph thus seems more ‘real’ to us, and the photograph is much more likely to prompt a visceral, emo-
tional response.” (Hill 2003, p. 125)
5
Leja 2001, p. 490
6
cf. Hill 2003
7
Rosenzweig 2001, p. 565
1
and key words as maintained by the image suppliers consequently allow for an impressively precise match
between visual and intended meaning.
In acknowledgement of the ample, cognitive and emotional stimulus provided by such “enactive imagery” as
2
posited by Goossens (2003), an imagery–based visualisation approach leveraging the whole, rhetorical and
3 4
particularly “pathetic potential” underlying specifically full–screened, high–resolution photography (Godin
5
2001: “playing a full deck”) clearly suggests itself at this point:
5.3.4.1 Full Framed, Image–Based Visualisation

By reversing the image–text relationship from our aforementioned, icon–based implementations (which
possessed an obvious focus and dependence on its adjacent text label) these “full–frame”, photographic dis-
6
play modes, as Terberg (2004) notes, have actually proved an appropriate measure to “some of the most
6
visually effective presentations”:
When slides [are] designed view to primarily represent a single image with minimal descriptive text, audi-
ences [usually] quite enjoy viewing [these] compelling images and illustrations instead of a word–for–word
backdrop to what the presenter is saying.
(Gould 2003)
Nonetheless, before I might go on to further examine possible, technical details of such an alternative, “visu-
ally interesting” (Gould 2003) presentation schema with its obvious emphasis on the imagery itself, it ap-
pears reasonable at this point to first approach the “narrative dimension” of our anticipated, “visualistic ap-
proach” to computer–assisted presentation.
5.3.4.2 Presentations’ Narrative Dimension: Visual Persuasion, and Visual Rhetoric

Clearly, an abundance of cognitive and psychological research as discussed throughout this chapter strongly
suggests an application of strictly pictorial information as a presentation’s visually delivered component,
paying reference to the aforementioned, mental/visual imagery, picture superiority, cognitive load (“channel
interference”), and dual coding theories.
Nonetheless, while visualisation–oriented, “cognitive” research has mainly focused on an exclusively logical
7
distinction between visual–semantic and verbal–lexical content e.g. in terms of picture superiority, the issue
how exactly such imagery can effectively work as a persuasive means has, in turn, mostly been left to philo-
sophical, media–aesthetic, and rhetoric debate within advertising research (Miniard et al. 1991, Benoit et al.
1991, 2003, McQuarrie & Mick 1992, 1999, Messaris 1992, 1994, 1997, Scott et al. 1994, 2003, Hill et al.
2002, 2003, Cyphert 2004).
However, as Hill (2003) points out, as clearly as the aforementioned, visualisation–centric experiments have
substantiated theories of mental imagery and picture superiority, so do the latter, communication–oriented
studies emphasise the importance and persuasive effectiveness of “narrative”, dramaturgical quality in terms
of the classic rhetorics theory we already discussed earlier within this chapter:
1
“One single source for an array of diverse images” (ibid)
2
“Enactive imagery has a stronger potency to elicit appraisal and emotional experience than nonenactive imagery” (Goossens 2003, p. 11)
3
“Pathetic”, in this context obviously referring to the appeal of pathos as previously discussed, not in terms of sad, depressing or pitiable.
4
“Features which serve to exploit the pathetic potential of the […] relationship argued for above” (Emlyn–Jones 1996, p. 36)
5
“Logic is essential, but without emotion, you're not playing with a full deck. PowerPoint presents an amazing opportunity…” (Godin
2001, p. 6)
6
“Some of the most visually effective presentations I've seen have included full–frame photographs and very little embellishment or
graphic accents. This type of uncluttered presentation often features images that change throughout the talk and contain no text at all or,
at most, a few key words superimposed over the photos.” (Terberg 2004, p. 18)
7
“Pictures transmit primarily semantic information whereas words are processed primarily at a lexical level” (Wippich et al. 1998, p. 33)
In experiments, pictures have been demonstrated to be more persuasive than text and personal case stories
built on personal narrative to be more persuasive than abstract impersonal information.
1
(Block & Keller, 1997)
5.3.4.3 Corporate Storytelling

This sublime hint towards “personal narrative” interestingly reflects the rise of “visual rhetorics”, equally re-
ferred to as “corporate storytelling” throughout recent years: Particularly as a counter–concept to the use of
2
“taxonomically outlined”, bulleted PowerPoint structures (Atkinson 2005), the storytelling approach recog-
nises the dramaturgical element within every presentation and has, indeed, found increasing application in
industrial environments (Smart 1999, Ready 2002, Powers 2004).
As the initial defenders of “strategic storytelling”, Shaw et al. (1998) argued, sequential “lists, outlines, and
bullets” as currently utilised by “virtually all businesspeople” appeared somewhat “faulty” in terms of strate-
gic business planning —not leastly since, according to the authors, the aforementioned “bullet lists encour-
3
age us to be intellectually lazy in three specific, and related, ways” (p. 41).
Conversely, stories, understood “essential to human intelligence and memory”, are presented as “a more co-
4
herent, compelling way to present strategic plan formats”, in that the entire presentation content is actually
treated as a narrative element that, similar to Athenian legal arguments (Gagarin 2003), essentially necessi-
tates an amply dramaturgic, and as such, dramatic structuring.
Thus, all “presentational substance”, be it the annual sales report, physics lecture or strategic planning, sees
itself rhetorically re–structured towards matching the classic, 3–act paradigm: “Setting the Stage”, “Dra-
matic Conflict”, and “Resolution” (cf. Shaw et al. 1998).
Obviously, both advertising and film theory have long understood not merely Aristotle’s tripodal, rhetorical
concept, but equally the important role of dramaturgy as an essential part of any, rhetorically composed ar-
5
gument.
Consequently, particularly visual advertisement material has consequently followed the original, rhetorically
and dramaturgically oriented, structural framework as initially provided by the Greeks (Gagarin 2003). The
inestimable, persuasive power underlying this rhetorical framework can still undoubtedly see itself exempli-
fied in Riefenstahl’s mis–en–scène of the 1936 Olympic Games, as even recent analysis (Mackenzie, 2003)
vividly illustrates.
5.3.4.4 The Shift Towards “Visual Rhetorics”

Since rhetorics have equally received recognition as an appropriate means to equally structure purely visual
elements particularly due to Foss’ (1982, 1994) applicative work to visual imagery (cf. Peterson 2001), the
visual–rhetoric potential innate to exclusively pictorial representations e.g. within the context of print adver-
tisements has not merely been analysed and acknowledged (Scott 1994, 2003, McQuarrie and Mick 1992,
1999), but steadily put into practice during the last number of years:
1
cited in: Hill, 2003
2
ref. Chapt. 1. Note: Atkinson manuscript still in press, actual quote content and page references subject to change.
3
“Bullet lists are typically too generic; that is, they offer a series of things to do that could apply to any business. They fail to focus an or-
ganization on the specifics of how it will win in its particular market…
Bullets leave critical relationships unspecified. Lists can communicate only three logical relationships: sequence (first to last in time; prior-
ity (least to most important or vice versal, or simple membership in a set (these items relate to one another in some way, but the nature of
that relationship remains unstated).” (Shaw et al. 1998)
4
cf. Shaw / Brown / Bromiley, 1998
5
[Presentation] “depends in a fundamental way on subjective rhetorical elements, including storytelling”… (Gagarin 2003, p. 206)
As a more vivid example, I recall reading advertisement “guru” D. Ogilvy’s (1995) retrospective on adver-
tisement design: throughout the immediate post–war phase, as emerges from an image–based review of cor-
responding print ads, the clear focus had evidently lain, and, as Ogilvy commented, “has to be”, on the copy
(pp. 3, 17), i.e. the textual component of an advertisement.
Nonetheless, a “visual” cross–section of
current print advertising material yields
the somewhat obvious insight that the
very textual component Ogilvy so reso-
lutely defended has experienced a steady
decline: from previously occupying over
two thirds of the spatial ad area, textual
elements see themselves marginalized to a
sheer couple of words in current–day
print advertisements [Figs. 5.13–16].
The evident insight stemming from ad-
vertisement researchers’ (Miniard et al.
1991, Foss 1994, Scott 1994, McQuar- Figs. 5.7-8: Changing Advertisement strategies: From previously text- and copy-
focused (left: from Ogilvy 1995, p. 5) to image-centric approaches (BKK, Nov. 04)
rie & Mick 1992) experimental work
during the late 1980s and 90s has consequently found its applicative, industrial response in a dramatic re-
placement of previously textual material through its evidently more “vivid”, and thus, more persuasive
counterpart (cf. Hill
2003), now consequently
assuming the shape of ap-
propriate, visual meta-
phors.
However, while this devel-
opment has equally seen
reflection and application
within the computational,
and “digital writing” realm
(Barton et al. 1985, 1993,
Figs. 5.9-10: Now and then: Mercedes advertisements, left: from Ogilvy (1995), right: Nov. 04.
Hocks 2003), Cyphert
(2004) argues that these “les-
sons in visual rhetoric” evidently have remained “left to be learnt” in terms of computer–aided, visual pres-
entation support:
It seems obvious that PowerPoint is not a particularly good tool for creating visual aids to classical forms of
verbal communication, but that does not address the ways in which presentation norms themselves have
changed in the past century, moving from an age of verbal oratory to a visual era…
(Cyphert 2004, p. 81)
5.3.4.5 Visual Rhetoric and Presentation

Evidently, the steady development towards an increasingly visually–oriented paradigm within the realm of
professional design, print and new media advertising has obviously not been mirrored by software–generated
visuals, where the emphasis still visibly lies on the display of characteristically bulleted text.
The two, basic rationales are obviously that of deficient professionalism and, in something of a consequence,
the software–guidance hypothesis. Clearly, the obvious shift in advertising from text– towards image–based
persuasion not merely relies on superficial, or short lived “trends”, but sees itself rather firmly footed on the
aforementioned, advertising and market research and target–group studies. Such professional insight has, al-
beit bemoaned by a number of advertisers, consequently led to imagery as the central elements even in print
advertisements.
However, while presentation design per se, and increasingly so since the “elimination” of professionally
trained design bureaus with the introduction of end–customer–oriented presentation software (Parker
1
2001), has been characterised as broadly non–professional, even “amateurish” on the slide–producing side
2
(Maney 1999, Pirner 2001, Kaminski 2002), the graphically and “communicatively inexperienced” clien-
tele evidently lacks the appropriate, professional insight to equally pursue such an expert development:
Thus, rather than aiming at solutions that might be characterized effective from a communicative (i.e. per-
suasive and cognitive) perspective, non–professional, consumer (or corporate) users of presentation software
3
have instead relied on what appeared “easy”, time–saving (Möller 2002), and convenient from a presenter’s
point of view.
5.3.4.6 Beyond Presenter’s Convenience: The Audience Challenge

Besides this already discussed convenience aspect, particularly text–focused approaches obviously represent an
alleviative solution for inexperienced, or rhetorically challenged speakers: “Turning the back on the audi-
ence”, and simply “reading the handouts, which are projected at full size and in full colour but are nothing
more than an outline of the speech”, as Cyphert (2004) notes, clearly offers an appearingly “secure” and less
challenging framework to many an inexperienced speaker, than the considerably more daring approach of
4
rhetorically shaped, free speech.
The problem with this approach is that the entertainment value of PowerPoint leaves a lot to be desired. It
suits many insecure presenters just fine to hide behind a barrage of screen activity, but it rarely serves the
overall presentation – or the audience – very well.
(Endicott 2002, p. 20)
5.3.4.6.1 Bullet-Point Rationales in Critical Review

The “software” rationale, on the other hand, equally attempts to explanate the astounding disparity between
currently image–focused, professional approaches particularly in advertisement design, and the more text–
centric “PowerPoint approach” based on the very “bullet–point” paradigm we discussed in Chapters II and
III. 5
Although, obviously, the bullet point has not been “invented” by PowerPoint, our GUI analysis outlined in
chapter III did in fact identify a number of “guiding” characteristics as observable with the software, or
rather, the application’s GUI itself, that evidently suggest and guide towards the application of characteristi-
6
cally “bulleted” outline slides (Parker 2001, Atkinson 2005).
1
PowerPoint signified “to get rid of the intermediaries – graphic designers – and never mind the consequences” (Parker, 2001)
2
Cooper & Feldman 1980 p. 212
3
“Let's face it, not every presentation is worth putting hours of effort into it, and even if it is, often we’re not quite motivated enough to
do that. Someone like Edward Tufte cannot afford to give a not–quite–perfect presentation because of his reputation – but we can. And
we do, all the time. When we do, bullet points are a completely acceptable way of bringing our thoughts into a coherent structure.” (Möl-
ler, 2002)
4
cf. Cook 2003: “Very few of us are good at speaking off–the–cuff, even with our notes on a big screen and, even if we could, the distrac-
tion of the slides is going to nobble our efforts to engage the audience.” (p. 25)
5
“Nothing new: Years before today’s slideware, presentations at companies such as IBM and in the military used bullet lists shown by
overhead projectors” (Tufte 2003b, p. 118)
6
“It’s easy to avoid the extreme templates – many people do – as well as embellishments like clip art, animations, and sound effects. But
it’s hard to shake off AutoContent's spirit: even the most easygoing PowerPoint template insists on a heading followed by bullet points, so
that the user is shepherded toward a staccato, summarizing frame of mind.” (Parker 2001, p. 78)
Consequently, the software–motivated hypothesis essentially concludes that, unlike with professional
graphics applications as used by specialised DTP experts, PowerPoint’s pre–defined, bulleted templates, as
well as the even more “intrusive”, bullet–promotional features such as the application’s AutoContent wizard
have literally “shepherded” (Parker 2001) the unassuming presentation software clientele towards appropri-
ate bullet–point application.
Nonetheless, our discussion on corresponding adoption behaviour, the “prudent lemming principle” (Hen-
derson 2000) and business rationale towards the end of chapter II, as well as the insight that, in fact, all cur-
rently available, competitor slideware equally relies on the very same, text–centric schema, do point to the
conclusion that the astounding lack of appropriate visualisation strategies in computer–assisted slide produc-
tion might actually be motivated through a combination of the two rationales discussed above.
Even though, therefore, the software itself might not be the originator, or even the “main source” of today’s
bullet–point pervasiveness, computational strategies might still show a possible way out: Thus, while Cliff
Atkinson, who supported me greatly during the elaboration of this thesis, preferably focuses on rather edu-
cational, “consulting–based” approaches by publishing appropriate training material, articles and a Micro-
soft–Press–published book (Atkinson 2005) to promote the necessary transition “beyond bullet points”, I
would nevertheless like to propose a more software–driven approach to this task:
5.3.5 Software Approaches: Probable Cause, Possible Solution

Obviously, since this work essentially represents a thesis towards the obtainment of a “computer science”
degree, the underlying idea sees itself fundamentally motivated by the understanding that software, as ar-
gued throughout chapter II, does indeed possess an influential dimension, in that it is capable to suggest, in-
fluence and guide user behaviour and, as such, the resulting output of the application as well.
Thus, as opposed to arguably bullet–point–endorsing features discussed throughout this thesis, I suggest an
alternative, software–based approach to leverage the full, rhetoric, persuasive, and cognitive potential un-
derlying actually imagery visualisation strategies: As a consequence from the rather theoretically motivated
discussion of mental imagery and dual coding assumptions, I believe a interactively “restrictive” solution
1
(similar to some of the concepts raised in Winer 1988) “enforcing” such image–based approaches is possible
and reasonable:
I do feel that there is a great need out there for a leaner, cleaner version of PowerPoint – a “simplified”
PowerPoint that makes it easier to communicate well, and difficult or impossible to communicate poorly.
(Atkinson / Gray, 2004)
Such an essentially “restrictive”, or “guided” approach could, then, not merely implement the aforemen-
tioned, theoretical models of “vividness” (Hill 2003) and “visual imagery” towards “picture–based persua-
sion strategies” as initially posited by Miniard et al. (1991), but moreover provide both professionalism to
the actual outcome, as well as user convenience via automated “visualisation” processes:
1
“I’ve always felt that graphics products like page layout programs, draw programs, paint programs, were too low–level to be useful to
word and concept people” (Winer 1988)
5.4 Conceptual Outline
5.4.1 An Automated Approach

Obviously, the user effort to achieve such “presentationally effective” visualisations should be kept to a
minimum. Consequently, the restrictive outline framework I already proposed within my XML » SVG pre-
senter prototype (Voswinckel, 2003) appears equally well–suited to define a rather strict, hierarchical con-
cept outline —with both “educational”, as well as “visualisation” enhancements: Even though, clearly, a
software can hardly identify complex, semantic or even dramaturgical weaknesses and inconsistencies within
1
such a textual structure, a more subtly–working “agent” (or simply, a dramaturgical framework as proposed
in Atkinson 2005) might nonetheless be suited to enforce e.g. the classical, 3–act structure towards a more
effective, “compelling arrangement” in terms of visual storytelling (cf. Walters et al. 1999, Turnley et al.
2002, Gershon & Page 2001)
More importantly however in terms of our aforementioned visualisation intent, the “iconic” approach fol-
lowed with the XML » SVG presenter is to be conceptually reversed towards an increasedly image–based, visu-
alisational paradigm: Where the presenter merely featured large–scale icons as a vivid, accompanying “em-
bellishment”, more search intelligence, and particularly, more appropriately metaphorical imagery should be
applied to aptly visualise and explain the previously–structured content:
Thus, rather than manually selecting and presenting compact–size icons with an emphasis on its adjacent
2
text label, an alternative approach would instead employ the textual outline as a mere, contextual pointer
3
towards its central, “visualisational” process: While the aforementioned, hierarchical modelling technique
4
merely serves to coherently structure an “internal”, contextual framework, the final, presentational display is
exactly not “merely that very outline, projected at full size” (Cyphert 2004).
5.4.2 Seamless Imagery Retrieval via Stock Photography DBs

Instead, select keywords as provided via the text outline concurrently act as pointers towards an appropriate
imagery retrieval: Thus, while the textual
outline tree is being created, its con-
tained key elements can simultaneously
serve concurrent image and stock pho-
tography database queries. Similar to an
already implemented interface as pro-
vided by Corbis’ “BizPresenter” plug–in
5
(Merrit et al. 2000, 2001), analogous re-
trieval of relevant image material could
thus occur in the form of an unimposing
background process [Fig. 5.7].
Fig. 5.11: Corbis’ BizPresenter PPT PlugIn: Similar Imagery Retrieval Concept
Since current stock and image data-
bases, as previously discussed, typically provide a highly–indexed and well–maintained “metaphor cata
1
Note: While, at a lexical level, spell–checking, grammar and thesaurus functions see themselves well–implemented, semantics, meaning,
and dramaturgical structure still pose something of a “modelling challenge” to software and AI engineering
2
“Outlines and bullets are aids to the speaker, but the speaker should use them as cues to talk – not read, not lecture – talk – with the
audience” (Atkinson / Norman 2004)
3
Note: to be extended into an editing–oriented environment as discussed in (Voswinckel 2003)
4
Note: Referring to a semantically correct, valid argument exhibiting a dramaturgic structure.
5
http://bizpresenter.corbis.com/addin [accessed 29.11.04]
logue” (Wake 2001:10), the actual “search intelligence” itself (Studt 1996), i.e. the “work” of transforming
abstract concepts, ideas and rather “unimaginative”, verbal content into corresponding, vivid and relevant
imagery is thus fitly assigned, or rather, left to the “metaphorical” search engines and index catalogues un-
derlying the online image providers themselves.
5.4.2.1 The First Image Draught: Suprisingly Appropriate Material

Nonetheless, a first, “raw” implementation using multiply threaded, SGMLReader–filtered HTTPWebRe-
quests in .NET (Wahlin 2003) showed that, even for rather abstract concepts, the returned imagery appeared
surprisingly relevant and appealing. In order to both improve results and reduce costs further, an inclusion
1 2
of several utility stock DBs such as iStockphoto (cf. Clinton 2004), PixServer, and stock.xchng could thus
yield even more accurate and accessible results.
Hence, the resulting, “metaphorical relevance” (i.e. an actual “match” between originally intended meaning
of the abstract phrase itself and its corresponding, returned imagery) can therefore be considered fairly rea-
sonable within this context, thus further augmenting cognitive affinity and response.
Moreover, since the retrieved, photographic images principally represent professional, “realistic” and thus
3
highly vivid imagery (Goodman 1976, Leja 2001), they intrinsically convey an apt, “emotionally relevant”,
and thus, according to Hill (2003), essentially persuasive appeal: Unlike with currently applied, little profes-
4
sional and unduly generic “clip–art” embellishments (Parker 2001), the vividness and “realism” underlying
such professional, database–driven photography may therefore be considered a substantial contributor to
5 6
emotional and cognitive “presence”, transparency, and persuasiveness of its implied messages.
5.4.3 “Playing a Full Deck”: Screen–Filling, immersive Visualisation

Footing on the picture superiority and dual–channel assumptions as previously discussed, an intended, full–
screen display of the finally selected image most appropriately reflecting the original, syntactical connotation
of the associated outline item is subsequently to further contribute to the persuasive and cognitive effective-
ness of this “visualisational” approach to presentation slides:
In extending the previously “iconized” visualisation towards a more “immersive”, full–screen experience, the
emphasis might thus visibly shift from the aforementioned, rather text–oriented outline or bullet–point ap-
proaches to an actual, image–based visualisation. Particularly thanks to the aesthetically pleasing, high–
resolution photography as provided by the smoothly “parseable”, online image databases outlined above, the
entire, spatial extension of the display area can now be employed for an actually full–scale, visually appearing
presentation.
Furthermore, the reallocation of previously textual, abstract content from the “visual” slide display area into
the actual narration (and, optionally, a more prose–oriented handout) as previously stipulated by various
authors (Parker 2001, Mitchell 2003, Cook 2003, Gould 2003, Carter and Lorsch 2003, Atkinson 2005)
equally approaches “channel interference”, or “cognitive overload” phenomena that had previously been
connected to the “cognitive challenge” posed by text– and bullet point–laden PowerPoint slides. Now, more
aptly corresponding to the dual coding theory discussed throughout this work, the image–based, “presenta-
tional visualisation” approach might thus appear better suited to communicate “effectively”, and appropriate
1
http://www.pixerver.com [last accessed 29.11.2004]
2
http://www.sxc.hu [last accessed 29.11.2004]
3
“This may be a good description of the kind of realism operating in stock photography” (Goodman 1976)
4
ibid.
5
cf. Hill 2003
6
cf. Goodman 1976
to the cognitive processing system by separately —and simultaneously— applying both visual media, and
the auditory–verbal channels (cf. Godin 2001, p. 6).
By linking the hierarchical, outline editing mode (applying a modified version of the current, XML » SVG pre-
senter UI) to the final, “full–screen” presentation display via an iconized “thumbnail” of the selected picture,
further context is provided both while editing, as well as during the actual presentation, where the finalised
outline (albeit not shown on screen) might serve as an index–carded, “tangible” presentation aid to the
speaker himself (cf. Patten & Ishii 2000, Churchill 2002).
Even though the “rhetorical load” (Godfrey–Smith 2003) is certainly higher during such an imagery–based,
“visualisational” presentation than if the semantic content were still displayed on–screen in textual form,
such additional index cards might consequently provide a tactile, “last anchor” to the presenter, as well as
provide the appropriate, visual context without obligating the speaker to turn his back on the audience:
Since the imagery’s iconic representation is still present on the print–out cards assuming the shape of an ap-
propriate thumbnail, the link between narrated content and the paralelly displayed, metaphorical photogra-
phy remains established.
5.4.4 Captions as Specific Context Providers

Moreover, even with the visualisational context obviously on the screen–filling, photographic imagery, ad-
ditional context can be provided to the audience by displaying the original line item (in the editing outline)
as a temporally rendered image caption. Although, due to the little amount of text and, optionally, limited
display time of the underline, the audience doesn’t spend the entire time reading and would thus be able to
refocus attention towards the speaker, the appropriate, semantic context is re–established –even in case of an
assumedly ambiguous, visual metaphor.
Simultaneously, memorisation and persuasion effects have received experimental evidence to considerably
augment using such moderate captioning techniques: Similar to the well–known “newspaper” effect, ac-
cording to which readers merely memorize large imagery and its corresponding subtitles, cognitive research-
ers Bahrick and Gharrity (1976) have observed noticeably improved recall when using directly related cap-
tions.
5.4.5 Visual Key Mnemonics

Equally, the appealing, visual metaphors used to accompany an orally narrated, “live” presentation as out-
lined within this scenario, could even represent a keyword–related, mnemonic technique: Similar to the
1
imaginary mnemonics applied in Greek, rhetorical discourse, such image–based presentation could not
merely improve the visual, emotional and thus persuasive appeal —moreover, pictorial keyword mnemonics
have been experimentally proven to improve overall memorization of the displayed content (Levin et al.
1983, 1992, Peters and Levin 1986, Wood et al. 1987)
Furthermore, the appropriate allegory from Mayer et al.’s (1991, 1999, 2001), experimental evidence leads
to the conclusion that, particularly in combination with the accompanying narrative, purely visualistic pres-
entation techniques such as the ones outlined within this chapter, as well as the “tangible aid”–supported,
dialog–based delivery allowing the speaker to actually face the audience may not only prove more enter-
taining and visibly appealing, but indeed possess a considerably augmented persuasive impact as well.
1
cf. Yates 1966, Wittrock 1988, Johnson 1997, Thomas 2002, Douville et al. 2002
5.5 Discussion
Clearly, the “visualistic presentation” scenario depicted within this chapter cannot “solve all problems” of
current presentation design, not leastly since it merely applies to a number of select scenarios: In order to
equally reflect i.e. educational requirements or simply rather custom and specific visualisations would obvi-
ously necessitate a different approach particularly in terms of image retrieval. Nonetheless, e.g. allowing for
supplemental file imports to accommodate “custom” imagery or an alternative implementation e.g. in the
shape of a PowerPoint plug–in similar to Corbis’ BizPresenter Module [Fig. 5.11] would certainly miss the
1
restrictive, “educational dimension” (cf. Winer 1988, Atkinson & Gray 2004) of this idea:
Evidently, the final aim within this work is to create and present aesthetically pleasing, metaphorically well–
maintained (thus: precise), and particularly “appealing” image material, both in terms of cognitive as well as
persuasive effectiveness. Hence, if users revert to using their own, “cute” clip–art, custom, low–resolution
imagery or simply revisit the more enjoyable, “playful” nature of tweaking stylistic features and inserting
supplementary text elements, the principle of an automatically (software)–driven, strictly visualistic ap-
proach would see itself somewhat harmed.
Therefore, the herein outlined working prototype shall represent but an exemplary idea to approach the es-
sentially critical condition discussed within this thesis: The both cognitively as well as rhetorically dissatis-
factory paradigm underlying current, computer–generated presentation visuals.
5.5.1 Review
Research discussed throughout this work has evidently proven characteristically text– and bullet–point–
centric “visualisation” approaches to actually represent more of a “processing challenge” (Mayer 2001) to the
human, cognitive system by overloading auditory–verbal channels with densely–bulleted text slides and si-
multaneous narration, or, conversely, to simply yield “boredom, frustration and disengagement” (Ward
2
2003, Norvig 2003, Tufte 2003a,b, Masie 2003, Bly 2003, Simons 2004b) through the deprivation of any
“added value” offered by the accompanying visuals on display:
3
In recrementitious application of what Parker (2001) termed the “original sin of triple delivery”, where
“precisely the same text is seen on the screen, spoken aloud, and printed on the handout”, an obvious lack of
persuasive, or even “educational” appeal as attributable to the textually summarized fragment of the already
heard narration that typically make up such “bulleted” presentation slides is apparent:
More to the point, the research shows that visual learners do not learn from words; they learn from pictures.
By contrast, the vast majority [of PowerPoint slides] are words, maybe with some lousy clip art. What’s the
visual element there — the typeface? Are people supposed to admire the Arial Bold?
4
(Ganzel 2000, p. 56)
5
Obviously, as discussion throughout chapters II and III has shown, the “bulleted mindset” (Atkinson) exer-
cised within suchlike “visualization” schemata has certainly proven easy, fast and convenient for the editor
6
(or presenter) of the slide material himself: Barely reflecting an outline of the actual talk, bullet–centric
presentation slides do evidently not require the presenter to provide an elaborate visualisational, dramatur
1
“I do feel that there is a great need out there for a leaner, cleaner version of PowerPoint – a ‘simplified’ PowerPoint that makes it easier to
communicate well, and difficult or impossible to communicate poorly” (Atkinson / Gray 2004)
2
“Boredom is the word most often associated with Microsoft PowerPoint” (Simons 2004b, p. 24)
3
cf. Parker 2001
4
In fact, the quotation reflects commentary by Morgan, N. (2003) embedded into the article.
5
as cited in Simons 2004b, p. 30
6
cf. Morgan 2003, p. 39, Cook 2003, p. 25
gic, or even rhetorical concept (left alone creative effort) not lastly since, taxonomy–wise, “all points appear
readily covered” (Atkinson 2005) already on the slides themselves.
5.5.2 Audience-centered, Research-based Approaches

Nonetheless, since our specific interest has evidently lain in the question how persuasive or generally “com-
municatively effective” any such “presentation slide” approach would appear in respect to the audience, the
1
discussion throughout particularly this last chapter has visibly followed an “audience–centered”, “research–
2
based” approach: Thus, research on what the actual viewers perceived as persuasive, entertaining, and inter-
esting, as well as studies about what kind of multimedia “learners learn best from” (Mayer 2001) proved
most interesting within this context.
While purportedly “relevant” investigations directly focusing on “the persuasive impact of PowerPoint”
(Simons et al. 2000, Guadagno et al. 2003) had yielded rather little insight in terms of our aforementioned
“bullet format” question, an abundance of experimental studies particularly from the field of cognitive psy-
chology proved surprisingly relevant even to our specific environment: Both articles within “visualistic”,
mental imaging theory (Rollins 1992, Crapo et al. 2000, Douville et al. 2002, Barkowsky 2002, 2003), as
well as advertisement research (McQuarrie & Mick 1999, Scott et al. 1994, 2003) have largely concluded
“pure images” to play an important role in learning and persuasion.
Let visuals be visuals. The visual should enhance and amplify the message, not act as a script for the pre-
senter.
(Pearson 1994, p. 37)
5.5.3 Towards Persuasive, Pictorial Visualisations

Research discussed within this work has therefore evidently substantiated our hypothesis that unlike with
current, text–centric slide paradigms, people actually reason, understand, and even learn significantly better
from purely visual material. Moreover, particularly persuasion effects see themselves considerably augmented
with the application of vivid, realistic, and as such, photographic material, as discussed in (Hill 2003, Scott
et al. 1994, 2003)
Consequently, this scientific insight has not merely directed the aforementioned critique on currently ap-
3
plied, characteristic “slide paradigms” (Sajaniemi & Kuittinen 1998, 1999) —in terms of an “expected edit-
ing automation” (i.e. convenience, speed and easiness as currently associated with PowerPoint–based slide
design), the previously outlined visualization approaches have moreover been addressed in order to initiate a
discussion about how abstract content might be visualized “more intelligently”: Clearly, the herein–pro-
posed prototype featuring an automated imagery retrieval based on databased, online stock photography
previously found “persuasively effective” by Goodman (1976), Leja (2001) and Hill (2003), can thus be in-
terpreted as one of several possible solutions to automatically (or, at least, conveniently from a user perspec-
tive) provide more compelling, informative, and persuasive visualizations than the currently applied, textual
representation.
5.5.4 DICNE, Iconic and Stock Photography prototypes as an Impetus for Further Research
Thus, beyond further customized, or “iconic approaches” discussed earlier within this chapter (Shepstone
2003, Voswinckel 2004), the accordingly outlined proposal might equally serve as an initial point for the
1
cf. Morgan 2003
2
“Research–based design principles”, cf. Atkinson (2005) manuscript (20.9.04) p. 10
3
“Another problem with commercial presentation systems is the use of the slide paradigm” (Sajaniemi & Kuittinen 1998, p. 60)
currently quite data–centric field of “information visualization” to not merely providing appropriate, visual
representations of logical structures, hierarchies and relationships (such as presently modeled in Gauthier
1999, Good & Bederson 2003, Voswinckel 2003), but equally expanding this graphical paradigm towards
actually providing pictorial representations of concrete ideas, statements, and even abstract concepts them-
selves.
Since extracting visualisable information from our now textually–modeled “idea concept” (or “outline”) of
such a presentation, clearly, does not represent an intrinsically trivial task, the herein described idea shall but
1
provide an impetus for further research on what I call “presentational visualization”: Finding (or even, auto-
matically computing) imagery to arbitrary, textual context that firstly would require to be semantically un-
derstood (cf. Van Dam & Briggs 2004) may appear impossible at first thought. Nonetheless, I believe that
2
instead of merely “whacking purely textual content onto the slides and call it presentation” (Bray 2004), or
even “visualization”, information technology and visualization theory evidently need to further think about
how this content might actually be converted into an appropriate, visual representation matching the afore-
mentioned memorization and persuasion effects.
5.5.5 Outlook
Beyond this prototype’s underlying, almost “trivial”, dictionary–driven approach footing on “intelligently”
and comprehensively maintained index, association and keyword cataloguing on the part of the online im-
age libraries themselves (which, fortunately, present themselves rather well–indexed even in non–commer-
cial contexts), more sophisticated visualization and computing algorithms to achieve metaphorically precise,
pictorial representations of abstract data will certainly be of ample importance and interest to any future re-
search within this field of “presentational visualization” as an abstract subset of information visualization
(Card et al. 1999, Gershon & Page, 2001)
Thus, paralleling an anticipated completion and further refinement of “my” (still somewhat rudimentary)
prototype conceptually outlined throughout this chapter, I equally hope to experience, follow and possibly
contribute to a more intense, public discussion about how particularly software–based approaches might
henceforth facilitate the necessary shift “beyond bullet points” (Aktinson 2005) in presentational visualiza-
tion.
1
“Presentational Visualisation” —a term first applied (but differently used) by Wood (2003)— has actually not been shaped, applied or
even strictly defined just yet. This work is, then, meant to provide some argumentation in order to initiate a more profound, future discus-
sion on this issue.
2
Freely quoted – literal context: “PowerPoint is increasingly replacing Word for printed documents and it is therefore so easy to just
whack those slides up on the data show and call it a presentation.” (Bray 2002, p. 19)
Appendix
5.6 Supplementary Screenshots
5.6.1 Marketing Simulation

5.6.2 Quantity Component: Slider and Interactive Statistics (Example)
5.6.3 Column Relator Component

5.6.4 Matrix Evaluation Modules
6
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY i
Bibliography & References

A
ABRAM, S. (2004) PowerPoint: Devil in a Red Dress. Information Outlook, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 27–28, Washington, DC: Gale
Group / Special Libraries Association, March 2004
ADAMS, W.C. (2003) Points About PowerPoint. Public Relations Tactics, New York, NY, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 20–21, 2/03
ADAMUS, N. (2002) Streaming PowerPoint Presentations Using Real Presenter. Inside the Internet, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 8–11
ADELSON, B. (1992) Evocative Agents and Multimedia Interface Design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Fac-
tors in Computing Systems, pp. 351–356, Monterey, CA / New York, NY: ACM Press, 3–7.5.1992
AGNEW, A.L. (2002) Windows into the Classroom. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education, Vol.
2, pp. 1323–1324, Auckland, NZ / Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 3–6.12.02
AGOSTO, D.E. (2002) Bounded Rationality and Satisficing in Young Peoples’ Web–Based Decision Making. J. Am. Soc. In-
form. Sci. & Tech., Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 16–27, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, January 2002
ALBEN, L., FARIS, J. & SADDLER, H. (1994) Making It Macintosh: Designing the Message when the Message is Design. In-
teractions, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 11–20, New York, NY: ACM Press, January 1994
ALMER, E.D., HOPPER, J.R. & KAPLAN, S.E. (2003) A Research Tool to Increase Attention to Experimental Materials: Ma-
nipulating Presentation Format. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 405–418, New York: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Spring 2003
ALEXANDER, M.W. (1998) Uses of Presentation Graphics Technologies in Business and Academia. Office Systems Research
Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 32–38, Lincoln, NE: OSRA / University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Spring 1998
ALEXANDER, P.A. & JETTON, T. L. (1996) The Role of Importance and Interest in the Processing of Text. Educational Psy-
chology Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 89–121, New York, NY: Kluwer Acad. Publ. / Plenum Press, March 1996
———–& FIVES, H., BUEHL, M.M. MULHERN, J. (2002) Teaching as Persuasion. Teaching & Teacher Education, Vol. 18,
No. 7, pp. 795–813, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers / Pergamon Press, October 2002
ALOIA, N., BENDINI, T., PATERNÒ, F. & SANTORO, C. (1998) Design of Multimedia Semantic Presentation Templates: Op-
tions, Problems and Criteria of Use. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 205–
215, L’Aquila, IT / New York: ACM Press, 24–27.5.98
ANDAL–ANCIÓN, A., CARTWRIGHT, P.A. & YIP, G.S. (2003) The Digital Transformation of Traditional Business. MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 34–41, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Summer 2003
ANDERSEN, P.B. (1990) A Theory of Computer Semiotics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
ANDERSON, C. (1961) History of Instructional Technology. Los Angeles, CA / Washington, DC: University of S. California
US Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare.
ANGELL, P. (2004) Business Communication Design. New York: McGraw–Hill.

ANNETT, J.M. & LESLIE, J.C. (1996) Effects of Visual and Verbal Interference Tasks on Olfactory Memory: The Role of Task
Complexity. British Journal of Psychology, London, UK, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 447–458, 8/96
ANTHONY, W.P., BENNETT, R.H. III, MADDOX, E.N. & WHEATLEY, W.J. (1993) Picturing the Future: Using Mental Im-
agery to Enrich Strategic Environmental Assessment. Acad. Mgmt. Exec. Pract. J., Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 43–56
Briarcliff Manor, NY: Oxford University Press, May 1993
ANTONOFF, M. (1988) Powers of Persuasion. Personal Computing, 12 (11 ) : 38, 11/88
———–(1989) Persuasion, and the Desktop Presentation Market. Personal Computing, Vol. 12/13, No. 7, pp. 188–189
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ: Hayden Publishing, July 1989
(2002) Key Issues and Punch Points — API and ISO « Format » : Drafting and Presentation of Standards, pp. 4–5, 8
API CRE ISSC
Washington, DC: API Publishing Services, 11.6.2002
APPLE, INC. (2003) Deconstructing a Keynote Document, Part I: Slides. Technical Note, TN 2073, Cupertino, CA: Apple
Computer Developer Connection [ ADC ] 20.5.03
URL: http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2002/pdf/tn2073.pdf [ last accessed 2.11.2004 ]
ARENI, C. (2003) The Effects of Structural and Grammatical Variables on Persuasion: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Per-
spective. Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 349–375, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons
ARISTOTLE (1926) The Art of Rhetoric, Vol. XXIII, Series No. 193, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
———– (1991) On Rhetoric. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY ii
ARNHEIM, R. (1969) Visual Thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

ASPDEN, P. (2004) To the PowerPoint. Financial Times, London, UK, 13.3.2004, p. 36
ATKINSON, C. (20051) Beyond Bullet Points. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press (actual pub. date forthcoming)
———–& MAYER, R.E. (2004) Five Ways To Reduce PowerPoint Overload. E–Book, Los Angeles, CA: Soc. Media.
———–& GRAY, D. (2004) A Clearer « X–Planation » [ Interview ] Sociable Media, Los Angeles, CA, 21.3.04
URL: http://sociablemedia.com/articles_gray.htm [ last accessed 29.11.04 ]
———–& NORMAN, D. (2004) Don Norman on PowerPoint Usability [ Interview ] Soc. Media, LA, CA, 31.5.04
URL: http://sociablemedia.com/articles_norman.htm [ last accessed 29.11.04 ]
———–& KAWASAKI, G. (2003) A Haiku Kind of Guy [ Interview ] Sociable Media, Los Angeles, CA, 16.8.04
URL: http://sociablemedia.com/articles_kawasaki.htm [ last accessed 29.11.04 ]
ATTRIDGE, D. (1999) Innovation, Literature, Ethics: Relating to the Other. Publications of the Modern Language Association of
America, New York, NY, Vol. 114, No. 1, pp. 20–31, 1/99
AUBUCHON, N. (1997) The Anatomy of Persuasion. New York: AMACOM Books.
AUSTEN, I. (2003) Slide Showdown. Canadian Business, Toronto, 76 (5 ) : 86, 17.3.03
AUTY, S. (2003) Using IT to Prepare a Presentation. General Practitioner, London, UK, 18 (32 ) : 49, 3.11.03
AYRES, J., HOPF, T. & EDWARDS, P.A. (1999) Vividness and Control: Factors in the Effectiveness of Performance Visuali-
zation? Communication Education, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 287–293, Annandale, VA: NCA, October 1999
B
BADDELEY, A.D. (1992) Working Memory. Science, Washington, DC, Vol. 255, Nr. 5044, pp. 556–559, 31.1.92
———– (1999) Cognitive Psychology: Essentials of Human Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press
BAECKER, R. (2003) A Principled Design for Scalable Internet Visual Communications with Rich Media, Interactivity, and
Structured Archives. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research,
pp. 16–29. Toronto: IBM Press, 6–9.10.03
BAHRICK, H.P. AND GHARRITY, K. (1976) Interaction among Pictorial Components in the Recall of Picture Captions. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, Washington, DC, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 103–111, 4/76
BAKKER–DHALIWAL, R., BELL, M.A., MARCOTTE, P. & MORIN, S. (2001) Decision Support Systems [ DSS ]: Information
Technology in a Changing World. International Rice Research Notes, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 5–16, Los Baños, PHL: In-
tern. Rice Research Institute, December 2001
BALLI, S.J. (1995) Role Play. Training & Development Journal, Alexandria, VA, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 14–15, 2/95
BARNHART, R. & GLENBERG, A. (1990) Extension of the Picture–Superiority Effect over Multiple Lists. Bulletin of the Psy-
chonomic Society, Vol. 28, Nr. 1, pp. 1–3, Austin, TX: Psych. Soc. Publications, January 1990
BARNS, B. (2003) The Art of Conversation. Director, London, UK, Vol. 56, No. 10, pp. 60–62, 5/03
BARTON, B.F. & BARTON, M.S, (1985) Toward a Rhetoric of Visuals for the Computer Era. The Technical Writing Teacher,
Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 126–145, Lubbock, TX: ATTW / Erlbaum, Fall 1985
———– (1993) Modes of Power in Technical and Professional Visuals. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.138–162, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, January 1993
BASSETT, J. (1998) Keeping a Perspective on Computer Technology. Magazine of History, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 74–76
Bloomington, IN: The Organization of American Historians, April 1998
BATOR, R.J. & CIALDINI, R.B. (2000) The Application of Persuasion Theory to the Development of Effective, Pro–envi-
ronmental Public Service Announcements. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 527–541, New York, NY:
Blackwell Publishers, Fall 2000
BAUDRILLARD, J. (1983) Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e)
BEALE, S. & BRAMBERT, D. (1990) Presenting... Electronic Publishing & Printing Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 52–57, 3/90
BEAN, D. (2002) Common Practice Management Scenarios. National Underwriter, Vol. 106, No. 45, pp. 11–12, 11.11.02
BECKWITH, H. (2003) What Clients Love: A Field Guide to Growing Your Business. New York: Warner Books.
1
Note: In press, actual work thus upcoming. Est. release date as provided by publisher [ Microsoft Press ]: Feb. 2005
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY iii
BEETS, C. & KANG, P. (1992) Visual Programming: Empowering IVR. Telemarketing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 37–39, 7/92
BELFIELD, R. (1998) Writings On Web Culture, and List Mentality. New Statesman, London, UK, 11 (507) : 34, 5.6.98
BELL, S.J. (1998) Mounting Presentations on the Web: Presentation Software, HTML, or Both? Online, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp.
62–70, Indianapolis: IT Publishing, Sept.–Oct. 1998
———–(2004) End PowerPoint Dependency Now ! American Libraries, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 56–59, Chicago, IL: Am. Library
Association, June / July 2004
BENNETT, J., CLAES, M.T., FORSBERG, J., FLYNN, N., OBENAUS, W. & SMITH, T. (1998) Doing Effective Presentations in an
Intercultural Setting. Wien: Verlag Carl Ueberreuter
BENNETT, S., HEWITT, J., KRAITHMAN, D. & BRITTON, C. (2003) Making Chalk and Talk Accessible. Proceedings of the 2nd
ACM Conference on Universal Usability, pp. 119–125, Vancouver / New York: ACM Press, 10–11.11.03
BENOIT, W. L. (1991) A Cognitive Response Analysis of Source Credibility, in: DERVIN, B. & VOIGT, M. J. (Eds.) Progress in
Communication Sciences, Vol. X, pp. 1–19, Norwood, NJ: Ablex
———–& SMYTHE, M.J. (2003) Rhetorical Theory as Message Reception: A Cognitive Response Approach to Rhetorical
Theory and Criticism. Communication Studies, West Lafayette, IN, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 96–114
BERKLEY, T. (2000) Peeping Tools. Network World, Southborough, MA, Vol. 17, No. 28, pp. 55–64, 10.6.2000
BERKUN, S (2000) Fitts’s UI Law Applied to the Web. Microsoft Developer Network [ MSDN ] Library, Redmond, WA,
May/June 2000, URL: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en–us/dnhfact/html/hfactor9_3.asp [ 9.10.04 ]
BERTOLINI, V.J. (2002) « Hinting » and « Reminding » : The Rhetoric of Performative Embodiment in Leaves of Grass. Engl.
Lit. Hist. [ ELH ], Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 1047–1082, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, W. 2002
BIERKERTS, S. (1994) The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. New York: Fawcett.
BIRDSELL, D.S. & GROARKE, L. (1996) Toward a Theory of Visual Argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 33, No. 1,
pp. 1–10, River Falls, WI: American Forensic Association, Summer 1996
BLAKE, R.L. (1999) The Writing’s on the Wall. Management Accounting, Vol. 77, No. 2, p. 42, London, UK: Academic Press,
February 1999
BLAND, M. (1998) Training Managers to Communicate Effectively. Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.
131–132, Guilsborough / Bradford, UK: Wellens Publishing, MCB University Press.
BLOCK, L.G. & KELLER, P.A. (1997) Effects of Self–Efficacy and Vividness on the Persuasiveness of Health Communications.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 31–54. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
BLY, R.W. (2001) The Case Against PowerPoint. Successful Meetings, New York, NY, Vol. 50, No. 12, pp. 51–52, 11/01
———– (2003) Giving Memorable Presentations. Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 84–87, New York, NY:
Am. Inst. of Chem. Engineers, January 2003
BOWE, M., JENSEN, D., FELAND, J. & SELF, B.P. (2000) When Multimedia Doesn’t Work: An Assessment of Visualization
Modules for Learning Enhancement in Mechanics. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Session 2268, St Louis,
MO / Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education, June 2000
BRAY, C. (2004) Presentations: Click To Exit. Marketing Magazine, Auckland, NZ, Vol. 3, No. 4, p. 19, 2/04
BRANZBURG, J. (2004) New and ‘Networthy’ Presentation Applications. Technology & Learning, Vol. 24, No. 9, pp. 9–11
Dayton, Ohio: CMP Publications, April 2004
BRABAZON, T. (2002) Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching. Sydney, AUS: University of New
South Wales Press
BARKOWSKY, T. (2002) Mental Representation: A Computational Approach. Berlin: Springer–Verlag
———– (2003) Mental Imagery and Human Memory. Spatial Cognition, FB Cogn. Syst., Univ. Bremen, 22.5.03
URL: http://www.cosy.informatik.uni–bremen.de/staff/barkowsky/semSpaCog [ accessed 14.11.04 ]
BRAUNSCHWEIG, B.L., PANTELIDES, C., BRITT, H.I. & SAMA, S. (2000) « Wizards » , in: Process Modeling: The Promise of
Open Software Architectures, p. 73. Chemical Engineering Progress, New York, Vol. 96, No. 9, pp. 65–76, 9/00
BRINKLEY, J. & LOHR, S. (2001) US v. Microsoft. New York, NY: McGraw–Hill
BROOKS, D. (2004) Wireless Men (and Women) Across the Board, New York, NY, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 25–28
BROTHEN, T. (1998) Transforming Instruction with Technology for Developmental Students. Journal of Developmental Edu-
cation, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 2–9, Boone, NC: NCDE / App. St. Univ., Spring 1998
BROWN, A. et al. (2001) Microsoft Office XP Developer’s Guide. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY iv
BROWN, D. (2002) Understanding PowerPoint, in: WODTKE, C. (Ed.) Boxes and Arrows, Spec. Deliverable, No. 5
San Francisco, CA, 29.9.2002
BROWN, D.G. (2001) PowerPoint–Induced Sleep. Syllabus, San Jose, CA, 14 (6) : 17, 1/01
BROWN, M.D. (1984) Mainframe Business Graphics. Datamation, 30 (6) : 89–95, 6/84
Barrington, NY: Reed–Elsevier Pub.
BROWN, S.W. & KULIKOWICH, J.M. (2004) Teaching Statistics from a Distance: What have We Learned? International Jour-
nal of Instructional Media, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 19–35, New York: Westwood Press / Baywood Publishing
BROWN, T. (1992) Guy Kawasaki: Business Evangelist. Industry Week, Vol. 241, No. 15, pp. 36–40, 3.8.92
BRUNNER, D.T., EARLE, N.J. & HENRIKSEN, J.O. (1991) Proof Animation. Proc. Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 90–94
Phoenix, AZ: IEEE / ACM / SCS, 8–11.12.91
BRYANT, S.M. & HUNTON, J.E. (2000) The Use of Technology in the Delivery of Instruction: Implications for Education
Researchers. Issues in Accounting Education, Sarasota, FL, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 129–162, 2/00
BORK, A. (1993) Learning in the Twenty–First Century Interactive Multimedia Technology, in: GIARDINA, M. (Ed.) Interac-
tive Multimedia Learning Environments, pp. 2–18. Berlin: Springer
BORNE, A. (2003) Computers and their Future Use in Education. Futurics, Vol. 27, No. 3/4, pp. 80–82
St. Paul, MN: Pergamon Press
BRUER, J.T. (1999) In Search of… « Brain–Based » Education, Phi Delta Kappan Prof. J. Educ., 80 (9 ) : 648–656, 5/99
BULLMORE, J. (2000) Poor, Old Abraham Lincoln: Not a Single Bullet Point in His Armoury. Marketing, 182 (1) : 10
London, UK: Haymarket Publishing, 6.1.2000
BURCH, D. (2003) Talking Aids, in: The Lancet, Vol. 361, 9351, 94, 4.1.03, London, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers
BURGE, F. (2003) PowerPoint Man Gets Attention, But No Sale. Electronic Engineering Times, 1266, 94, 21.4.03
BURKE, J. (2003) The Essentials: Overheads, Whiteboards, and Monitors. Voices from the Middle, 11 (1) : 58–59, 9/03
BURKE, M.C. & EDELL, J.A. (1989) The Impact of Feelings on Ad–Based Affect and Cognition. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 69–84, Chicago, IL: AMA, February 1989
BURNS, S. (2001) I–Life: The Quiet Office Worker. Far Eastern Economic Review, Hong Kong, CHN, 164 ( 27) : 37, 12.7.01
BUTLER, J.B. & MAUTZ, R.D. (1996) Multimedia Presentations and Learning: A Laboratory Experiment. Issues in Accounting
Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 259–280, Sarasota, FL: Am. Acct. Assoc., Autumn 1996
C
CAHILL, L., BABINSKY, R., MARKOWITSCH, H.J. & MCGAUGH, J.L. (1995) Amygdala and Emotional Memory. Nature, Vol.
377, No. 6547, pp. 295–296, London, UK: Macmillan, 28.9.1995
CAHMBLISS, M.J. & CALFEE, R.C. (1998) Textbooks for Learning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Publishers
CAMP, J.S. & COGAN, M. (1988) Welcome to the Age of « Desktop Presenting », in: Electronic Learning, Vol. 7, No. 8, pp.
70–71, New York, NY: Scholastic, May / June 1988
CAMPBELL, C.P. (1998) Rhetorical Ethos: A Bridge between High–Context and Low–Context Cultures? In: NIEMEIER S. et
al. (Eds.) The Cultural Context in Business Communication, pp. 31–47. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
CAMPBELL, G.M. (2002) Bulletproof Presentations. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press / New Page Books
CAMPBELL, A.B. & PARGAS, R.P. (2003) Laptops in the Classroom. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education, pp. 98–102, Reno, NV / New York: ACM Press, 19–23.2.03
CAMPOS, A., GONZALEZ, M.A. & PEREZ, A. (1997) Mental Imagery and Creative Thinking. Journal of Psychology, Vol. 131,
No. 4, pp. 357–364, Provincetown, MA: Heldref Publications, July 1997
———–& MARCOS, J.L. (1999) Emotionality of Words as Related to Vividness of Imagery and Concreteness. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, Vol. 88, No. 3, Part 2, pp. 1135–1140, Missoula, MT: Southern University Press, June 1999
———–& AMOR, A. (2003) Limitations of the Mnemonic–Keyword Method. Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 1380. No.
4, pp. 399–413, Provincetown, MA: Heldref Publications, October 2003
CARD, S.K., ENGLISH, W.K. & BURR, B.J. (1978) Evaluation of Mouse, Rate–Controlled Isometric Joystick, Step Keys, And
Text Keys for Text Selection on a CRT. Ergonomics, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 601–613, London, UK: T & F
———–& MACKINLAY, J.D., SHNEIDERMANN, B. (1999) Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think.
London, UK / San Diego / Los Altos / San Francisco, CA: Academic Press / Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY v
CARLSON, J.R. & KACMAR, C.J. (1999) Increasing Link Marker Effectiveness for WWW and Other Hypermedia Interfaces.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 386–398, New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, 15.4.99
CARTER, C.B. & LORSCH, J.W. (2003) Back to the Drawing Board. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press
CASTER, K. (1993) Razzle–Dazzle Desktop Presentations. Home Office Computing, Vol. 11, No. 11, pp. 118–122
New York, NY / Boulder, CO: Scholastic, November 1993
CHABRIS, C.F. & KOSSLYN, S.M. (1998) How Do the Cerebral Hemispheres Contribute to Encoding Spatial Relations? Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 8–14, APS / Blackwell Publishing, February 1998
CHANDLER, P. & SWELLER, J. (1991) Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, Vol.
8, No. 4, pp. 293–332, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Winter 1991
CHANEY, L.H. & GREEN, C.G. (2002) Presenter Behaviours: Actions Often Speak Louder Than Words. SuperVision, Vol. 63,
No. 5, pp. 17–19. Burlington, IA: National Research Bureau, May 2002
———–(2004) Effective Presentations. The American Salesman, 49 (6) : 22–27, 1.6.04
CHASE, J. (1991) The Role of Consumerism in American Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.
216ff. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, May 1991
CHAU, P.Y. & BELL, P.C. (1996) A Visual Interactive Decision Support System to Assist the Design of a New Production
Unit. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, Ottawa, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 118–132, 5/96
CHAUDHURI, A. & BUCK, R. (1995) Media Differences in Rational and Emotional Responses to Advertising. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 109–125. Washington, DC: BEA Publications, Winter 1995
CHEN, Y. & HENG, W.J. (2003) Automatic Synchronization of Speech Transcript and Slides in Presentation. Proceedings of
the IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 568–571, Bangkok, TH: IEEE, 25–28.5.03
CHILDERS, J.L. & HOUSTON, M.J. (1984) Conditions for a Picture Superiority Effect on Consumer Memory. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 643–654, Gainesville, IL: University of Chicago Press, September 1984
CHURCHILL, E.F. (2002) Tangibly Simple, Architecturally Complex: Evaluating a Tangible Presentation Aid. Proceedings of
the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 750–751, Minneapolis, MN / New York, NY: ACM Press,
20–25.4.02
CIALDINI, R.B. (1993) Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York, NY: Quill–William Morrow Publishers
———–(2001a) The Science of Persuasion. The Scientific American, Vol. 284, No. 2, pp. 76–81, New York, NY:
Holtzbrinck–Verlag, February 2001
———– (2001b) Harnessing the Science of Persuasion. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79, No. 9, pp. 72–79
Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press, October 2001
CIVALLERI, P. (2003) Using Photoshop and PowerPoint to Make a New–Fashioned Digital Slideshow. Presentations, Vol. 17,
No. 1, pp. 23–24, Minneapolis, MN: VNU / Lakewood Publications, January 2003
CLARK, A. (1991) Microcognition: Philosophy, Cognitive Science, and Parallel Distributed Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
CLARK, J.M. & PAIVIO, A. (1991) Dual Coding Theory and Education. Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.
149–210, New York, NY: Plenum Press / Kluwer Academic Publishers, September 1991
CLARK, D. (1993) Microsoft to Start New Software Strategy. Wall Street Journal, Vol. CCXXII, No. 75, p. B.6
New York, NY: Dow Jones & Co., 15.10.93
CLARKE, D.S. (2001) What’s the Point? CIO, Framingham, Mass. Vol. 5 (4 ) : 46, 15.11.2001
CLINTON, O.L. (2004) iStockphoto Up Close. Print Media, Philadelphia, PA, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 8–9, 5/6.04
CLYMAN, J. (2004) Code Name: Longhorn. PC Magazine, New York, NY, Vol. 23, No. 15, pp. 84–86, 7.9.04
COHEN, A.R. (1957) Need for Cognition and Order of Communication as Determinants of Opinion Change, in: HOVLAND,
C.I. (Ed.) The Order of Presentation in Persuasion, pp. 95ff. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
———–& STOTLAND, E., WOLFE, D.M. (1955) An Experimental Investigation of Need for Cognition. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 291–294, Washington, DC: Am. Psych. Assoc., Sept. 1955
COGHILL, J., GAYWOOD, R., CHRISTIE, S. & PERKINS, G. (2003) International Medical Conferences. Student BMJ, Vol. 11,
No. 5, pp. 240–241, London, UK: Brit. Med. Journ. Publishing, July 2003
CONDON, R. (1995) Meeting Those Hi–Tech Needs. Marketing, London, UK, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 31–32, 7.9.95
CONNOR M. & WONG I.F.H. (2004) Working Through PowerPoint: A Global Prism for Local Reflections. Business Commu-
nication Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 228–231, New York, NY: SAGE Publications, June 2004
COOK, T. (2003) Death by Slides: Say It, Don’t Show It. Australian Financial Review, Melbourne, 15.11.03, p. 25
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY vi
COOPER, L.A. (1990) Mental Representation of Objects in Visual Problem Solving and Recognition. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, Wash. DC, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 1097–1106, 11/90
CRACE, J. (2003) House of Detention. The Guardian, London, UK, 2.12.03, Educational Section, p. 2
CRAPO, A.W., WAISEL, L.B., WALLACE, W.A. & WILLEMAIN, T.R. (2000) Visualization and the Process of Modeling: A
Cognitive–Theoretic View. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and
Data Mining, pp. 218 – 226, Boston, MA / New York, NY: ACM Press, 20–23.8.2000
CRAWFORD, W. (1998) It’s Just a Tool: Fifteen Years of Personal Computing. Library High Tech. Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.
103–114, Bradford, UK: MCB University Press
CREAHAN, T.A. & HOGE, B. (2000) Distance Learning: Paradigm Shift or Pedagogical Drift? In L. BORGHANS et al. (Eds.)
Educational Innovation in Economics and Business V, pp. 255–273. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
CREIGHTON, J.L. & ADAMS, J.W.R. (1998) CyberMeeting: How to Link People and Technology in Your Organization. New
York: AMACOM Books
CROSS, K. & WARMACK, A. (2000) Contextual Inquiry: Quantification and Use in Videotaped Analysis. Proceedings of the
SICGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 317–318, Le Hague, FR / New York: ACM Press, 1–
6.4.00
CROSSLAND, M., HERSCHEL, R., PERKINS, W. & SCUDDER, J. (2000) The Impact of Task and Cognitive Style on Decision–
Making Effectiveness Using a Geographic Information System. Journal of End User Computing, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.
15–25, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, Jan–Mar 2000
CUBAN, L. (1986) Teachers and Machines: Classroom Use of Technology. New York: Teachers College Press
CYPHERT, D. (2004) The Problem of PowerPoint: Visual Aid or Visual Rhetoric? Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 67,
No. 1, pp. 80–84, New York: SAGE Publications, March 2004
D
DANES, J.E. & Hunter, J.E. (1980) Designing Persuasive Communication Campaigns: A Multi–Message Communication
Model. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 67–77, Gainesville, IL: University of Chicago Press, June
1980
DARBY, D. (2000) Photography, Narrative, and the Landscape of Memory in Walter Benjamin’s Berlin. The Germanic Re-
view, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 210–225, Washington, DC: Heldref Publications, Summer 2000
DAVISON, R.M. & BRIGGS, R.O. (2000) GSS for Presentation Support. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 91–
97. New York: ACM Press, September 2000
DEATHERAGE, M. (2003) Open, Says Me. MacWorld, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 128–129, 4/03
DEHAAS, D.R. (1999) What’s with the Flippin’ Chart? OH&S Canada, Don Mills, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 5 2–53, 9/99
DESANCTIS, G. (1984) Computer Graphics as Decision Aids: Direction for Research. Decision Sciences, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.
463–487. Atlanta, GA / Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, Fall 1984
DIEBERGER, A., MINER, C. & PONCELEON, D. (2001) Supporting Narrative Flow in Presentation Software. Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 137–138, Seattle, WA / New York: ACM Press, 30.3.–
5.4.01
DIFFIE, W. (1988) The First Ten Years of Public–Key Cryptography. Proceedings of the IEEE, 76 (5) : 560–577
———– & HELLMAN, M. (1976) New Directions in Cryptography. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 22, No. 6,
pp. 644–654. Victoria, BC, CAN: Univ. of Victoria / IEEE Information Theory Society, May 1976
DOLE, J. A., & SINATRA, G. M. (1998) Reconceptualizing Change in Cognitive Construction of Knowledge. Educational Psy-
chologist, Vol. 33, No. 2–3, pp. 109–128, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Spring/ Summer 1998
DOMHOFF, G.W. (2003) Making Sense of Dreaming. Science, Washington, DC, Vol. 299, No. 5615, pp. 1987–88, 28.3.03
DOUVILLE, P., PUGALEE, D.K., WALLACE, J. & LOCK, C.R. (2002) Investigating the Effectiveness of Mental Imagery Strate-
gies in a Constructivist Approach to Mathematics Instruction, in: ROGERSON, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on the Humanistic Renaissance in Mathematics Education, pp. 107–110, Palermo, 20–25.9.02
DRAPER, S.W., WAITE, K.W. & GRAY, P.D. (1990) Alternative Bases for Comprehensibility and Competition for Expression
in an Icon Generation Tool. Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, pp.
473–477. Cambridge, UK /Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science Publishers, 27–31.8.1990
DREIER, T. (2004) Now This is More Like It. PC Magazine, New York, NY, Vol. 23, No. 12, p. 53, 13.7.2004
DROSE, G.S. & ALLEN, G.L. (1994) The Role of Visual Imagery in the Retention of Information From Sentences. The Jour-
nal of General Psychology, Vol. 121, No. 1, pp. 37–60, Provincetown, MA: Heldref Publications, January 1994
DRUCKER, D. (2000) How Not to Mumble. Training and Development Journal, Alexandria, VA, Vol. 54, No. 2, p. 71, 2/00
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY vii
DRYER, D.C. (1997) Wizards, Guides, and Beyond. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent User Inter-
faces, pp. 265–268, Orlando, FL / New York: ACM Press, 6–9.1.97
DUFFY, J. (1996) Collaborative Computing, Groupware, and Knowledge. Information Management & Computer Security, Vol.
4, No. 2, p. 39–41, Bradford, UK: MCB University Press
DUKEHART, D. (1998) Human Resources: The Power of Good Presentation Skills. Surg. Services Management Journal
Denver, CO, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 47–49, 7/98
DWYER, E.J. (1994) Speaking and Terror. Training & Development Journal, Alexandria, VA, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 9–10
E
EAGLEY, A. H. (1974) Comprehensibility of Persuasive Arguments as a Determinant of Opinion Change. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 758–773, Washington, DC: Am. Psych. Org., Dec. 1974
EBELING, R. (2004) Web Site Design: Familiarity Breeds Repeat Visits. Folio, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 37–38, 3/04
EDELL, J.A. (1990) Emotions and Advertising, in: AGRES, S.J. et al. (Eds.) Emotion in Advertising: Theoretical and Practical
Explorations, pp. 195–210, New York, NY: Quorum Books
———–& STAELIN, R. (1983) The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 10, pp. 45–61, Gainesville, IL: The University of Chicago Press, June 1983
———– & BURKE, M.C. (1987) The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects. JCR, 14 (3) : 421–433
EDENS, K.M. & POTTER, E.F. (2001) Promoting Conceptual Understanding Through Pictorial Representation. Studies in
Art Education, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 214–233, Reston, VA: NAEA, Spring 2001
EINSTEIN, A. (1949) A Testimonial from Prof. Einstein, in: HADAMARD, J. (Ed.) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathe-
matical Field, pp. 142–143. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
EMLYN–JONES, C. (1996) Paradise Lost? Authority and Reception in the Presentation of M/I Relationships in Archaic Greek
Epic, in: HARDWICK, L. & IRELAND, S. (Eds.) The Reception of Classical Texts and Images, pp. 21–39
Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press
ENDICOTT, J. (2002a) It Always Pays to Have a Clean, Professional Package. Presentations, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 26–27
Minneapolis: VNU / Lakewood Publications, June 2002
———–(2002b) True Creativity Involves More Than Just Pretty Slides. Presentations, 16 (9 ) : 20–21, 1.9.2002
EROL, B., HULL, J.J. & LEE, D.S. (2003) Linking Multimedia Presentations with their Symbolic Source Documents: Algo-
rithm and Applications. Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 498–507
Berkeley, CA / New York: ACM Press, 2–8.11.03
EVANS, M.L. (2000) Polished, Professional Presentation: Unlocking the Design Elements. The Journal of Continuing Educa-
tion i. N., Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 213–218, Thorofare, NJ: CB Slack Pub. Co., Sep/Oct. 2000
F
FANG, N. (2004) PowerPoint Is › Just Bullets and Text. The Straits Times, Singapore, 2/31.8.2004
FARADAY, P. & SUTCLIFFE, A. (1997a) Designing Effective Multimedia Presentations. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 272–278, Atlanta, GA / New York: ACM Press, 22–27.3.97
———–(1997b) Multimedia: Design for the Moment. Proceedings of the fifth ACM International Conference on Multimedia,
pp. 183–192. Seattle, WA / New York: ACM Press, 9–13.11.97
FARAH, M.J., WEISBERG, L.L., MONHEIT M. AND PERONNET, F. (1989) Brain Activity Underlying Mental Imagery: Event–
related Potentials During Mental Image Generation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 1, pp. 302–316
FARKAS, D.K. (2002) Managing Headings in Print and Online Documents. Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional
Communication Conference 2002, pp. 283–296, Portland, OR: IEEE, 17–20.11.02
FEIGENBAUM, E.A. (1996) How the « What » becomes the « How » , Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 97–104
New York: ACM Press, May 1996
FEINBERG, S. & MURPHY, M. (2000) Applying Cognitive Load Theory to the Design of Web–Based Instruction. Proceedings
of the IEEE Professional Communication Society International Professional Communication Conference, pp. 353–360,
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Educational Activities Department
FERGUSON, E.S. (1977) The Mind’s Eye: Nonverbal Thought in Technology. Science, 197 (4306) : 827–836, 26.8.97
FEW, S. (2004a) Show Me the Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten. Oakland, CA: Analytics Press
———–(2004b) The Information Cannot Speak for Itself. Intelligent Enterprise, Vol. 7, No. 11, pp. 20–23
San Mateo, CA: CMP / Miller Freeman Publishers, 10.7.04
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY viii
———–(2004c) Common Mistakes in Data Presentation. Intelligent Enterprise, 7 (12) : 34–38, 7.8.04
———–(2004d) Data Presentation: Tapping the Power of Visual Perception. IE, 7 (13) : 33–37, 4.9.04
FEYNMAN, R.P., ed. by LEIGHTON, R. (1988) What Do You Care What Other People Think? New York, NY: Bantam Books
FICENEC, D., OSBORNE, M., PRADINES, J., RICHARDS, D. et al. (2003) Computational Knowledge Integration in Biophar-
maceutical Research. Briefings in Bioinformatics, London, UK, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 260–278, 9/03
FIELD, K.A. (2003) The Write Stuff. Design News, Vol. 58, No. 16, p. 18, Boston, MA: Reed–Elsevier, 20.10.03
FINDLER, R.B. & FLATT, M. (2004) Slideshow: Functional Presentations. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN International
Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 224–235, Snow Bird, UT / New York: ACM Press 19–21.9.2004
FINKE, R.A. (1989) Principles of Mental Imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
———–& SHEPARD, R.N. (1986) Visual Functions of Mental Imagery, in: BOFF, K.R., KAUFMAN, L. & THOMAS, J. (Eds.)
Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. 2, pp. 37.25–41, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons
———–& WARD, T.B., SMITH, S.M. (1996) Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pr.
FINKELSTEIN, E. (2004a) A PowerPoint World Without Bullets is Possible, and Beautiful as Well. Presentations, Vol. 18, No.
1, pp. 20–21. Minneapolis: VNU / Lakewood Publications, January 2004
———–(2004b) Creative Techniques. Presentations, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 18–19, 4/04
———– (2004c) Forty–Four Recommendations for Enhancing PowerPoint Presentations. Sales & Marketing Management,
New York, NY, Vol. 155, No. 11, pp. S8–14
———– (2004d) How To Do Everything In PowerPoint XP. Berkeley, CA: McGraw–Hill
FINN, A. (1988) Print Ad Recognition Readership Scores: An Information Processing Perspective. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 168–177, Chicago, IL: Am. Marketing Association, May 1988
FISHBEIN, M. & AJZEN, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.
Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
FISHER, A. (2004) How Much PowerPoint Is Enough? Fortune, New York, NY, Vol. 149, No. 11, p. 56, 31.5.04
FITTS, P. (1954) The Information Capacity of the Human Motor System in Controlling the Amplitude of Movements. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 47, No 6, pp. 381–391, San Diego, CA: Academic Press
FLINTOFF, J.P. (2002) A Case of Visual Aids Disease. Financial Times, London, UK, 9.10.02, p. 13
FLYNN, D. (1999) Office Politics. Sydney Morning Herald, 5.6.99, p. 4
FOLEY, J. & RIBARSKY, B. (1994) Next–Generation Data Visualization Tools, in: ROSENBLUM, L. et al. (Eds.) Scientific Visu-
alization – Advances and Challenges, pp. 103–107, San Diego, CA: Academic Press / IEEE Comp. Soc. Press
FORRESTER, J.V. (1997) « Uveitis » , Vols. I & II. British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 81, No. 11, pp. 1021–22, London, UK:
Brit. Med. Journal Publishing Group, Nov. 1997
FOSS, S.K. (1982) Rhetoric and the Visual Image: A Resource Unit. Communication Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 55–66
Annandale, VA: NCA, January 1994
———– (1994) A Rhetorical Scheme for the Evaluation of Visual Imagery. Communication Studies, Vol. 45, No. No. 4, pp.
213–224, West Lafayette / Ada, OK: CSCA, Fall–Winter 1994
FOXON, M. (1992) I Know You Can’t See This, But… Training, Minneapolis, MN, Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 47–50, 11/92
FRANKLIN, D., BRADSHAW, S., & HAMMOND, K. (2000) Jabberwocky: You Don’t Have to be a Rocket Scientist to Change
Slides for a Hydrogen Combustion Lecture. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent User Inter-
faces, pp. 98–105, New Orleans / New York: ACM Press, 9–12.1.00
FREUND, C.P. (1999) The Atrocity Exhibition. Reason, Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 44–46, 6/99
FRIDLUND, A.J. (1991) Presentation Graphics for DOS and Windows. Info World, 13 (37) : 61, 16.9.91
———–(1992) Jazzing Up Your Presentation. IW, San Mateo, CA, Vol. 14, No. 25, pp. 104–122, 22.6.92
———–& GLASER, M. (1993) Presentations for All. Inf. World, Vol. 15, No. 25, pp. 74–91, 21.6.93
FRITZ, M. (1999) Assembling the Perfect Presentation System. E. Media, Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 30–40, 11/99
FROBISH, T. (2000) Jamieson Meets Lucas: Eloquence and Pedagogical Model(s) in the Art of Public Speaking. Communica-
tion Education Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 239–252. Annandale, VA: Routledge, July 2000
FRYXELL, D.A. (2000) All Aboard the Bullet Train. Writer’s Digest, Vol. 80, No. 11, pp. 20–21, Cincinnati, OH: F & W Publi-
cations, November 2000
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY ix
FUHRMANN, A.L., PRIKRYL, J., TOBLER, R.F. & PURGATHOFER, W. (2001) Interactive Content for Presentations in Virtual
Reality. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 183–189
Baniff, AL, CAN / New York: ACM Press, 15–17.11.01
FULLER, R.G. (1993) Multimedia – Hype or No? Computers in Physics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 5ff. New York: AIP, 17.11.92
G
GADAMER, H.G. (2002) Truth and Method – Wahrheit und Methode, 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Continuum
GAGARIN, M. (2003) Telling Stories in Athenian Law. Transactions of the American Philological Association, Vol. 133, No. 2,
pp. 197–207, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, Autumn 2003
GANZEL, R. (2000) Power Pointless. Power Point: What’s wrong with it? Presentations, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 53–58
Minneapolis: VNU / Lakewood Publications, February 2000
GARDNER, H. (1988) Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books
GASPER, K. & CLORE, G.L. (2002) Attending to the Big Picture: Mood and Global versus Local Processing of Visual In-
formation. Psychological Science, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 33–39, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1.1.02
GASSÉE, J.L. & RHEINGOLD, H. (1990) The Evolution of Thinking Tools, in: LAUREL, B. (Ed.) The Art of Human–Computer
Interface Design, pp. 225–227. New York: Addison–Wesley
GATES, P. (2002) Where’s the Power? What’s the Point? Across the Board, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 45–47, New York: Conf. Board
Publications, May / June 2002
GAUTHIER, J. (1999) Enabling XML eCommerce with the B2B Flow Language. Proc. XML ‘ 99, Philadelphia, PA &
Alexandria, VA: Graphic Communications Association [ GCA ] December 1999
GEBHARDT, M. (2003) Organizational and Design Tips for Dynamic and Effective Presentations. Inside Microsoft PowerPoint,
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 5–7, Louisville, KY: Cobb Group / Element K Journals, February 2003
———– (2004) Create Orderly Presentations with the Outline Pane: Entering Text. IMSPP, 11 (10) : 11–13
GEISLER, C., BAZERMAN, C., DOHENY–FARINA, S., GURAK, L.J, HAAS, C., JOHNSON–EILOLA, J., KAUFER, D., LUNSFORD,
A., MILLER, C., WINSOR, D. & YATES, J.A. (2001) IText: Future Directions for Research on the Relationship be-
tween Information Technology and Writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.
269–308. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, July 2001
GEMMELL, D.J. & BELL, C.G. (1997) Noncollaborative Telepresentations Come of Age. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 40,
No. 4, pp. 79–89. New York: ACM Press, April 1997
GERSHON, N. & PAGE, W. (2001) What Storytelling Can Do For Information Visualization: Discovering Visual Metaphors.
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 44, No. 8, pp. 31–37. New York: ACM Press, August 2001
GILLAN, D.J. (1998) The Psychology of Multimedia: Principles of Perception and Cognition. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 143–144. Los Angeles, Calif. / New York: ACM Press, 18–
23.4.98
GINIS, K.A.M & LEARY, M.R. (2004) Self–Presentational Processes. Journal of Applied Sp. Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 59–
74, Chapel Hill, NC: Taylor & Francis, March 2004
GLEICHER, M.L., HECK, R.M. & WALLICK, M.N. (2002) A Framework for Virtual Videography. Proceedings of the 2nd In-
ternational Symposium on Smart Graphics, pp. 9–16, Hawthorne, CA / New York: ACM Press, 11–13.6.02
GLENBERG, A.M. & TENG, R. (1998) Foundations of Understanding. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 111, No. 3,
pp. 466–480, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, Fall 1998
GLENN, D. (2004) The Tease of Memory. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Wash. DC, Vol. 50, No. 46, p. A.12, 23.7.04
GLINERT, S. et al. (1999) Presentation Programs: Presenting On the Web Home Office Computing, Vol. 17, No. 12, pp. 95–
101, 114, New York, NY: Curtco Freedom Group, December 1999
GODFREY–SMITH, P. (2003) Theory & Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press
GODIN, S. (2001) Really Bad PowerPoint. E–Book, New York, NY: Do You Zoom Inc. Publishing.
GOLDBERG, D. (1997) EnterFrame: Cage, Deleuze and Macromedia Director. Afterimage Journal of Media, Arts, and Cultural
Criticism, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 8–9, Rochester, NY: Visual Studies Workshop Pub., Sept. / Oct. 1997
GOLDSBOROUGH, R. (1998) Put Zing in Your Presentations. Reading Today, Newark, DE, Vol. 16, No. 3, p. 11, 12/98
GOLDSTEIN, M. (2003) It’s Alive ! Successful Meetings, New York, NY, Vol. 52, No. 2, p. 20, 1.2.03
GOMBRICH, E. H. (1972) The Visual Image: Its Place in Communication. Scientific American, Vol. 231, No. 3, pp. 46–60,
New York, NY: Munn & Co. [ cty. Holtzbrinck–Verlagsgruppe ] September 1972
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY x
GÓMEZ, A.G. (2004) An Investigation into the Relative Contribution of Engineering Courses in the Development of Problem
Solving and Thought Processes. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Wisconsin–Stout Graduate School, Menomo-
nie, WN, April 2004
GOOD, L. (2002) Staying in the Flow with Zoomable User Interfaces. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Com-
puting Systems, pp. 548–549, Minneapolis / New York: ACM Press, 20–25.4.02
———–& BEDERSON, B.B. (2002) Zoomable User Interfaces as a Medium for Slide Show Presentations. Information Visu-
alization, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 35–49, Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, March 2002
GOODMAN, N. (1976) « Imitation » , and « Realism » , in: Languages of Art, pp. 6–10, 34–39. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
GOOSSENS, C.F. (1994) Enactive Imagery: Information Processing, Emotional Responses, and Behavioral Intentions. Journal
of Mental Imagery, Vol. 18, No. 3/4, pp. 119–150, New York, NY: Brandon House, Fall / Winter 1994
———– (2003) Visual Persuasion: Mental Imagery Processing and Emotional Experiences, in: SCOTT et al. (Eds.) Persuasive
Imagery, pp. 129–138, London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
GORODETSKY, A., YANG, H. & RAO, M. (1997) Effective Use of Multimedia for Presentations. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 3, pp. 2375–2379. Orlando, FL: IEEE, 12–15.10.97
GOULD, P. (2003) Evil Genius [ The Good Side of PowerPoint ] Opinion Paper, Maya Design, Pittsburgh, PA, Nov. 2003
URL: http://www.maya.com/web/what/mayapinions/what_mp_gould_evilgenius.mtml [ accessed 29.11.04 ]
GOULD, R. et al. (1999) Interface Innovations: What’s Next for Online Design? Proc. Seybold Seminars Boston / Publishing ’ 99,
Web Publishing Conference Transcript, Boston, MA / Media, PA: Seybold Publishing, 5.3.199
GRABOWSKI, R. et al. (1994) Q. Bytes, Inf. World, San Mateo, CA, Vol. 16, No. 50, p. 119, 12.12.94
GRALLA, P. (1993) Presentation Power. PC Computing, New York, NY, Vol. 6, No. 9, pp. 146–150, 9/93
GRANDIN, T. (1995) Thinking in Pictures. New York, NY: Doubleday
GRAPES, Z.T., JOHNSON, D. & MATTHEWS, H.W. (1998) A Survey of Instructional Technology Assets and Support Services
at US Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 62 (3) : 266–270
GRAY, P.D., WAITE, K.W. & DRAPER, S.W. (1990) Do–It–Yourself Iconic Displays: Reconfigurable Iconic Representations
of Application Objects. Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 639–
644. Cambridge, UK / Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science Publishers, 27–31.8.1990
GREEN, D. et al. (1990) MORE Heats Up the Mac Desktop Presentation Market. Inf. World, 12 (32) : 79–81, 6.8.90
GRIFFITHS, R. (2004) Rapid Terminal Folder Aperture from the Finder, in: « Help Desk – Mac OS X Hints » , p. 91
Mac World, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 90–91
GRILL, T., KRONSTEINER, R. & KOTSIS, G. (2003) Sharing Culture: Enabling technologies for Communication Support.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Cyberworlds, pp. 11–17, Singapore / Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer
Society Press, 3–5.12.03
GROVE, S.J., PICKETT, G.M. & LABAND, D.N. (1995) An Empirical Examination of Factual Information Content. The Ser-
vice Industries Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 216–233, London, UK: F. Cass, April 1995
GUADAGNO, R.E., SUNDIE, J.M., CIALDINI, R.B., & ASHER, T. (2003) The Power of PowerPoint: The Impact of Technol-
ogy and Expertise on the Evaluation of Information. Poster presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology
Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, February 2003
GURAK, L.J. (2003) Toward Consistency in Visual Information: Standardized Icons Based on Task. Technical Communica-
tion, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 492–496, Arlington, VA / Washington, DC, November 2003
H
HAGMAN, J., PERROTTA, D., STEINBERGER, R. & VARFIS A. (2000) Document Classification and Visualisation to Support
the Investigation of Suspected Fraud. Working Notes, Workshop on Machine Learning and Textual Information Ac-
cess [ MLTIA ] in: ZARAGOZA, H. et al. (Eds.) Proc. Fourth European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge
Discovery in Databases [ PKDD’2K3 ] pp. 1–17, Lyon, FR, September 2000
HAMANN, S.B., CAHILL, L., MCGAUGH J. & SQUIRE, L.R. (1997) Intact Enhancement of Declarative Memory for Emotional
Material in Amnesia. Learning & Memory, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 301–309, 9/10.97
HANSEN, C.D. & KAHNWEILER, W.M. (1997) Executive Managers: Cultural Expectations through Stories about Work.
Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 117–138, 12/97
HAQ, I. & DACRE, J. (2003) Computer–Assisted Learning in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Rheumatology Education.
Rheumatology, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 367–400, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, February 2003
HARFORD, T. (2004) A Question of Presentation. Financial Times, London, UK, 21.1.04, p. 13
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xi
HARRELL, W. (1999) Effective Monitor Display Design. International Journal of Instructional Media, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 447–
458, New York, NY: Baywood Publishing / Westwood Press
HARRIS, S. (2004) Missing the Point: Is PowerPoint the Enemy of Thought? Government Executive Journal, Washington, DC,
Vol. 36, No. 15, pp. 48–53, 1.9.04
HAWTHORNE, T.R. (1997) The Complete Guide to Infomercial Marketing. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Contemporary
HAZELWOOD, K & GUTNER, T. (2003) How to « Speechify » : Avoiding Sleep–Inducing PowerPoint Presentations. Business
Week, 3850, 119, New York, NY: McGraw–Hill, 22.9.03
HECK, M. (1994) Persuasion Offers Redesigned Interface and Multimedia Tools. Inf. World, 16 (19) : 98–103, 9.5.94
HEIL, O. (2002) Die Variablen der Wirkungsforschung in Klassischen Studien der Persuasionsforschung. Term Paper, Pro-
seminar on « Theories and Models of Mass Communication » , Univ. Munich, Winter 2002/2003
HEIMES, S. (1998a) Persuasion May Be an Art, But It’s Also a Real Science. Presentations, Vol. 12, No. 11, p. 98
Minneapolis, MN: VNU / Lakewood Publications, November 1998
———–(1998b) The Study of Persuasion Goes Back At Least 5,000 Years. Presentations, 12 (12) : 162, 1.12.98
HEISS, M. (1999) The Tide May Be Changing with InfoComm ‘ 99. Video Systems, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 26–33, 8/99
HELLER, S. (2003) Art of the State. Print, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 41–47, New York, NY: W.E. Rudge, May / June 2003
HENDERSON, H. (2000) Transnational Corporations and Global Citizenship. The American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 43, No.
8, pp. 1231–1261. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, May 2000
HERMOSO, T.F. (2003) Not So Fast | Collateral Damage. Business World, Manila, Vol. XVI, No. 116, p. 27, 12.2.03
HERSH, R.H. (1997) Intentions and Perceptions. Change, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 16–22, New Rochelle, NY: Heldref Publica-
tions, March / April 1997
HEXEL, R., JOHNSON, C., KUMMERFELD, B. & QUIGLEY, A. (2004) « PowerPoint to the People » : Suiting the Word to the
Audience. Proceedings of the fifth Australasian User Interface Conference, Vol. 28, pp. 49–56, Dunedin, NZ / Sydney:
Australian Computer Society
HIGBEE, K.L. (1979) Recent Research on Visual Mnemonics: Historical Roots and Educational Fruits. Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 611–629, Washington, DC: Am. Educational Research Assoc.
HIGLEY, J. (2003) Did You Get the Memo? Meetings Can Be Beneficial. H&M Management, Vol. 218, No. 7 : 8, 21.4.03
Duluth, MN: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publications
HILBERT, D.M. & REDMILES, D.F. (2000) Extracting Usability Information from User Interface Events. ACM Computing Sur-
veys, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 384–421, Baltimore, MD / New York: ACM Press, December 2000
HILL, C.A. (2002) Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes, in: HELMERS, M. (Ed.) Intertexts: Reading Pedagogy in Col-
lege Writing Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
———–(2003) The Psychology of Visual Persuasion. Paper presented to the 54th Annual Conference on College Composition
and Communication, E.17, p. 125, New York: NCTE/CCCC, 20.3.03
———–& HELMERS, M. (2004) Defining Visual Rhetorics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
HILL, H.W. (1991) Projecting the Future of Overhead Projection. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Frontiers in Education Con-
ference, pp. 218–221. West Lafayette, IN: IEEE, 21–24.9.91
HILL, J. (2002) The Trade Show Reader. Presentations, Minneapolis, MN, 16 (4) : 19, 4/02
———–(2003) PowerPoint 2003. Presentations, 17 (6) : 13, 1.6.03
HLYNKA, D., & MASON, R. (1998) PowerPoint in the Classroom: Where is the Power, What is the Point? Educational Tech-
nology, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 42–48, Bellingham, WA: FNO Press, September / October 1998
HOCKS, M.E. (2003) Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments. College Composition and Communica-
tion, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 629–656, Urbana, IL: NCTE, June 2003
HOFFER, W. (1988) Making It: The Electric Blackboard. Nation’s Business, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 65–66, Washington, DC: US
Chamber of Commerce, April 1988
HOFFMAN, D.D. (1998) Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
HOGAN, P. (2003) An Eye for an Eye, a Bite for a Bite. The Observer, London, UK, 30.3.03, p. 66
HOLMES, N. (2004) In Defense of PowerPoint. IEEE Computer, Vol. 37, No. 7, pp. 98–100, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Com-
puter Society Press, July 2004
HONG, E.S. & O’NEIL, H.F.J. (1992) Instructional Strategies to Help Learners Build Relevant Mental Models in Inferential
Statistics. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 150–159, Wash., DC: APA, June 1992
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xii
HOOGLAND, R.C. (2003) The Matter of Culture: Aesthetic Experience and Corporeal Being. Mosaic J. Interdiscipl. Stud. Lit.,
Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 1–18, Winnipeg, CAN: University of Manitoba Press, September 2003
HORN, J. (1976) The Third Wave. Psychology Today, New York, NY, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 14, 16–17, 7/76
HORTON, J.L & SHINBACH, P.L. (1994) Shrink–Wrapped Presentations From Your Desktop. The Public Relations Journal,
Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 11–18, New York, NY: PRSA, April 1994
HORTON, W. (1990) Visual Rhetoric for Online Documents. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 33, No.
3, pp. 108–114, New York, NY: IEEE, Sept. 1990
HOVLAND, C.I. (1957) The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
———–& JANIS, I.L, KELLEY, H.H. (1953) Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. Yale UP
———–& LUMSDAINE, A.A., SHEFFIELD, F.D. (1949) Experiments on Mass Communication. Princeton Univ. Press
———–& WEISS, W. (1951) The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness. Public Opinion Quar-
terly, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 635–650, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Winter 1951–52
HTUN, M. (2004) From « Racial Democracy » to Affirmative Action: Changing State Policy on Race in Brazil. Latin American
Research Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 60–89. Austin: University of Texas Press
HAN, J.C., HU, X.H. & CERCONE, N. (2003) A Visualization Model of Interactive Knowledge Discovery Systems and its
Implementations. Information Visualization, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 105–125, Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
HULM, C. (2004) Resist the Temptation to Hide Behind Technology. IT Training, London, UK, Vol. 5, No. 5, p. 12
HSI, S. & AGOGINO, A.M. (1993) Creating Excitement and Motivation in Engineering Design: Evaluating Student Partici-
patory Experiences in Multimedia Case Studies, in: MAURER, H. (Ed.) Proceedings of the ED–MEDIA ‘ 93 World Con-
ference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, pp. 255–261, Orlando, FL / Washington, DC: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education [ AACE ] 23–26.6.1993
HYND, C. (2001) Persuasion and its Role in Meeting Educational Goals. Theory into Practice, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 270–277
I
IEDEMA, R., BRAITHAITE, J. & SORENSEN, R. (2003) The Reification of Numbers: Statistics and the Distance between Self,
Work, and Others. British Medical Journal, London, UK, Vol. 326, No. 7392, p. 771, 5.4.03
ISENBERG, A. (2003) Toledo’s Attic. The Journal of American History, Vol. 89, No. 4, pp. 1630–31, 3/03
IVES, B. (1982) Graphical User Interfaces for Business Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 4, Spec. Issue, pp. 211–224,
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, December 1982
INGLIS, S., & KOZUBSKA, J. (1987) Making Presentations. Management Decision, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 3–10, London, UK:
Chemical Marine Press
J
JACSÓ, P. (2001) Dialogue about a New Dialog. Information Today, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 22–23, Medford, NJ: Learned Infor-
mation, February 2001
JAFFA, E.B. (2004) Speaker’s Notes. Presentations, Minneapolis, MN, 18 (4) : 50, 1.4.04
JAFFE, G. (2000) What’s Your Point, Lt.? Just Cut To the Pie Charts. Wall Street Journal, Vol. CCXXXV, No. 33, p. A.1
JAMES, D. & HUNTER, J. (2000) A Streamlined System for Building Online Presentation Archives Using SMIL. Proceedings of
the 2nd Australasian Conference on Computing Education, pp. 145–152, Melbourne, VC, AUS / New York, NY: ACM
Press, 4–6.12.00
JANSSEN, R. (2001) Computational Image Quality. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press
JARVENPAA, S.L. & DICKSON, G.W. (1988) Graphics and Managerial Decision Making: Research–Based Guidelines. Com-
munications of the ACM, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 764–774. New York: ACM Press, June 1988
JEFFERSON, S. (1996) Presentation Graphics Software: Presentation Gains Weight. Inf. World, San Mateo, CA, Vol. 18, No.
11, pp. 68–70, 11.3.96
JENKINSON, G.T. & FRAIMAN, A. (1999) A Multimedia Approach to Lab Reporting Via Computer Presentation Software.
Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 283–284, Easton, PA: Am. Chem. Soc., Feb. 1999
JOHN, B.E. & KIERAS, D.E. (1996a) The GOMS Family of User Interface Analysis Techniques: Comparison and Contrast.
ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 320–351, New York: ACM Press, December
1996
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xiii
———–(1996b) Using GOMS for User Interface Design and Evaluation: Which Technique? ACM Transactions on Computer–
Human Interaction, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 287–319, New York: ACM Press, December 1996
JOHN–STEINER, V. (1997) Notebooks of the Mind: Explorations in Thinking. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press
JOHNSON, J.A. & NARDI, B.A. (1996) Creating Presentation Slides. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, Vol.
3, No. 1, pp. 38–65, New York: ACM Press, March 1996
JOHNSON, R. (1994) From Flip Charts to Virtual Reality. Personnel Management, London, UK, Vol. 26, No. 13, pp. 31–33
JOHNSON, S.A. (1997) Interface Culture: How New Technology Transforms the Way We Create and Communicate. San Fran-
cisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers
JOHNSON, V.R. (1987) Audiovisual Enhancement of Classroom Teaching: A Primer. J. Leg. Educ., 37, 97–100
JOHNSON, W.D. (1999) Do I Sing Myself? Voice and Rhetoric in Early Modern American Texts of Anne Bradstreet. Research
Paper, Interdisciplinary Discourse on « Voice as a Cultural Topic » , University of Bayreuth, July 1999
JOHNSTON, S.J., GILLMOR, S. & RUBY, D. (2001) Dave Winer, Pundit Programmer. XML & Web Services, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp.
23ff. San Mateo, CA: Fawcette Technical Publications, 12/01–01/02
JONES, R. (1972) The Third Wave, in: The Whole Earth Catalog. Menlo Park CA: Portola Institute
———– (1976) Take as Directed. The Co–Evolution Quarterly, No. 9, pp. 132–139. San Rafael CA: The Point Foundation,
Spring 1976
JÖRGENSON, L., KRIZ, R., MONES–HATTAL, B., ROGOWITZ, B. & FRACCHIA, F.D. (1995) Is Visualization Struggling under
the Myth of Objectivity? Proceedings of the 6th IEEE Conference on Visualization, pp. 412–415, Atlanta, GA / Los
Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 29.10.–3.11.95
JUNION–METZ, G. (2003) The Power of PowerPoint. School Library Journal, New York, NY, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 37–38
JUNG, Y. & MICHAELSON, G. (2000) A Visualisation of Polymorphic Type Checking. Journal of Functional Programming,
Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 57–75, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, January 2000
JURVIS, J. (1996) A Guide to Java Tools. InformationWeek, Manhasset, NY, Vol. 599, pp. 55–63, 30.9.96
JUST, M.R. & OGDEN, W. (1998) Effective Claims Presentations: Making Your Point. International Transactions of the AACE,
pp. LEG.05.1–7, Morgantown, WV: Am. Assoc. of C. Engineers
K
KAKUTANI, M. (2004) Who Are We? International Herald Tribune, Paris, FR, 2.6.04, p. 10
KALYUGA, S., CHANDLER, P. & SWELLER, J. (1998) Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design. Human Factors, Vol. 40,
No. 1, pp. 1–17, Santa Monica, CA: Elsevier Science Publishers / Pergamon Press, March 1998
KAMEI, S. (1993) Visualizational Study on Nucleate Pool Boiling Phenomena, in: DEWEY, J.M. et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the
SPIE 20th International Congress on High Speed Photography and Photonics, Vol. 1801, pp. 974–980
KAMINSKI, S.H. (2002) PowerPoint Presentations: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Lecture Supplement, « Business Communi-
cation for Managers » [ MBA.655 ] Bob Jones University, Greenville SC, Spring 2002
KAWASAKI, G. (1989) The Macintosh Way. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley
KAZUI, H., MORI, E., HASHIMOTO, M. et al. (2000) The Impact of Emotion on Memory. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
Vol. 177, No. 4, pp. 343–347, Stanford, UK: The Royal College of Psychiatrists / HighWire Press, Oct. 2000
———–(2003) Enhancement of Declarative Memory by Emotional Arousal and Visual Memory Function in Alzheimer’s
Disease. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 221–226
KEELER, D. (2004) United States: Fuller Disclosure. Global Finance, New York, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 6, 3/04
KELLAWAY, L. (2002) Going for a Song: Managers are Being Told to Try Singing Rather than Slides to Get Points Across.
Financial Times, London, UK, 15.7.02, p. 9
———–(2004) Once Upon a Time, We had Managers, Not Storytellers. Financial Times, London, 10.5.04, p. 10
KELLER, J. (2003) Killing Me Microsoftly. Chicago Tribune, Vol. 157, No. 5, p. 8, 5.1.03
KENNEDY, G.A. (1963) The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———–(1980) Classical Rhetoric and its Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. of N. Car. Press
KERN, K. (1997) I Think, Therefore Icon. Wired, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 5, No. 12, p. 273, 12/97
KHAN, I. (2001) Power Pointless. Asia Week, Hong Kong, CHN, Vol. 27, No. 22, p. 36, 1.6.2001
KINDLER, A.M. (1999) From Endpoints to Repertoires. Studies in Art Education, Reston, VA, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 330–349
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xiv
———–(2003) Commentary: Visual Culture, Visual Brain, and Education. Stud. Art Educ., Vol.44, No. 3, pp. 290–296
Reston, VA: National Art Education Association, Spring 2003
KINTSCH W. (1980) Learning from Text, Levels of Comprehension, or: Why Anyone Would Read a Story Anyway. Poetics. J.
Emp. Research, Vol. 9, No. 1–3, pp. 87–98, The Hague: Elsevier Science Publishers, June 1980
KITCATT, P. (2001) Keeping Creatives Away From Clients. Financial Times, London, UK, 21.4.04, p. 14
KOECHLIN, C. & ZWAAN, S. (2003) « Strategic Tools » , in: Improving School–Library Research Programs, p. 26
School Libraries in Canada, Ottawa, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 24–27
KOSSLYN, S.M. (1980) Images and Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
———– (1988) Aspects of a Cognitive Neuroscience of Mental Imagery. Science, 240 (4859) : 1621–1626, 17.6.1988
———–(1994) Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
———– (1995) Mental Imagery, in: OSHERSON, D.N. & GLEITMAN, L.R. (Ed.) An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol. 2
Visual Cognition, 2nd Ed. pp. 267–296, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
———–& MALJKOVIC, V., HAMILTON, S.E., HORWITZ, G., THOMPSON W.L. (1995) Two Types of Image Generation:
Evidence for Left and Right Hemisphere Processes. Neuropsychologia, Vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 1485–510, 11/95
KORNBLITH, G.J. & LASSER, C. (2003) More than Bells and Whistles? Using Digital Technology to Teach American History.
The Journal of American History, Vol. 89, No. 4, pp. 1456–1457, Bloomington, IN: OAH, March 2003
KOZIK, A., KOCHETKOVA, E. & MICHELMORE, R. (2002) Genome Pixelizer: A Visualization Program for Compara–tive Ge-
nomics. Bioinformatics, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 335–336, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Febr. 2002
KURTENBACH, G., FITZMAURICE, G., BAUDEL, T., & BUXTON, W. (1997) The Design of a GUI Paradigm based on Tablets,
Two–hands, and Transparency. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp.
35–42, Atlanta, GA / New York: ACM Press, 22–27.3.1997
KWATINETZ, M. (2001) The Big Tech Score. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons
KLEIN, D.H. (2002) Increasing Student Technology Skills through a Technology–Intensive Syllabus. Proceedings of the In–ter-
national Conference on Computers in Education, Vol. 2, pp. 1421–1422. Auckland, NZ / Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE
Computer Society Press, 3–6.12.02
KNAUFF, M., MULACK, T., KASSUBEK, J., SALIH, H. R. & GREENLEE, M. W. (2002) Spatial Imagery in Deductive Rea-
soning. Cognitive Brain Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 203–212, Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Sci. Pub., April 2002
KNUDSTRUP, M, SEGREST, S.L. & HURLEY, A.E. (2003) The Use of Mental Imagery in the Simulated Employment In–ter-
view Situation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 573–591, Bradford, UK: MCB Univ. Press
L
LABERIS, B. (2003) RIP, Best of Breed? Adweek Magazines’ Technology Marketing, New York, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 10, 2/03
LABERIS, W. (1996) Noli Obtundere. Computer World, Framingham, MA, 30 (11) : 37, 11.3.96
LAGE, M.J., PLATT, G.J. & TREGLIA, M. (2000) Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning En-
vironment. Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 30–43. Washington, DC: Heldref Publications, Win-
ter 2000
LAHEY, L. (2003) Keynote Presents a Stellar View. Computing Canada, Toronto, Vol. 29, No. 5, p. 28, 14.3.2003
LAISERIN, J. & LINN, C. (2000) Challenges for the Digital Generation: Is the Emphasis on Digital Tools Leading to the Ne-
glect of Important Skills? Architectural Record, Vol. 188, No. 12, pp. 166–174, New York, NY: McGraw–Hill, De-
cember 2000
LARKIN, J.H. & SIMON, H.A. (1987) Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science,
Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 65–99, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, January–March 1987
LAPORTE, R.E., LINKOV, F., VILLASENOR, T., SAUER, F., GAMBOA, C., LOVALEKAR, M., SHUBNIKOV, E., SEKIKAWA, A. &
SA, E.R. (2002) Papyrus to PowerPoint (P2P): Metamorphosis of Scientific Communication. British Medical Journal,
Vol. 325, No. 7378, pp. 1478–81, London: BMJ Publishing Group, 21–28.12.02
LASSWELL, H.D (1948) The Structure and Function of Communication in Society, in: BRYSON, L. (Ed.) The Communication
of Ideas, pp. 32–51, New York: Harper
LEE, S.J. (1998) A Theory of Low Involvement Learning, in: Low Involvement Theory in Advertising, Chapter 4
Term Paper, PhD Prosem. Advertising Studies, Dept. Advert., University of Texas, Austin, TX, Fall 1998
URL: http://ciadvertising.org/studies/student/99_fall/phd/sejin/theory [ last accessed 19.11.04 ]
LEJA, M. (2001) « Reality Effects » , in: Eakins and Icons, pp. 490f. The Art Bulletin, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 479–497
New York, NY: College Art Association of America [ CAA ] September 2001
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xv
LENTH, R.V. (2004) The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99 (466) : 569, 6/04
LEVIN, J.R., SHRIBERG, L.K., & BERRY, J.K. (1983) A Concrete Strategy for Remembering Abstract Prose. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, Washington, DC, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 277–290, Summer 1983
———– GLASMAN, L.D. & NORDWALL, M.B. (1992) Mnemonic Vocabulary Instruction: Additional Effectiveness Evidence.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 156–174, New York, NY: Academic Press / Elsevier Science
Publishers, April 1992
LEVINE, J. (2004) Hero or Goat? Training & Development Journal, Alexandria, VA, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 65–66, 1/04
LEVINE, M. (2001) Guide to Managerial Communication: Effective Business Writing and Speaking. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 252–254. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, April 2001
LI, Y., LANDAY, J.A., GUAN, Z., REN, X. & DAI, G. (2003) Sketching Informal Presentations. Proceedings of the 5th Interna-
tional Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 234–241, Vancouver / New York: ACM Press, 5–7.11.03
LIN, C.Y.Y. (2002) Empowerment in the Service Industry: An Empirical Study. The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 136, No. 5,
pp. 533–554, Provincetown, MA / Washington, DC: Journal Press, Heldref Publications
LINDSTROM, R.L. (1995) Software Curriculum. Training, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. A–H, Minneapolis, MN: INTERTEC Publishing,
August 1995
———– (1998) Presentation Intelligence: The Evolution of Presentations in the New Enterprise. Presentations, Vol. 12, No.
10, pp. P1, 4–22, Minneapolis, MN: Lakewood Publications, 3.10.98
LONARDO, A., LONARDO, M. & MCDONALD, B. (1995) Navigating the Internet: Evaluating GPH Clients for Win-
dows. Computers in Libraries, Vol. 15, No. 16, pp. 55–62, Westport–London: Meckler, June 1995
LONG, J.F., HOLLERAN, T.A. & ESTERLY, E. (2001) The Effectiveness of Persuasive Messages: Comparing Tradtional and
Computerized Texts. Theory into Practice, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 265–269, Columbus: OH St. Univ., Aut. 2001
LORGE, S. (1997) Let There Be Light. Sales & Marketing Management, New York, Vol. 149, No. 12, pp. 87–92, 11/97
LOVELACE, H.W. (2001) The Medium Is More Than The Message. InformationWeek, Manhasset, NY, 846, 74, 16.7.01
LUSTBERG, A. (2004) Story Power. Library Administrator’s Digest, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 39, No. 1, p. 4, 1/04
M
MACCOBY N. (1992) Die Neue « Wissenschaftliche Rhetorik » , in: BURKART, R. (Ed.) Wirkungen der Massenkommunikation:
Theoretische Ansätze und Empirische Ergebnisse, pp. 8–15, Vienna: Braumüller
MACDONALD, A. (2003) Images That Last: The Amygdala and Emotional Memory. Brain Work Neuroscience Newsletter, Vol.
13, No. 5, pp. 1–3, Washington, DC: Dana Press, September / October 2003
MACIAG, G.A. (1994) Computer Icons Go Back to Basics. National Underwriter, Vol. 98, No. 37, pp. 36–37, 12.9.94
MACKENZIE, I.S. (1992). Fitts’ Law as a Research and Design Tool in Human–Computer Interaction. Human–Computer In-
teraction, Vol. 7, pp. 91–139, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
———–& BUXTON, W. (1992) Extending Fitts’ Law to Two–Dimensional Tasks. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 219–226, New York: ACM Press
MACKENZIE, M. (2003) From Athens to Berlin: The 1936 Olympics and Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia. Critical Inquiry, Vol.
29, No. 2, pp. 302–237, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, Winter 2003
MACKENZIE, S.B. (1986) The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising on Attribute Importance
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 174–195, Gainesville, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, Sept. 1986
MACKINLAY, J. (1986) Automating the Design of Graphical Presentations. ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.
110–141, New York: ACM Press, April 1986
MAGUIRE, E.A., FRITH, C.D. & MORRIS, R.G.M. (1999) The Functional Neuroanatomy of Comprehension and Memory.
Brain, Vol. 122, No. 10, pp. 1839–1850, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, October 1999
MAHIN, L. (2004) PowerPoint Pedagogy. Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 219–222. New York: SAGE
Publications, June 2004
MAHON, M. (2000) The Visible Evidence of Cultural Producers. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 29, pp. 467–492
MAI, N & NEO, K. (2000) Using Agents, Guides and Characters. Computimes Malaysia, NY/Kuala Lumpur, 25.5.00 p. 42
MAMOLA, K.C. (2004) (Power)Point to Ponder. The Physics Teacher, College Park, MD, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 134–135
MAMYKINA, L, MYNATT, E. & TERRY, M.A. (2001) Time Aura: Interfaces for Pacing. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 144 – 151, Seattle, WA / New York, NY: ACM Press, 30.3.–5.4.01
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xvi
MANDLER, G. (1991) Your Face Looks Familiar, But I Can’t Remember Your Name: A Review of Dual–Process Theory, in:
HOCKEY, W.E. et al. (Eds.) Relating Theory and Data: Essays on Human Memory, pp. 207–225
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
MANEY, K. (1999) PowerPoint Obsession Takes Off: Armed With PowerPoint, Speakers Make Pests of Themselves. USA To-
day, McLean VA, 12.5.99, p. B3
MARCOM, J. JR. & BELLEW, P.A. (1985) Slow Response: Schools Keep Buying Computers, But Pupils May Not Benefit
Much. Wall Street Journal, New York, Vol. CCII, No. 212, p. 1, 17.4.85
MARCUS, A. (1993) Human Communications Issued in Advanced UIs. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 100–
109, New York: ACM Press, April 1993
———–& BAUMGARTNER, V.J. (2004) A Visible Language Analysis of User–Interface Design Components and Culture Di-
mensions. Visible Language Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 2–65
MARION, R. (2002) The Influence of Technological Change on Teaching and Learning in the Academy. Journal of Phys. Tpy.
Educ., Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 23–30, St. Louis: APTA, Winter 2002
MARKS, D.F. (1989) On the Relationship between Imagery, Body and Mind, in: HAMPSON, P.J. et al. (Eds.) Imagery: Cur-
rent Developments, pp. 1–38, London, UK: Routledge, Chapman & Hall
MARTIN, J. (1984) Presentation Graphics. Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, pp. 23–26,
Reno, NV / New York, NY: ACM Press, 11–14.11.84
———–(1989) Workhorse Graphics. Proceedings of the 17th User Services Conference, pp. 201–204. Bethesda, MD / New
York, NY: ACM Press, 1–4.10.89
MARTIN, J.A. (1992) Slides While You Wait. Mac World, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 9, No. 8, pp. 146–152, 8/92
MARTIN, L. (1996) Persuasive Presentations. Proceedings of the 26th Annual IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Vol. 1,
pp. 13–15, Salt Lake City, UT / New York: ACM Press, 6–9.11.96
MASIE, E. (2003) The Next Era of Virtual Classrooms. E–Learning, Duluth, MN, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 16
MASON, L. (2001) The Process of Change through Persuasion: A Commentary. International Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 35, No. 7–8, pp. 715–729, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers / Pergamon Press
MASTEN, S.J., CHEN, K.C., GRAULAU, J., KARI, S.L. & LEE, K.H. (2002) A Web–based and Group Learning Environment
for Introductory Environmental Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 91, No. 1,
pp. 69–80, Washington, DC: ASEE, January 2002
MATHIAS, C.J. (1995) Adventures with Presentation Graphics. SIGGRAPH / NE Feature Article, Boston, MA, May 1995
MATTSON, C.E. & DUFF, D.C. (2004) Professor or Poulterer? Cultivating Rel. Higher Education in the Postmodern Turn.
Cn. Schol. Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 333–344. Holland, MI: Hope College Press, Spring 2004
MAULITZ, R.C. (2003) Slide On Over. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 77, No. 4, pp. 927–935, Baltimore, MD: John
Hopkins University Press, Winter 2003
MAYER, R.E. (2001) Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
———–& ANDERSON, R.B. (1991) Animations need Narrations: An Experimental test of a Dual–Coding Hypothesis. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 484–490, Washington, DC: Am. Psych. Org, December 1991
———–& CHANDLER, P. (2001) When Learning Is Just a Click Away: Does Simple User Interaction Foster Deeper Under-
standing of Multimedia Messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 93, No. 2, pp. 390–397, 6/01
———–& GALLINI, J. (1990) When is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words? Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.
82, No. 4, pp. 715–726, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, December 1990
———–& HEISER, J., LONN, S. (2001) Cognitive Constraints on Multimedia Learning: When Presenting More Material
Results in Less Understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 187–198, 3/01
———–& MORENO, R. (1998) A Split–Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in
Working Memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 2, pp. 312–230, 6/98
———–& MORENO, R. (2003) Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, Vol.
38, No. 1, pp. 43–52, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Summer 2003
———–& MORENO, R., BOIRE, M., VAGGE, S. (1999) Maximizing Constructivist Learning from Multimedia Communica-
tions by Minimizing Cognitive Load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4) : 638–643, 12/99
MAZEN, A.M. (2000) Like Water for Chocolate. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 304–312, Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, June 2000
MCALEESE, R. (1999) Concept Mapping – A Critical Review. Innovations in Education and Training International, Vol. 36,
No. 4, pp. 351–360, London, UK: Kogan–Page Publishers, November 1999
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xvii
MCCANNON, M. & MORSE, G.E. (1999) Using Multimedia Visual Aids in Presentations. Tech. Trends, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp.
29–31, Washington, DC: Assoc. for Educational Communications and Technology, December 1999
MCCORMICK, B.H., DEFANTI, T.A. & BROWN, M.D. (1987) Visualization in Scientific Computing. Computer Graphics,
Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 1–14, New York: ACM Press, November 1987
MCDANIEL, L. & KENT, S. (2002) Beyond PowerPoint. Association Management, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 60–64, Washington,
DC: American Society of Association Executives, February 2002
MCKENZIE, J. (2003) Beyond Edutainment and Technotainment. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 26 (4) : 26–28
MCKIERNAN, G. (2000) The Static and the Dynamic. Technicalities, Kansas City, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 1, 11–14, 6/00
MCKIM, R.H. (1980) Experiences in Visual Thinking. Monterey, CA: Brooks / Cole
MCLUHAN, M. (1964) Understanding Media. New York: McGraw–Hill
———–& FIORE, Q. (1967) The Medium Is the Message: An Inventory of Effects. New York: Bantam Books
MCMILLAN, J.J. & HYDE, M.J. (2000) Technological Innovation and Change: A Case Study in the Formation of Organiza-
tional Conscience. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 19–47, Annandale, VA: Routledge, February
2000
MCNALLY, R.J. (2000) Emotion Research in Cognitive–Behaviour Therapy: Obstacles to Application. Clinical Psychology: Sci-
ence and Practice, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 400–402, Oxford, UK: APA / Oxford University Press, Winter 2000
MCQUARRIE, E.F. & MICK, D.G. (1992) On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric. Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 180–197, Gainesville, IL: The University of Chicago Press, Sept. 1992
———– (1999) Visual Rhetoric in Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 37–54, 6/99
MEILACH, D.Z. (1986) Dynamics of Presentation Graphics. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones–Irwin
MENDELSON, E. (2004) Office Tools. PC Magazine, New York, NY, 23 (10) : 130, 8.6.04
MERRITT, M. (2000) Biz Presenter. Presentations, Minneapolis, MN, 14 (12 ) : 21, 12/00
———–REGENOLD, S., HILL, J. & SIMONS, T. (2001) On With the Show. Presentations, Vol. 15, No. 12, pp. A.12f, 35f.
Minneapolis, MN: VNU / Lakewood Publications, December 2001
MESSARIS, P. (1992) Visual Manipulation: Visual Means of Affecting Responses to Images. Communication, Vol. 13, No. 3,
pp. 181–195, New York, NY / Langhorne, PA: Gordon & Breach
———– (1994) Visual « Literacy » : Image, Mind, and Reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
———– (1997) Visual Persuasion. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
METALLINOS, N. (1996) Television Aesthetics: Perceptual, Cognitive, and Compositional Bases. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
———–(1998) Visual Persuasion. Canadian Journal of Communication, Calgary, AL, CAN, 23 (2), 1/98
MEYERS–LEVY, J. & MALAVIYA, P. (1999) Consumers’ Processing of Persuasive Advertisements: An Integrative Framework of
Persuasion Theories. Journal of Marketing, Chicago, IL, Vol. 63, Spec. Iss., pp. 45–60
MILLER, C. et al. (2001) Licensure of Genetic Counselors, in: ESTABROOKS, S.E. & MELVIN, E.C. (Eds.) Abstracts From the
20th Annual Education Conference of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, pp. 518–519. Journal of Genetic
Counseling, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 433–526. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers, December 2001
MILLER, G. R. (1980) On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions, in: ROLOFF, M.E. et al. (Eds.) Persuasion: New Direc-
tions in Theory and Research, pp. 11–28, Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
MILLER, M.J. (1988) Persuasion Combines Outlining and Desktop Presentation. Inf. World, 10 (51) : 58, 19.12.1988
MILLER, R.B., WILLIAMS, G.A. & HAYASHI, A.M. (2004) The Five Paths to Persuasion: The Art of Selling Your Message. New
York: Warner Business Books
MILLS, H. (2000) Artful Persuasion: The New Psychology of Influence. New York: AMACOM Books
MINIARD, P.W., BHATLA, S., LORD, K.R., DICKSON, P.R. & UNNAVA, H.R. (1991) Picture–based Persuasion Processes and
the Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 92–107, 6/99
MINTON, L., BOYLE, R. & DIMITROVA, V. (2004) If Diversity Is a Problem, Could E–Learning Be Part of the Solution? Pro-
ceedings of the 9th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 42–46.
Leeds, UK / New York: ACM Press, 28–30.6.04
MITCHELL, A.A. (1986) The Effect of Verbal and Visual Components of Advertisements on Brand Attitudes and Attitude
Toward the Advertisement. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, 12–24, 6/86
———– & OLSON, J.C. (1981) Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitudes?
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 318–332, Chicago, IL: AMA, Aug. 1981
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xviii
MITCHELL, S.K. (2003) To Build a Relationship with the Audience, You Need to Get Personal. Presentations, 17 (3) : 54
MOLYNEUX, A.J. (2003) How to Choose and Use a Computer. N. Researcher, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 73–82, 1/03
MOLINARO, H. (2002) Streamlined Interface for Measurement Software. Plastics Engineering, Vol. 58, No. 9, pp. 57–58
MÖLLER, E. (2002) The Beauty of Bullet Points. InfoAnarchy BLOG Site, Pasco, WA, 19.9.02
URL: http://www.infoanarchy.org/story/2002/9/19/92834/2059 [ accessed 16.8.2004 ]
MONROE, A.H., EHNINGER, D., GRONBECK, B. AND MCKERROW, R.E. (1999) Principles and Types of Speech Communica-
tion. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
MONTEITH, M. & WINTERS, J. (2002) Why We Hate. Psychology Today, New York, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 44–51, 5/02
MOORE, C. (2003) Concentering Digital Data. Inf. World, San Mateo, CA, Vol. 25, No. 5, p. 29, 3.2.03
MOORE, D., M., BURTON, J. K., & MYERS, R. J. (1996) Multiple–Channel Communication: The Theoretical and Research
Foundations of Multimedia, in: JONASSEN, D.H. (Ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and
Technology, pp. 851–875, New York, NY: Macmillan
MORENO, R. & MAYER, R. E. (2000) Engaging Students in Active Learning: The Case for Personalized Multimedia Mes-
sages. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 724–733, Washington, DC: APA, December 2000
MORGAN, W.K. (1997) On Evidence, Embellishment and Efficacy. J. Eval. C. Pract., Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 117–22
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Publishing, April 1997
MORGAN, N. (2003) Working the Room: How to Move People to Action through Audience–Centered Speaking. Watertown, MA:
Harvard Business School Press
MORGAN, S.E. & REICHERT, T. (1999) The Message Is in the Metaphor: Assessing the Comprehension of Metaphors in Ad-
vertisements. Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 1–12, Provo, UT / Athens, GA /Minneapolis, MN: Am. Acad.
Advert., Univ. of Minnesota, Winter 1999
MORRISON, R.G. & WALLACE, B. (2001) Imagery Vividness, Creativity, and the Visual Arts. Journal of Mental Imagery, Vol.
25, No. 3/4, pp. 135–152, New York, NY: Brandon House
MÜLLER, A. (2004) « You Have Been Framed. » Studies in the Novel, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 185–205, Denton, TX: University of
North Texas Press, Summer 2004
MUNTER, M. (1997) Guide to Managerial Communication: Effective Business Writing and Speaking, 4th Ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice–Hall / Pearson Educational Publishers
MURALI, D. (2004) Speed is the Key to Post–Budget Publications. Business Line, Chennai, IND, 13.7.04, p. 19
MURPHY, D. (1997) In Search of a Sharper Image. Financial Times, London, UK, 5.9.97, p. 12
MURPHY, H., HILDEBRANDT, H., & THOMAS, J. (1997) Effective Business Communication. New York, NY: McGraw–Hill.
MURPHY, N. (2001) Usability for Graphical User Interfaces. Embedded Systems Programming, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 47–60
———–(2002) Points about PowerPoint, in: « Training for the Long Run », pp. 46f. Embedded Systems Programming, Vol.
15, No. 8, pp. 45–47, San Francisco, CA: CMP / Miller Freeman Publications, August 2002
MURPHY, P.K. (2001) Teaching As Persuasion: A New Metaphor For A New Decade. Theory into Practice, Vol. 40, No. 4,
pp. 224–227, Columbus: Ohio State University, College of Education, Autumn 2001
———–& ALEXANDER, P.A. (2004) Persuasion as a Dynamic, Multidimensional Process: An Investigation of Individual and
Intraindividual Differences. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 337–363
MURRAY, N.M., MANRAI, L.A. et al. (1998) How Super are Video Supers? A Test of Communication Efficacy. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 24–34, Chicago, IL: AMA, Spring 1998
MYERS, B.A., CHANDHOK, R. & SAREEN, A. (1988) Automatic Data Visualization. Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Visual
Languages, pp. 192–198. Pittsburgh, PA: IEEE, 10–12.10.88
N
NAHARRO–BERROCAL, F., PAREJA–FLORES, C., URQUIZA–FUENTES, J. & VELÁZQUEZ–ITURBIDE, J.Á. (2002) Approaches to
Comprehension–Preserving Graphical Reduction of Program Visualizations. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on
Applied Computing, pp. 771–777. Madrid / New York: ACM Press, 11–14.3.02
NAJJAR, L.J. (1995) Dual Coding as a Possible Explanation for the Effects of Multimedia on Learning. Technical Report, GIT–
GVU–95–29, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 15.9.95
NASS, C. et al. (1998) Are Computers Scapegoats? Attributions of Responsibility in Human–Computer Interaction
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 79–94, Toronto: Erlbaum, July 1998
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xix
NAUGHTON, J. (2003a) PowerPoint Panders To Our Weaker Points. The Observer, 12.1.03, p. 6
London, UK: The Guardian Publications
———–(2003b) How PowerPoint Can Fatally Weaken Your Argument. The Observer, London, UK, 21.12.03, p. 6
NEEDLEMAN, R. (1991) Presentation Giants to Redefine the Market. Inf. World, San Mateo, CA, 13 (31) : 1–2, 5.8.91
NELSON, D. L. (1979) Remembering Pictures and Words: Appearance, Significance, and Name, in: CERMAK, L.S. et al.
(Eds.) Levels of Processing in Human Memory, pp. 45–76, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
———–& REED, U.S., WALLING, J.R. (1976) Picture Superiority Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning
& Memory, Vol. 2, pp. 523–528, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
NELSON, L., ICHIMURA, S., PEDERSEN, E.R. & ADAMS, L. (1999) Palette: A Paper Interface for Giving Presentations, Pro-
ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 354–361. Pittsburgh / New York: ACM
Press, 15–20.5.99
NEWELL, A. (1990) Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
NEWMAN, L. (2003) Why Can’t Everything Be Auto–Mac–Tic? Presentations, Minneapolis, MN, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 9, 4/03
VNU / Lakewood Publications
NIELSEN, J. (1993) Non–Command User Interfaces. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 82–99, New York, NY:
ACM Press, April 1993
———– (1994) Usability Engineering. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers
———–& MACK, R.L. (1994) Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons
NIEMELÄ, M. & SAARINEN, J. (2000) Visual Search for Grouped Versus Ungrouped Icons in a Computer Interface
Human Factors, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 630–635, Santa Monica, CA: Elsevier / Pergamon Press Winter 2000
NISBETT, R. & ROSS, L. (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice–Hall / Pearson Educational Publishers
NORVIG, P. (2003a) The Gettysburg PowerPoint Presentation. American Heritage, New York, NY, Vol. 54, No. 3, p. 11
———–(2003b) PowerPoint: Shot with its Own Bullets. The Lancet, Vol. 362, No. 9381, pp. 343–344, London, UK: El-
sevier Science Publishers, 2.8.03
NUNBERG, G. (1999) The Trouble with PowerPoint. Fortune, New York, NY, Vol. 140, No. 2, pp. 330–331, 20.12.99
NUSSBAUM, M.C. (1995) Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 249–291, Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University Press, Fall 1995
NUTT, H. (2002) Die Schönen Bilder von PowerPoint. Frankfurter Rundschau, Frankfurt/M, 30.1.02, p. 18
O
OGILVY, D. (1995) Ogilvy on Advertising. London, UK: Prion Books / Random House
OPPENHEIM, L. et al. (1981) A Study of the Effects of the Use of Overhead Transparencies on Business Meetings
Working Paper, Wharton Applied Research Center, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
ORREN, G. (2000) Gore vs. Bush: Why it’s All Greek to Me, in: Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government Bulletin
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Autumn 2000
OWEN, G.S. (1999) Definitions and Rationale for Visualization, in: HyperVis — Teaching Scientific Visualization Using Hy-
permedia. New York: ACM SIGGRAPH
P
PAIVIO, A. (1986) Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
———–(2001) Imagery and Text: A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
———–& CSAPO, K. (1973) Picture Superiority in Free Recall: Imagery or Dual Coding? Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 5, pp.
176–206, San Diego, CA: Academic Press
———–& ROGERS, T.B., SMYTHE, P.C. (1968) Why Are Pictures Easier to Recall than Words? Psychonomic Science, Vol.
11, No. 4, pp. 137–138, Austin, TX: Psychon. Soc. Publications, 5.6.1968
PAJARES, A., GUERRI, J.C., BELDA, A., CERMENO, J.J., PALAU, C. & ESTEVE, M. (2002) FMFMoD: A New System for Media
on Demand Presentations. Proceedings of the 28th Euromicro Conference, pp. 160–167, Dortmund, DE / Los Alami-
tos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 4–6.9.02
PARKER, I. (2001) Absolute PowerPoint. The New Yorker, Vol. 77, No. 13, pp. 76, 78–80, 85–87, New York: F–R Publish-
ing / The Condé Nast Publications, 28.5.2001
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xx
PARKER, J. & ALLMARK, R. (2003) A Sense of Progress. HD Journal f. HC, Design & Developmt., Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 8–10
Foots Cray, UK: Wilmington Publishing, January 2003
PARKER, R.D & HILDEBRANT, H.W. (1996) Business Communication & Architectural Approaches. Management Communi-
cation Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 227–242, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Nov. 1996
PASSERINI, K. & GRANGER, M.J. (1999) Integration of Instructional Approaches through Media Combination. Campus–Wide
Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 162ff. Bradford, UK: MCB University Press
PATERSON, K. (2000) Making an Impact with Speeches and Presentations. Rough Notes, Vol. 143, No. 6, pp. 118–124
PATHAK, A. (2001) Teaching and Assessing Multimedia–Based Oral Presentations. Business Communication Quarterly, Vol.
64, No. 4, pp. 63–71. New York: SAGE Publications, December 2001
PATTEN, J. & ISHII, H. (2000) Comparison of Spatial Organization Strategies in Graphical and Tangible User Interfaces. Pro-
ceedings of the Conference on Designing Augmented Reality Environments, pp. 41–50, Elsinore, DK / New York: ACM
Press
PEARSON, L.T. (1994) Showing Off: Technology and Techniques Towards More Effective, Persuasive Presentations Office
Systems, Vol. 11, No. 11, pp. 34–37, Mount Airy, NC: Quality Publishing, 11/94
PEASE, W. (2004) What is All This Analog PowerPoint Stuff, Anyhow? Electronic Design Journal, Vol. 52 (7 ) : 18, 29.3.04
PERELMAN, C. & OLBRECHTS–TYTECA, L. (1992) Traité de L’Argumentation : La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Brussels, BE: Editions
de L’ Université de Bruxelles
PETERS, E.E. & LEVIN, J.R. (1986) Effects of a Mnemonic Imagery Strategy on Good and Poor Readers’ Prose Recall. Read-
ing Research Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 179–192, Newark, NJ: Intl. Reading Assoc., April 1986
PETERSON, V.V. (2001) The Rhetorical Criticism of Visual Elements: An Alternative to Foss’s Schema. The Southern Commu-
nication Journal, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 19–32, Memphis, TN: SSCA, Fall 2001
PETRELEY, N. (1999) Items to Memorize. Inf. World, San Mateo, CA, 21 (34) : 96, 23.8.99
PETROSKI, H. (2004) Refractions: Changing Slides. Am. Soc. Engineering Educ. [ ASEE ] Prism Journal, Vol. 13, No. 7, p. 22
Washington, DC: ASEE, March 2004
PETTY, R.E., & CACIOPPO, J.T. (1984) Attitudes and Persuasion. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark Publications
———–(1984) Communication and Persuasion. New York, NY: Springer–Verlag
———–& SEDIKES, C., STRATHMAN, A.J. (1988) Affect and Persuasion. A Contemporary Perspective. American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 355–371, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Jan / Feb 1988
PHILLIPS, B.J. & MCQUARRIE, E.F. (2004) Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhetoric in Advertising.
Marketing Theory, Vol. 4, No. 1/2, pp. 113–136, London, UK: SAGE Publications, June 2004
PINKER, S. (1986) Visual Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
———– (1997) How The Mind Works. New York, NY: WW. Norton
PIRNER, P. (2001) Brighten Your Presentation Visuals with Fresh Images. InfoComm. News & Information Network
Fairfax, VA: Intl. Communic. Industr. Assoc., 18.5.2K1
PITTA, D.A. (2001) Internet Currency. The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 4/5, pp. 322–327, Santa Barbara, CA:
MCB University Press
POLSON, P. G., LEWIS, C., RIEMAN, J. & WHARTON, C. (1992) Cognitive Walkthroughs: A Method for Theory–Based
Evaluation of User Interfaces. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 741–773, New
York / San Diego, CA: Academic Press
POSNER, M.I. & RAICHLE, M.E. (1997) Images of Mind. New York, NY: Miller–Freeman
POST, F.H., POST, F.J., VAN WALSUM, T. & SILVER, D. (1995) Iconic Techniques for Feature Visualization. Proceedings of the
6th IEEE conference on Visualization, pp. 288–295, Atlanta, GA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 29.10.–3.11.95
POULSEN, P. (1982) How the • got its Name. The Record, Baltimore, MD, Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 19, 10/82
POWELL, J.E., LASKY, M.S., BRANDT, A., O’REILLY, D. et al. (2000) G. Softw. PC World, Vol. 18, No. 12, pp. 149–158
POWERS, V. (2004) Collaboration and Storytelling. Knowledge Management [ KM ] World, Camden, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 14–16
PRATT, C.B. (2003) The Misuse of PowerPoint. Public Relations Quarterly, Rhinebeck, NY, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 20–24, 3/03
PRESS, L. (2000) From P–Books to E–Books. Communications of the ACM, Vol.43, No. 5, pp. 17–21, New York: ACM Press
PRICE, J. (1999) STOP: Light on the History of Outlining. ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, Vol. 23,
No. 3, pp. 69–78, New York: ACM Press, August 1999
PYLYSHYN, Z.W. (1984) Computation and Cognition: Towards a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xxi
———–(2002) Stalking the Elusive Mental Image Screen. Behavioural & Brain Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 216–237
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, December 2002
Q
QUAISER–POHL, C. & LEHMANN, W. (2002) Charting the Contributions of Experiences and Attitudes in Different Academic
Groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 245–260
QIN, J. & NORTON, M.J. (1999) « Introduction » , in: JIAN, Q. et al. (Eds.) Library Trends, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 1–8
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, Summer 1999
R
RABINOVITCH, I. (2003) Tech Novations. CA Magazine, Toronto, 136 (2 ) : 14, 3/03
RAGGETT, D., LE HORS, A. & JACOBS, I. (1997) HTML 4.0 Specification. W3C Proposed Recommendation, Sophia Antipolis,
7.11.97
RAMALINGAM, A. (2004) Of the Medium and the Message. The Financial Express, Sunday Ed., Bombay, IND, 1.2.04 : 8
RAMEY, J. & MILLER, M. (2000) High–Tech Publications Need Old–Fashioned Editing. Proceedings of IEEE Professional Com-
munication Society International Professional Communication Conference and Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM In-
ternational Conference on Computer Documentation, pp. 145–154, Cambridge, MA / Piscataway, NJ / New York: ACM
Press / IEEE, 24–27.9.2000
RANDALL, N. & PEDERSEN, I. (1998) Who Exactly is Trying to Help Us? The Ethos of Help Systems in Popular Computer
Applications. Proceedings of the 16th annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, pp. 63–69, Québec
City / New York: ACM Press, 24–26.9.98
RAO, R. & CARD, S.K. (1994) The Table Lens: Merging Graphical and Symbolic Representations in an Interactive Focus +
Context Visualization for Tabular Information. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, pp. 318–322, Boston / New York: ACM Press, 24–28.4.9
RAYMOND, J. (2002) When the Mind Blinks: Attentional Limitations to the Perception of Sequential Visual Images, in:
SCOTT, L. & BATRA, R. (Eds.) Persuasive Imagery, pp. 59–74, London, UK / Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
READY, D.A. (2002) How Storytelling Builds Next–Generation Leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.
63–69, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Summer 2002
REDFERN–JONES, J. (2003) Well Presented. N. Standard, Harrow–on–the–Hill, UK, 17 (29) : 96, 2–8.4.03
REDDY, R. (2003) Virtual Scaffolding. Intelligent Enterprise, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 44–46, San Mateo, CA: CMP / Miller Freeman
Publishers, 20.3.03
REESE, E.B. (1997) Mind Mapping: Postmodern Pedagogy With or Without Computers. Art Education, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp.
25–31, Reston, VA: Natl. Art Education Association, November 1997
REGENOLD, S. (2002) New PowerPoint, No Viewer in Sight. Presentations, 16 (6) : 19, 1.6.02
———– (2003) PowerPoint Counterpoint. Presentations, Minneapolis, MN, Vol. 17, No. 11, pp. 31–33, 11/03
REILLY, R. (2004) Delivering Effective Presentations with OpenOffice.org’s Impress. Linux Journal, No. 119, pp. 46ff. Seat-
tle, WA /New York, NY: ACM Press / SSC, March 2004
REIMOLD, P. et al. (2003) The Short Road to Great Presentations. Hoboken / Piscataway, NJ: Wiley–IEEE Press
RENSBERGER, D. (2004) The Power of Slides. Searcher, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 33–36, 3/04
RICHARDSON, R.C. JR. (1917) West Point. New York / London, UK: GP Putnam’s Sons
RICUCCI, R. (2004) You Need More Than a Smile and a Shoeshine. Security Systems News, 7 (2 ) : 15, 2/04
RIEBER, L.P. (1990) Animation in Computer–Based Instruction. Educational Technology, Research & Development, Vol. 38,
No. 1, pp. 77–86. Bloomington, IN: AECT, January 1990
RIENER, C.R., STEFANUCCI, J.K., PROFFITT, D. & CLORE, G. (2003) An Effect of Mood on Perceiving Spatial Layout. Jour-
nal of Vision, Vol. 3, No. 9, p. 227a, Proc. of the 3rd annual Vision Sciences Society Meeting, Sarasota, 9–14.5.03
RIES, A. & L. (2002) The Twenty–Two Immutable Laws of Branding. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers
ROBERTS, E. (1996) Tools for Creating Portable Demonstration Programs. Proceedings of the first Conference on Integrating
Technology into Computer Science Education, pp. 78–80, Barcelona, ES / New York, NY: ACM Press, 2–6.6.96
ROBERTSON, P.K. (1991) A Methodology for Choosing Data Representations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol.
11, No. 3, pp. 56–68, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, May 1991
ROBERTSON, G., CARD, S. & MACKINLAY, J. (1993) Information Visualization Using 3D Interactive Animation. Communica-
tions of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 57–71, New York, NY: ACM Press, April 1993
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xxii
ROBINSON, D., ROBINSON, S. & KATAYAMA, A (1999) When Words Are Represented in Memory Like Pictures: Evidence for
Spatial Encoding of Study Materials. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 38–54, San Diego,
CA: Elsevier / Academic Press, January 1999
ROGERS, E.M. et al. (2003) Learning Reconsidered: Education in the Digital Age: Communications, Convergence and the
Curriculum. Journ. M. Communic. Educ., Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 306–309, Columbia, SC: AEJMC, Winter 2003
ROLLINS, M. (1992) Mental Imagery: On the Limits of Cognitive Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
———–(1999) Pictorial Representation: When Cognitive Science Meets Aesthetics. Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 4,
pp. 387–388, Abingdon, UK: Carfax Publishing, December 1999
ROSENBOOM, L. (1998) Einführung und Beispiele, in: Fisheye Views und Multitrees. Sem. Paper, « Visuelle Werkzeuge zur
aufgabenorientierten Dialoggestaltung » , Univ. Paderborn, SS.98–WS.98/99
URL: http://www.uni–paderborn.de/cs/ag–szwillus/lehre/vw/seminare/fisheye [ accessed 26.11.04 ]
ROSENZWEIG, R. (2001) The Road to Xanadu: Public and Private Pathways on the History Web. The Journal of American
History, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 548–579, Bloomington, IN: Org. Am. Hist., September 2001
ROSKOS–EWOLDSEN, B., INTONS–PETERSON, M.J. & ANDERSON, R.E. (1993) Imagery, Creativity, and Discovery: A Cogni-
tive Perspective. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science Publishers
ROTELLA, M., GOLD, S.F., ANDRIANI, L., SCHARF, M. & CHENOWETH, E. (2003) A Million Little Pieces. Publishers Weekly,
Vol. 250, No. 10, p. 67, New York, NY: Reed–Elsevier, March 10, 2003
ROVIN, J. (2003) Science Fiction Cinema. Chronicle, Vol. 25, No. 11 (242) pp. 12–16, 12/03
ROYSE, H. (1994) Points for Presentation. Accountancy, Vol. 114, No. 1214, p. 92, 10/94
RUBIN, R.S. (1995) ClarisImpact Packs Presentation Punch. MacWeek, New York, Vol. 9, No. 38, pp. 83–84, 25.9.95
RUBIN, J.T. & HARRIS, D.G. (1998) Technology in the Classroom? The Tax Adviser, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 125–126
RUFF, C.C., KNAUFF, M., FANGMEIER, T. & SPREER, J. (2003) Reasoning and Working Memory: Common and Distinct
Neuronal Processes. Neuropsychologia, Vol. 41, No. 9, pp. 1241–1253, Oxford, UK: Elsevier / Pergamon Press
RUSSELL, L. (1992) A Guide to Speechwriting, Executive Speeches, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 62–65, 8/92
RUNNER, A. (2004) Has PowerPoint Made Presentations Pointless? Sanitary Maintenance, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 14–17
Milwaukee: Trade Press Publishing, February 2004
S
SABELLA, R.A. & BOOKER, B.L. (2003) Using Technology to Promote Your Guidance and Counseling Program Among Stake
Holders. Professional School Counseling, Alexandria, VA, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 204–213, 2/03
SADOSKI, M. & PAIVIO, A. (2001) Imagery and Text: A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
SAIGH, R.A. (1998) The International Dictionary of Data Communications. Chicago, IL / New York, NY: AMACOM Books
SAINT–MARTIN, F. (1990) Semiotics of Visual Language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
SAJANIEMI, J. & KUITTINEN, M. (1998) Systems for Multiple–Level Teaching Materials. SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.
59–61, New York, NY: ACM Press, December 1998
———– (1999) Three–Level Teaching Material for Computer–Aided Lecturing. Computers & Education, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.
269–284, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers, May 1999
SAMSON, A.R. (2003) Status Report. Business World, Manila, Philippines, Vol. XVII, No. 118, p. 4, 14.2.03
———–(2004) Table Manners. Business World, 18 ( 10 ) : 4, 9.8.04
SAMUDHRAM, A. (2002) Additional Techniques to Enhance Illustrations. Computimes Malaysia, K. Lumpur, 13.5.02, p. 28
SANT, T. (1992) Persuasive Business Proposals. New York: AMACOM Books
SARTORIUS, U. (2000) Images, Stronger than Words. The Technology Teacher, Reston, VA, Vol. 59, No. 6, pp. 13–16, 3/00
SAUNDERS, D.A. (2003) Medical Statistics Made Clear: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. British Journal of Anaesthesia,
Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 766ff. London, UK: Oxford University Press, November 2003
SCHAKELMAN, J.L. (2001) The Changing Role of Online Pedagogy. Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM SIGUCGS Conference
on User Services, pp. 262–263. Portland / New York: ACM Press, 17–20.10.01
SCHALLER, T. (1990) Business–Grafik. Düsseldorf: Sybex–Verlag
SCHILD, W., POWER, L., & KARNAUGH, M. (1980) Pictureworld: A Concept for Future Office Systems. IBM Research Report,
RC–8384, pub. ACM SIGACT, 12 (1) : 87, New York: ACM Press, 30.6.80
SCHLENDER, B. (2004) Ballmer Unbound. Fortune, New York, Vol. 149, No. 2, pp. 117–119, 26.1.04
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xxiii
SCHMITZ, P. (2002) Multimedia Meets Computer Graphics. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on World Wide
Web, pp. 45–52. Honolulu, HI / New York: ACM Press, 7–11.5.02
SCHONFELD, E. (2004) The Bible, According to NCR, in: The Wizard of POS [ p. 101 ] Business 2.0, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 5,
No. 3, pp. 100–102, 4/04
SCHRAGE, M. (1990) Serious Play. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press
———–(2002) Ease of Learning. MIT Technology Review, Cambridge, MA, Vol. 105, No. 10, pp. 23–24, 10/02
———–(2003a) PowerPoint Redux. Sales & Marketing Management, New York, NY, 155 (10) : 28, 10/03
———– (2003b) Please Stop Using PowerPoint to Sell. Sales & Marketing Management, 155 (6) : 30, 6/03
———–(2004a) HCI and the Challenges of Mass Communications. ACM interactions, New York, 11 (2) : 70, 3–4/04
———–(2004b) The Power of Persuasion. Innovation Quarterly, Dulles, VA, Vol. 23, No 2, pp. 41–44, Summer 2004
SCHWARTZ, E., GILLMOR, S & JONES, M. (2003) Preparing for Convergence. Inf. World, San Mateo, CA, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.
34–36, 3.2.03
SCOTT, L.M. (1994) Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21,
No. 2, pp. 252–273, Gainesville, IL: The University of Chicago Press, September 1994
———–& BATRA, R. (2003) Persuasive Imagery. London, UK / Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
SEACHRIST, D. (1996) NSTL Study: Presentation Graphics Programs. Computing Canada, Vol. 22, No. 25, pp. 24–26
Toronto: Plesman Publications / McGraw–Hill [ NSTL ] 5.12.96
SEARLE, L.F. (2004) Concerning the Power of the Preposition. Afterimage J. of Media Arts & Cultural Criticism, Vol. 31, No.
4, p. 9, Rochester, NY: Visual Studies Workshop Publications, January 2004
SEARLS, D. (1998) « The Problem with Presentations » , in: Positions: Colour Commentary on Positive Sum Games. Reality
2.0, Issue No. 2.001.8.29, Emerald Hills, CA, 16.8.97, URL: www.searls.com/present.html [ 26.11.04 ]
SEARS, A. L. (1997) Heuristic Walkthroughs: Finding Problems without the Noise. International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 213–234, Norwood/Mahwah, NJ: Ablex, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
SELLEN, A. & NICOL, A. (1990) Building User–Centered On–Line Help, in: LAUREL, B. (Ed.) The Art of Human–Computer
Interface Design, pp. 143–153, New York: Addison–Wesley
SENAY, H. & IGNATIUS, E. (1994) A Knowledge–Based System for Visualization Design. IEEE Computer Graphics and Appli-
cations, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 36–47, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, November 1994
SHAW, G., BROWN, R. & BROMILEY, P. (1998) Strategic Stories: How 3M is Rewriting Business Planning. Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 41–50. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, May/June 98
SHEPARD, R. N. (1967) Recognition Memory for Words, Sentences, and Pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behaviour,
Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 156–163, San Diego, CA / New York, NY: Academic Press
———–& COOPER, L.A. (1982) Mental Images and their Transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
SHEPHERD, C. (2004) Rethinking Computer Use in the Classroom. IT Training, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 44–45
London, UK: Haymarket Prof. Publications, April 2004
SHEPSTONE, N.M. (2003) Teaching Electrical Power Systems Using Computer Simulations. International Journal of Electrical
Engineering Education, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 72–78, Manchester, UK: Man. University Press, January 2003
SHIPMAN, F.M., FURUTA, R. & MARSHALL, C.C. (1997) Generating Web–based Presentations in Spatial Hypertext. Proceed-
ings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 71–78, Orlando, FL: ACM, 6–9.1.96
SHIRKY, C. (2001) Up–Front. Linux Journal, No. 83es, Art. No. 24, New York / Seattle: ACM Press / SSC, March 2001
SHNEIDERMAN, B. (1982) The Future of Interactive Systems and the Emergence of Direct Manipulation. Behaviour & Infor-
mation Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 237–256, Norwood, NJ: Ablex / Taylor & Francis, May–June 1982
SHORE, J. (1994) New PowerPoint Attempts to Play Catch–Up to Lotus. Computer Reseller News, 559 : 2–3, 3.1.94
SHUGART, S. (2001) Beyond PowerPoint, in: e.College AU+ Faculty Handbook, pp. 84–85, Denver, CO: ECollege Academic
Services, August 15, 2001
SHWOM, B. & KELLER, K. (2003) The Great Man Has Spoken. Now What Do I Do? Communication Insight, Evanston, IL,
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 2–16, 10/03
SIMONS, T., ANDRES, H. & PETERSEN, C. (2000) Multimedia or Bust? The Presentations/3M Study. Presentations, Vol. 14,
No. 2, pp. 40–48, Minneapolis, MN: VNU / Lakewood Publications, February 2000
———– (2001) When was the Last Time PowerPoint Made You Sing? Presentations, Vol. 15, No. 7, p. 6, 7/01
———–(2003) Bullet Points May Be Dangerous, But Don’t Blame PowerPoint. Presentations, 17 (11) : 6, 11/03
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xxiv
———–(2004a) Projectors May Have Improved Dramatically, But the People who use them Have Not.
Presentations, Minneapolis, MN, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 6, January 2004
———–(2004b) Does PowerPoint Make You Stupid? Presentations, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 24–31, 1.3.04
———–(2004c) The Multimedia Paradox: Science to the Rescue. Presentations, Vol. 18, No. 9, pp. 24–29, 1.9.04
SLATER, D. (1991) Presentation Graphics. ComputerWorld, Framingham, MA, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 35–36, 4.3.91
SLOBODA, B. (2003) Creating Effective PowerPoint Presentations. Management Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 20–34
Washington, DC: NRECA, Spring 2003
SMART, G. (1999) Storytelling in a Central Bank: The Role of Narrative in the Creation and Use of Specialized Economic
Knowledge. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 249–273, Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, July 1999
SMITH, D.I. (2004) Technology and Pedagogical Meaning. Cn. Schol. Review, Holland, MI, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 511–526
SMITH, M. (1998) Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.
325–327, London, UK: Oxford University Press, July 1998
SMITH, M.C. & MAGEE, L.E. (1980) Tracing the Time Course of Picture Word Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: General, Vol. 109, No. 4, pp. 373–392, Washington, DC: Am Psycholog. Assoc., December 1980
SMITH, P. (2003) The Art of the Sales Pitch. Supply Management Journal, London, UK, 8 (9 ) : 35, 24.4.03
SOCHACZEWSKI, P.S. (2001) How Can We Put Intimacy into Presentations? Consulting to Management, 12 (3) : 37–38
Burlingame, CA: Journal of Management Consulting, September 2001
SPENCER, C. (2002) Create Bullets with the Keyboard. Inside Corel WordPerfect Suite, 8 (7 ) : 16, 6/02
———–(2003) Simulating Multiple Bullet Lists on Slides. ICWPS, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 8–9, 7/02
SPITZER, M. (2002) Lernen. Gehirnforschung und die Schule des Lebens. Berlin: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag
SPITZER, R.J. & MEYER, L. (2004) Six Steps for Remedying Contemporary Ethical Problems. Proceedings of the Seventh An-
nual Colleagues in J. Business Education Conference, Fairfield University, CT, 22–25.7.04
STARY, J. (1997) Visualisieren. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor
STEINBERG, E.R. (1991) Computer–Assisted Instruction: A Synthesis of Theory, Practice, and Technology. Hillsdale: Erlbaum
STEWART, T. (2001) Ban It Now ! Friends Don’t Let Friends Use PowerPoint. Fortune, New York, 143 (3) : 201, 5.2.2K1
STODART, A. (1997) Get with the Plan. Marketing, Toronto, 102 (16 ) : 21, 28.4.97
STOLL, C. (2001) Who Needs Computers? School Library Journal, New York, Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 46–49, 10/01
STONE, M.D. (2003) Keynote: When Looking Good Matters. PC Magazine, New York, Vol. 22, No. 4, p. 42, 11.3.03
STRASSER, D. (1996) Tips for Good Electronic Presentations. Online, Indianapolis, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 78–81, 1/96
STROUPE, C. (2000) Visualizing English: Recognizing the Hybrid Literacy of Visual and Verbal Authorship on the Web. Col-
lege English, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 607–632. Urbana, IL: NCTE/CCCC, May 2000
STUDT, T. (1996) Finding Only the Data Needed Takes Some Intelligence. Research & Development, 38 (8 ) : 34 E, 7/96
SU, M.N., SAKANE, Y., TSUKAMOTO, M. & NISHIO, S. (2002) Rajicon: Remote PC GUI Operations via Constricted Mobile
Interfaces. Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 251–262,
Atlanta/New York: ACM Press, 23–28.11.2002
SUSMAN, K. (1997) Six Key Indicators to Reduce Audience Stress. Rec. Mgmt. Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 18–22, 6/97
SUTTON, N. (2001) Suite Spot Marked XP. Computing Canada, Toronto, Vol. 27, No 13, p. 16, 15.6.01
T
TALISAYON, S.D. (2002) Knowledge and People: Leading a Knowledge Organization. BusinessWorld, 16 (61): 17, 10.12.02
TAN, J.K.H. & BENBASAT, I. (1990) Processing of Graphical Information: A Decomposition Taxonomy to Match Data Ex-
traction Tasks and Graphical Representations. Information Systems Research Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 416–439
Linthicum, MD: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, December 1990
TAYLOR, C. (2000) Team XEROX. Time, New York, Vol. 156, No. 23, pp. 105–109, 4.12.00
TE’ENI, D. (2001) A Cognitive–Affective Model of Organizational Communication For Designing IT. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25,
No. 2, pp. 251–312, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, June 2001
———–& SCHWARTZ, D.G. (2000) Tying Knowledge to Action. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15 (3) : 33–39, 5–6/00
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xxv
TEGARDEN, D.P. (1999) Business Information Visualization. Communications of the AIS, Vol. 1, No. 1es, Art. No. 4, pp. 2–
38, Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems / ACM Press, January 1999
TEMPLER, R. (2001) Powers of Persuasion. Far Eastern Economic Review, Hong Kong, CHN, 164 ( 29 ) 43, 26.6.01
TERAO, A., KOEDINGER, K., SOHN, M.H., QIN, Y., ANDERSON, J. & CARTER, C. (2004) An FMRI Study of the Interplay of
Symbolic and Visuo–Spatial Systems in Mathematical Reasoning, in: Proceedings of the 26th Cognitive Science Soc.
Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 507, 5–7.8.2004
TERBERG, J. (2004) Creative Techniques: Full Images Offer a Unique and Effective Alternative to Bullet Points. Presentations,
Vol. 18, No. 10, pp. 18–19, Minneapolis, MN: VNU / Lakewood Publications, October 2004
TESSLER, F.N. (2003) Keynote. Mac World, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 35–36, 4/03
THIEL, T. (2001) Beyond Manzanar: Constructing Meaning in Interactive Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the 2001 Conference
on Computational Semiotics [ COSIGN 2001 ] Amsterdam, NL: Centr. Informatic. & Wiskunde [ CWI ] 10–12.9.01
THIELE, A. (2000) Überzeugend Präsentieren, 2. Aufl. Berlin / Heiderlberg: Springer–Verlag
———–(2001) Kleiner Knigge: Präsentieren und Vortragen, aber richtig ! c’t, Vol. 21, No. 11, pp. 172–174
Hannover: Heise–Verlag, 2.6.01
THOMAS, M.W. (1998) Business Communication in the Modern Age. Business & Economic Review, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 20–
23, Columbia: Division of Research, Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, July 1998
THOMAS, N.J.T. (1990) Coding Dualism: Conscious Thought without Cartesianism. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference
of the History and Philosophy Section of the British Psychological Society, Lincoln / Leicester, UK, April 1990
———– (2002) Philosophical Issues about Mental Imagery, in: NADEL, L. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, Vol. 2, pp.
1147–1153, London, UK: Nature Publishing / Macmillan
THOMPSON, P. (1999) Persuading Aristotle: The Timeless Art of Persuasion in Business Negotiation and the Media. St. Leonards,
North South Wales, AUS: Allen & Unwin
THOMPSON, C. (2003) PowerPoint Makes You Dumb. New York Times Magazine, 14.12.03, p. 88
THOMPSON, V.A. & PAIVIO, A. (1994) Memory for Pictures and Sounds: Independence of Auditory and Visual Codes. Ca-
nadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 380–396, Old Chelsea: CPA, September 1994
TILLING, L. (1975) Early Experimental Graphs. British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 8, No. 30, pp. 193–213
Cambridge / Fleet, UK: BSHS / Cambridge University Press
TOGNAZZINI, B. (1992) Tog on Interface. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley
———–(2002) First Principles of Interaction Design. Paper, Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont, CA, 14.11.02
URL: http://askTog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html [ last accessed 22.10.2004 ]
TONCAR, M.F. & MUNCH, J.F. (2003) The Influence of Simple and Complex Tropes on Believability, Importance and
Memory. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 39–43, Statesboro, GA: AMTP, Fall 2003
TOONG, H–M.D. (1984) Essential Software for Executives. Barron’s National Business and Financial Weekly, Boston, MA, Vol.
64, No. 38, p. 81, 17.9.84
TUFTE, E.R. (1983) The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press
———–(1990) Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press
———–(1997) Visual Explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press
———–(2003a) The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press
———–(2003b) PowerPoint Is Evil. Wired, Vol. 11, No. 9, pp. 118–119, San Francisco, CA: The Condé Nast Publications,
September 2003
———–(2003c) PowerPoint Corrupts. The Wilson Quarterly, Washington, DC, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 10–11, Summer 2003
TUNISON, S. (2003) « A Place Among the Fossils » : Using Metaphors from Imaginative Literature to Manage Change in our
Schools. McGill Journal of Education, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 78–99. Montréal, QC: McGill University Press
TURKLE, S. (2004) How Computers Change the Way We Think. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Washington, DC, Vol.
50, No. 21, p. B.26, 30.1.04
TURNLEY, P., ed. by RUSNAK, V. (2002) Visual Storytelling and Moments in the Human Condition. Proc. Nieman Conference
on Narrative Journalism, Niemann F. Journ., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA, 10.11.02
TSFATI, Y. (2003) Does Audience Skepticism of the Media Matter in Agenda Setting? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Me-
dia, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 157–176, Washington, DC / Amherst, MA: Univ. Mass., BEA, June 2003
TYE, M. (1991) The Imagery Debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xxvi
U
UDELL, J. (2003) Winning the Browser Peace: Cross–OS and Cross–Browser Incompatibility Inf. World, 25 (23) : 44, 9.6.03
V
VAN ALLEN, A. (1997) The Fiend of Hypertext or The Visualization of Inert Knowledge, in: The Polemics of Visual Thinking,
pp. 10–18. « Investigating Minds » Seminar Paper, Sarah Lawrence College, New York, May 1997
VAN DAM, R. & BRIGGS, G. (2004) Quagent Manipulation through Natural Language Understanding. Sem. Paper, Com-
puter Science, 242 [ Artificial Intelligence ] Univ. of Rochester, NY, 16.4.2004
VAN DER VEER, G.C. (2003) Information Representation, Human–Computer Interaction, Multimedia & Culture Lecture
Supplement, FEW–Informatica–IMSE [ Comp. Sci. ] Vrije Univ. Amsterdam, Nov. 2003–Dec. 2004
VAN ZWEITANZ, J.B. (1995) TQM for Training. Personnel Psychology, Houston, TX, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 712–715
VESSEY, I. (1991) Cognitive Fit: A Theory–Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature. Decision Sciences, Vol. 22,
No. 2, pp. 219–241. Atlanta, GA / Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, Spring 1991
VOGEL, D.R., DICKSON, G.W. & LEHMAN, J.A. (1986) Persuasion and the Role of Visual Presentation Support: The
UM/3M Study. Working Paper, MISRC–WP–86–11, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, June 1986
VOLSTEEDT, J. (2001) Great Expectations. Successful Meetings, New York, NY, Vol. 50, No. 11, pp. 37–39, 10/01
VON ECKARDT, B. (1995) What Is Cognitive Science? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
VOSS, B.L. (2000) E–Xtravaganza. The Journal of Business Strategy, Boston, MA, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 42–47, 9/00
VOSS, J. (2004) PowerPoint: Wie Bilder eine Katastrophe begünstigen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, No. 6, p. 64
Frankfurt/Main, DE: FAZ–Verlag, 8.2.2004
VOSNIADOU, S. (2001) What Can Persuasion Research Tell Us About Conceptual Change That We Did Not Already Know?
International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 35, No. 7–8, pp. 731–737, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Pub-
lishers / Pergamon Press, November 2001
VOSWINCKEL, T. (2003) XML » SVG Presenter: Strukturierte Multimedia–Präsentation im Web. Unpublished Dipl. Thesis in
Media Computer Sciences, University of Applied Sciences Furtwangen, Faculty of Digital Media, Feb. 2003
Made available through the Cartogr. Inst. Serv. [ ikaweb.ethz.ch ], Fed. Techn. Univ. [ ETH ] Zurich at
http://www.carto.net/papers/till_voswinckel/paper_till_voswinckel_xml_svg.pdf [ accessed 3.9.04 ]
———– (2004) Ex. Situation I & « Inspectionable » Section [ Figs. 2, 3 ] in: Espinosa, E.D. et al. (Ed.) Diagnosing Key Needs
for Emergent B2B in SMBs [ pp. 314–15 ] Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on E–Commerce Technology,
pp. 313–316, San Diego / Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 6–9.7.2004
VULNER, J. (2000) Info–Wahn: Eine Abrechnung mit dem Multimedia–Jahrzehnt. Wien: Springer–Verlag
W
WAHL, A. (2003) PowerPoint of No Return. Canadian Business, Toronto, Vol. 76, No. 22, pp. 131–133, 10–23.11.03
WAHLIN, D. (2003) Parse HTML Pages to Extract Data. XML & Web Services Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 1, 12/18/02 [ n/p ]
San Mateo, CA: Fawcette Technical Publications, February / March 2003
WAISEL, L.B. (1998) The Cognitive Role of Visualization in Modeling. PhD Thesis, Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechn. Inst.
WAKE, W.C. (2001) Extreme Programming Explored. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley
WALDROP, M.M. (2003) Grid Computing. MIT Technology Review, Cambridge, MA, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 41–42, 2/03
WALKER, J. (2002) Why PowerPoint? English Leadership Quarterly, Urbana, IL, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 7–8, 10/02
WALSH, J., & PRETTI–FRONTCZAK, K. (2002) Non–Technical Tips for Improving Technology–Based Presentation and
Teaching Skills. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education [ SITE ] International
Conference, pp. 746–749, Nashville, TN / Norfolk, VA: AACE/SITE, 18–23.3.02, published 12.12.02
———– (2003) Back to Basics. Tech. Trends, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 41–45, Washington, DC: AACE, Jan / Feb. 2003
WALTERS, G., CALAHAN, S., CONE, W., JOHNSON, E., KRATTER, T., MCQUEEN, G. & PAULEY, R. (1999) Visual Storytel-
ling, in: Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH ‘ 99 International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Tech-
niques, Los Angeles, CA, 149, 13–8.1999
WANG, A.I. (2002) A Process Centred Environment for Cooperative Software Engineering. Proceedings of the 14th Interna-
tional Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 469–472, New York: ACM Press
WANKAT, P. & OREOVICZ, F. (2003) Breaking the Fifteen–Minute Barrier. Am. Soc. Engineer’g. Educ. [ ASEE ] Prism
Washington, DC, 12 (8 ) : 40, 4/03
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xxvii
WANNER, C.A. et al. (2003) Use of Bulleted Paragraphs in ISO / TC67 / SC6 Standards. ASWS TechEd, ISO / TC67 Ptl. f. OIE
Standards, Sunbury–on–Thames, UK: BP, 17.7.2003
WAREHAM, J. (2000) Executive Intelligence: From the Podium. Across the Board, New York, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 67–68
WATSON, J. (1998) Bye, Bye, Blackboard. Science Scope, Washington, DC, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 32–33, 1/98
WAX, K. (1995) Death of a Sales Call. VARbusiness, Vol. 11, No 11, p. 46, Manhasset, NY: CMP Publications, July 1995
WEATE, J. (2003) Going Beyond the Text. Research in Afr. Lit., Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 27–41, Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univer-
sity Press, Winter 2003
WEBSTER, J. & HO, H. (1997) Audience Engagement in Multimedia Presentations. ACM SIGMIS Database, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.
63–77, New York: ACM Press, Spring 1997
WEICK, K. E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd Ed. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley
WEINGARTEN, D. (2003) The Art of Persuasion, by PowerPoint. The New York Times, Vol. CLII, No. 52.626, p. A.26
New York: Dow Jones & Co., 3.10.03
WEITZMAN, L. & WITTENBURG, K. (1994) Automatic Presentation of Multimedia. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International
Conference on Multimedia, pp. 443–451. San Francisco / New York: ACM Press, 15–20.10.94
WELCH, K. (1996) Electrifying Classical Rhetoric: Ancient Media, Modern Technology, and Contemporary Compo–
sition, in: OKSENBERG–RORTY, A. (Ed.) Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, pp. 22–38, Berkeley, CA: University of Califor-
nia Press
WESTWOOD, F. (2001) Leadership and Communication. British Journal of Periop. Nsg., Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 190–194, Har-
row–on–the–Hill, UK: NATN, April 2001
WEATHERSBEE, B. et al. (2000) Home Centered Recreation: Enhancing the Developmental Process of the Next Generation –A
Critical Reflection. Waco, TX: LFM Publications
WHITE, R. (2003) Sell Me a Story. Infomatics, London, UK, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 12–13, 1.6.03
WIDENER, C. (2003) Speak Up: Talking Naturally to Prompt an Audience Response. Office Pro, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 6–8
WINER, D. (1988) Outliners & Programming. Personal Website, UserLand Software, Danville, CA / Harvard L. School
URL: http://davewiner.userland.com/outlinersProgramming [ accessed 7.9.2003 ]
WINN, W. (2000) The Persuasive Power of Pathos in E–Commerce Web Design: A New Area for Research. Proceedings of the
2000 Joint IEEE International and 18th ACM SIGDOC Annual Conference on Computer Documentation, pp. 155–160
Cambridge, MA / Piscataway, NJ / New York, NY: IEEE IPCC / ACM SIGDOC, 24–27.9.2000
———–& BECK, K. (2002) Applied Research: The Persuasive Power of Design Elements on an E–Commerce Web Site.
Technical Communication, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 17–35, Washington, DC: Soc. f. Tech. Comm., Feb. 2002
WIPPICH, W., MELZER, A. & MECKLENBRÄUKER, S. (1998) Picture or Word Superiority Effects in Implicit Memory. Swiss
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 33–46, Bern, CH: Verlag Hans Huber
WITTROCK, M.C. (1988) A Constructive Review of Research on Learning Strategies, in: WEINSTEIN, C.E. et al. (Eds.) Learn-
ing and Study Strategies, pp. 287–298, San Diego, CA: Academic Press
———– (1989) Generative Processes of Comprehension. The Educational Psychologist, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 345–376
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Fall 1989
WIXON, D. (2003) Evaluating Usability Methods: Why the Current Literature Fails the Practitioner. ACM Interactions, Vol.
10, No. 4, pp. 28–34, New York: ACM Press, July / August 2003
WOLF, C.F., ALPERT, S.R., VERGO, J.G, KOZAKOV, L. & DOGANATA, Y. (2004) Summarizing Technical Support Docu-
ments for Search: Expert and User Studies. IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 564–586, Armonk / Yorktown
Heights, NY: IBM Press
WOLFF, A. (1997) How to Incorporate Multimedia in the Business Communication Classroom. Business Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 110–113, New York, NY: SAGE Publications, September 1997
WOLFF, R.A. (2004) Developing Deep Dialogue. ReVision Journal of Consciousness and Transformation, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.
23–27, Washington, DC: Heldref Publications, Winter 2004
WONG, M.T., ZONGKER, D.E. & SALESIN, D.H. (1998) Computer–Generated Floral Ornament. Proceedings of the 25th An-
nual SIGGRAPH Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 423–434, Orlando, FL / New York:
ACM Press, July 1998
WOOD, A. (2003) Basic Surface Rendering and Presentational Visualization with AutoCAD and Land Desktop. Proc. 2K3
NSPE Joint Engineers Conference, Helena, MT, 13–14.11.2003
WOODBURY, C. (1998) Making Your Point in a Visual Age. Journal of Property Management, Chicago, 63 (3) : 80–84, 5/98
TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | BIBLIOGRAPHY xxviii
WOODY, J.M. (2003) When Narrative Fails: Words and Images, and the Power of Metaphor. Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychol-
ogy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 329–345, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, December 2003
WORLEY R.B. & DYRUD M.A. (2004) Presentations and the PowerPoint Problem – Part II: Focus on Teaching. Business
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 67, No, 2, pp. 214–215, New York, NY: SAGE Publications, June 2004
WRIGHT, C. (2003) Presentations: It’s Not Rocket Science. Australian CPA, Melbourne, Vol. 73, No. 11, p. 58, 1.12.03
WU, J.W., HASSAN, A.E. & HOLT, R.C. (2002) Using Graph Patterns to Extract Scenarios. Proceedings of the 10th Interna-
tional Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 239–247 [ IWPC ] Paris, FR / Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Soci-
ety Press, 27–29.6.02
WYNN, E. & NOVICK, D.G. (1995) Conversational Conventions and Participation in Cross–Functional Design Teams. Pro-
ceedings of the ACM Conference on Organizational Computing Systems, pp. 250–257, Milpitas, CA / New York, NY:
ACM Press, 13–16.8.95
Y
YAKAL, K. (1994) Windows Dressing: WYSIWYG Word Processing in Windows, Office Systems, Vol. 11, No. 8, pp. 38–39
Mount Airy, NC: Quality Publishing, August 1994
YUNXIA, Z. & HILDEBRANDT, H.W. (2003) Greek and Chinese Classical Rhetoric: The Root of Cultural Differences in
Business & Marketing Communication. Asia Pac. Journal of Marketing & Logistics, Vol. 15, No. 1/2, pp. 89–114
Z
ZALUD, W. (2000) Web Browsers as GUIs. Security, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 69–70, Troy, CN: Reed–Elsevier, May 2000
ZAROWIN, S. (2004) Golden Business Ideas: The Right Way to Use PowerPoint. Journal of Accountancy, New York, NY, Vol.
197, No. 6, pp. 104ff. New York: AICP, June 2004
ZEKI, S. (1999) Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
ZETTL, H. (1999) Sight, Sound, Motion: Applied Media Aesthetics, 3rd Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
ZIELINSKI, D. (2002) Choose Your Presentation Tools Carefully. Training, New York, NY, Vol. 39, No. 11, pp. S1– 22
New York, NY: Gellert Publications, November 2002
———–(2003a) Perfect Practice: On the Difference between a Mediocre Presentation and a Memorable One. Presentations,
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 30–36, Minneapolis, MN: VNU / Lakewood Publications, May 2003
———–(2003b) Power Has Always Been the Point. Adweek, New York, NY, Vol. 44, No. 44, pp. 52–54, 10.11.03
———–(2004) Techno Stressed. Presentations, Minneapolis, MN, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 28–35, 2/04
ZONGKER, D.E. & SALESIN, D.H. (2003) On Creating Animated Presentations, in: BREEN, D. & LIN, M. (Eds.) Proceedings
of the 2003 ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation, pp. 298–308. San Diego / New York /
Aire–la–Ville: ACM Press / Eurographics Association, 26–27.7.03
ZUCKERMAN, L. (1999) The Effect of Presentation Software on Rhetorical Thinking: Words Go Right to the Brain,
But Can They Stir the Heart? The New York Times, Vol. CXLVIII, No. 51.495, pp. A17–19 [ Sect. B, 9, Col. 3 ]

Presentational Visualisation: Towards An Imagery-Based Approach of Computer-Generated Presentation Visuals

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Presentational Visualisation: Towards An Imagery-Based Approach of Computer-Generated Presentation Visuals

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TILL VOSWINCKEL: PRESENTATIONAL VISUALSATION | TOWARDS AN IMAGERY-BASED APPROACH OF PRESENTATION VISUALS

Of course, I’m always happy about questions and comments

 Presentational Visualisation [Abstract]

2.1 Situation Analysis and Problem Definition.................................................................................... 19

2.4.4 Template–Centric Usability ................................................................................................. 39

4.4 Mental Imagery and Picture Superiority Phenomena..................................................................... 97

1.1.1 Contextual Differentiation and Specification

1.1.2 From the Web to the Real World

1.1.3.1 Basic Definition and Discrimination

1.1.3.2 Role and Importance of the Visual Complement

1.1.4 Presentation Software and Format Perspective

1.1.4.1 Software Critique

1.1.4.2 Characteristic Paradigm: The Bullet Point Format

1.1.4.3 Challenged Communicative Effectiveness

1.5 Presentational Purposes

1.5.1.1 Dialogue and Discussion: The Software Perspective

1.5.1.2 PowerPoint as an Impediment to Presentational Discussion?

1.5.2 Information Purpose

1.5.2.1 Data Presentation

1.5.2.2 Software Perspective

1.5.2.4 Presentation Software’s Challenged Educational Applicability

1.5.3 Persuasion Purpose

1.5.3.1 Rhetoric and Persuasion Science

1.5.3.2 Presentation Software’s Persuasiveness Claim

1.5.3.2.1 Available Persuasion Studies on Presentation Software

In order to maintain the aforementioned persuasiveness claim equally in respect to PowerPoint–created

1.5.3.2.2 Questionable Methodology

1.5.3.3 Persuasion as Presentations’ Underlying Key Aspect

2 A Critical Review of the Bullet Point Format

2.1.1 Technical and Graphical–Aesthetic Characteristics

2.2 Presentational Evolution

2.2.1 From Show–and–Tell to PowerPoint

2.2.2 Chalk and Talk

2.2.3 Business Tools

2.2.4 Production process and aesthetics

2.2.4.1 Technological Restrictions shape Characteristic Text Focus

2.2.5 Text Organization on Charts

2.2.5.1 Continuous, paragraphed Text Flow

2.3 Bullet Points

2.3.1 Ubiquitous Feature

2.3.2 An Aesthetic Review of “Bulleting” Techniques

2.3.3 Comparative studies: Continuous vs. Bulleted Text

2.3.4 Bullet Point Critique

2.3.4.1 Equivocal Tendencies

Infelicitously, the author refers to arguably

Even though, generously, Möller’s (2002) ar-

2.3.4.3 Bullets: The Pervasive Paradigm

2.3.5 Early Discomfort

(Feynman 1988, p. 126)

Indeed, mostly unnoticed by notorious, current–

2.3.5.1 Institutional Application

2.3.6 Summarization and Fragmentation Features

2.3.6.1 Fragmentation as Religion

(Wynn and Novick 1995, p. 256)

2.3.7 Presentational Bullet Application

2.3.8 Correlations between Technical Development and Bullet–Point Application

2.3.8.1 Applying the Tight, Bulleted Corset to Presentations

2.3.8.2 Projected Bullet Points: Presentational Aid or Crutch?

2.3.8.2.1 Traditional, Tangible vs. Automatic Bullets

2.3.8.3 Analog or Electronic: The Implicit Paradigm

2.3.8.3.1 Prudent Lemming Principle

2.4 Technology View

2.4.1 Workflow Rationale

Presentational Visualisation [Abstract]