How 'evil' is PowerPoint really?


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

How 'evil' is PowerPoint really?

  1. 1. How‘evil‘ is PowerPoint really?<br />Eye-Tracking as a method in multi-modal scientificcommunicationresearchStavanger | 05/06/2009<br />1<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  2. 2. Areas of Interest<br />2<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  3. 3. Areas of Interest<br />3<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />Surrounding Area<br />Multimodality<br />Non-Linearity<br />Presentation<br />Speaker<br />Audience / Moderator<br />
  4. 4. 4<br />Aspectsofunderstandingmultimodal communication<br />“Writing moves the sound world to a world of visual space, but print locks words into a position in this space. […] Because print controlled not only what words were put down to form a text but also the exact situation of the words on a page and their spatial relationship to one another, the space itself on a printed sheet took on high significance.” (Ong 2002/1988: 119, 122, 126) <br />Sequentialorder:temporal logic<br />Presentation: spatio-temporal logic<br />Compositionalorder:spatiallogic<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  5. 5. Aspects of design in presentations<br />The spatial order / arrangement of presenter(s), screen(s)<br />The presenter’s actions of verbal, physical and technical reference to elements of the slide<br />The design of the PP-slides (bullet points, typography, layout, visualisations etc.)<br />The animations of the slides and the slide transitions<br />5<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  6. 6. Research problems<br />Problem of Compositionality: How is the meaning of a multimodal document composed out of the single elements?How are the different semiotic systems coordinated in the process of meaning making?(holistic versus additive)<br />Problem of Reception:Are the processes of selection and meaning making controlled by attributes of the document or the recipient? How do visual salience and cues or aspects of speechinfluence the process of reception? (inductive versus deductive) <br />6<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  7. 7. Research questions<br />How is attention allocated during multi-modal scientific presentations?<br />How can coherence emerge in multi-modal scientific communication?<br />Are therespecificpatternsofreception? <br />How are communication problems solved that appear during the reception of multi-modal presentations?<br />Do newmodesofscientificpresentationcontributetooptimizingknowledgetransfer?<br />7<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  8. 8. Receptionstudy design<br /><ul><li>Scenario I</li></ul>Live presentations<br />Scenario II + III<br />Presentations in a laboratorysetting<br />8<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />Research methods<br /><ul><li>Eye-tracking
  9. 9. Think aloud
  10. 10. Questionnaire</li></li></ul><li>Scenario I: Live presentations<br />Scientific presentations given at symposia, conferences of scientific associations, etc.<br />9<br /><ul><li>36 presentations
  11. 11. Humanities
  12. 12. Sciences
  13. 13. Economics </li></ul>Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  14. 14. Scenario I: Setting<br />10<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  15. 15. Scenario I: Analysis<br />11<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  16. 16. Scenario I: Results (meso level)<br />12<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />Engineering science:<br />
  17. 17. Scenario I: Results (meso level)<br />13<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  18. 18. Scenario I: Results (meso level)<br />14<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  19. 19. Scenario I: Results (meso level)<br />15<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />Law:<br />
  20. 20. Scenario I: Analysis<br />16<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  21. 21. Scenario I: Results (microlevel)<br />17<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />Engineering science:<br />Speaker<br />Graphics<br />
  22. 22. Scenario I: Results (microlevel)<br />18<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  23. 23. Scenario I: Results (microlevel)<br />19<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />Experimental economics:<br />Speaker<br />Graphics<br />Text<br />Other<br />
  24. 24. Scenario II + III: Laboratory setting<br />Scenario II<br />Scenario III<br />20<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />:<br />:<br />
  25. 25. Conclusions (Hypotheses)<br />The meaning of a presentation is compositional.<br />Following a presentation means to organize attention simultaneously on a temporal and a spatial level.<br />The perception of the slides is determined by their rhetorical style (and not only by visual salience).<br />All elements of the presentation are contextualizing each other. <br />Multimodal meaning is multiplicative and not additive.<br />Coherence is organized by the elements of design: the actions of reference (implicit and explicit), and visual cues.<br />Spatial contiguity is replaced by semantic contiguity.<br />Reducing the cognitive overload of a presentation depends on the coherence management (signaling principle). <br />21<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />
  26. 26. Interactive Science<br />Interdisciplinaryresearchassociation:<br />ComputationalLinguistics (Gießen) <br />Political Science (Gießen) <br />Media Science (Trier) <br />Dramatics (Hamburg) <br />Information Science (Konstanz)<br />Technology Assessment (Wien) <br />Project duration: 2008-2011<br />Funding: Volkswagen Foundation<br />22<br />Hans-Jürgen Bucher | Philipp Niemann<br />