The document criticizes the cognitive style of standard PowerPoint presentations. It argues that PowerPoint forces information into a rigid format that fragments data, uses excessive graphics and formatting rather than focusing on content, and can distort complex statistical evidence. As an example, it shows how PowerPoint templates break up a table of cancer survival rates into 6 chaotic slides that are incoherent and fail to effectively convey the data. The document claims this "chartjunk" indicates a lack of understanding of evidence and suggests PowerPoint may not be suitable for presentations requiring deep analysis of statistical data.

1. Edward Tufte
“The Cognitive Style
of Powerpoint”

2. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

3. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

4. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

5. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

6. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

7. 16
PowerPoint and Statistical Evidence
To investigate the performance ofPP for statistical data, let us consider
an important and intriguing table ofcancer survival rates relative to
those without cancer for the same time period. Some 196 numbers and
57 words describe survival rates and their standard errors for 24 cancers:
Estimatesofrelativesurvivalrates,bycancersite12
% survival rates and their standard errors
5 year 10 year 15 year 20 year
Prostate
Thyroid
Testis
Melanomas
Breast
Hodgkin's disease
Corpus uteri,uterus
Urinary, bladder
Cervix, uteri
Larynx
Rectum
Kidney, renal pelvis
Colon
Non-Hodgkin's
Oral cavity, pharynx
Ovary
Leukemia
Brain, nervous system
Multiplemyeloma
Stomach
Lungandbronchus
Esophagus
Liver, bile duct
Pancreas
98.8
96.0
94.7
89.0
86.4
85.1
84.3
82.1
70.5
68.8
62.6
61.8
61.7
57.8
56.7
55.0
42.5
32.0
29.5
23.8
15.0
14.2
7.5
4.0
0.4
0.8
I.I
0.8
0.4
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.6
2.1
1.2
1.3
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.3
0.4
1.4
I.I
0.5
95.2
95.8
94.0
86.7
78.3
79.8
83.2
76.2
64.1
56.7
55.2
54.4
55.4
46.3
44.2
49.3
32.4
29.2
12.7
19.4
10.6
7.9
5.8
3.0
0.9
1.2
1.3
I.I
0.6
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.8
2.5
1.4
1.6
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
0.4
1.3
1.2
1.5
87.1
94.0
91.1
83.5
71.3
73.8
80.8
70.3
62.8
45.8
51.8
49.8
53.9
38.3
37.5
49.9
29.7
27.6
7.0
19.0
8.1
7.7
6.3
2.7
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.5
0.7
2.4
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.8
1.8
2.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.7
0.4
1.6
1.5
0.6
81.1
95.4
88.2
82.8
65.0
67.1
79.2
67.9
60.0
37.8
49.2
47.3
52.3
34.3
33.0
49.6
26.2
26.1
4.8
14.9
6.5
5.4
7.6
2.7
3.0
2.1
2.3
1.9
1.0
2.8
2.0
2.4
2.4
3.1
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.4
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.9
0.4
2.0
2.0
0.8
Applying the PowerPoint templates for statistical graphics to this nice
straightforward tableyields the analyticaldisasters on the facing page.
"Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios," wroteJohn Prine.
These PP default-designs cause the data to explode into 6 separate
chaotic slides, consuming 2.9 times the area ofthe table. Everything is
wrong with these smarmy, incoherent graphs: uncomparative, thin
data-density, chartjunk, encoded legends, meaningless color, logotype
branding, indifferent to content and evidence. Chartjunk is a clear
sign of statistical stupidity; use these designs in your presentation, and
your audience will quickly and correctly conclude that you don't
know much about data and evidence.13
Poking afingerinto the eye of
12
Redesigned table based on Hermann
Brenner, "Long-term survival rates
of cancer patients achieved by the end
ofthe 2Oth century: a period analysis,"
The Lancet, 360 (October 12, 2002), 1131-
1135. Brenner recalculates survival rates
from data collected by the U.S. National
Cancer Institute, 1973-1998, from the
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results Program.
13
PP-style chartjunk occasionally shows up
in graphics ofevidence in scientific journals.
Below, the clutter half-conceals thin data
with some vibrating pyramids framedby an
unintentional Necker illusion, as the 2 back
planes optically flip to the front:
For such small data sets, usually a simple
table will show the data more effectively
than a graph, let alone a chartjunk graph.
Source of graph: N.T.Kouchoukos, et al.,
"Replacement of the Aortic Root with
a Pulmonary Autograft in Children and
Young Adults with Aortic-Valve Disease,"
New EnglandJournal of Medicine, 330
(January 6,1994), p. 4. On chartjunk, see
Edward R. Tufte, The Visual Display of
Quantitative Information (1983, 2001),
C O G N I T I V E STYLE OF P O W E R P O I N T 17
a serious purpose, such as cancer patients seeking to assess their survival
chances. To deal with a product that messes up data with such systematic

8. shows data. Slideware displays, in contrast, usually devote a majority of
their space to things other than data.16
PowerPoint and Statistical Evidence
To investigate the performance ofPP for statistical data, let us consider
an important and intriguing table ofcancer survival rates relative to
those without cancer for the same time period. Some 196 numbers and
57 words describe survival rates and their standard errors for 24 cancers:
Estimatesofrelativesurvivalrates,bycancersite12
% survival rates and their standard errors
5 year 10 year 15 year 20 year
Prostate
Thyroid
Testis
Melanomas
Breast
Hodgkin's disease
Corpus uteri,uterus
Urinary, bladder
Cervix, uteri
Larynx
Rectum
Kidney, renal pelvis
Colon
Non-Hodgkin's
Oral cavity, pharynx
Ovary
Leukemia
Brain, nervous system
Multiplemyeloma
Stomach
Lungandbronchus
Esophagus
Liver, bile duct
Pancreas
98.8
96.0
94.7
89.0
86.4
85.1
84.3
82.1
70.5
68.8
62.6
61.8
61.7
57.8
56.7
55.0
42.5
32.0
29.5
23.8
15.0
14.2
7.5
4.0
0.4
0.8
I.I
0.8
0.4
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.6
2.1
1.2
1.3
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.3
0.4
1.4
I.I
0.5
95.2
95.8
94.0
86.7
78.3
79.8
83.2
76.2
64.1
56.7
55.2
54.4
55.4
46.3
44.2
49.3
32.4
29.2
12.7
19.4
10.6
7.9
5.8
3.0
0.9
1.2
1.3
I.I
0.6
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.8
2.5
1.4
1.6
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
0.4
1.3
1.2
1.5
87.1
94.0
91.1
83.5
71.3
73.8
80.8
70.3
62.8
45.8
51.8
49.8
53.9
38.3
37.5
49.9
29.7
27.6
7.0
19.0
8.1
7.7
6.3
2.7
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.5
0.7
2.4
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.8
1.8
2.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.7
0.4
1.6
1.5
0.6
81.1
95.4
88.2
82.8
65.0
67.1
79.2
67.9
60.0
37.8
49.2
47.3
52.3
34.3
33.0
49.6
26.2
26.1
4.8
14.9
6.5
5.4
7.6
2.7
3.0
2.1
2.3
1.9
1.0
2.8
2.0
2.4
2.4
3.1
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.4
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.9
0.4
2.0
2.0
0.8
Applying the PowerPoint templates for statistical graphics to this nice
straightforward tableyields the analyticaldisasters on the facing page.
"Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios," wroteJohn Prine.
These PP default-designs cause the data to explode into 6 separate
chaotic slides, consuming 2.9 times the area ofthe table. Everything is
wrong with these smarmy, incoherent graphs: uncomparative, thin
data-density, chartjunk, encoded legends, meaningless color, logotype
branding, indifferent to content and evidence. Chartjunk is a clear
sign of statistical stupidity; use these designs in your presentation, and
your audience will quickly and correctly conclude that you don't
know much about data and evidence.13
Poking afingerinto the eye of
12
Redesigned table based on Hermann
Brenner, "Long-term survival rates
of cancer patients achieved by the end
ofthe 2Oth century: a period analysis,"
The Lancet, 360 (October 12, 2002), 1131-
1135. Brenner recalculates survival rates
from data collected by the U.S. National
Cancer Institute, 1973-1998, from the
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End
Results Program.
13
PP-style chartjunk occasionally shows up
in graphics ofevidence in scientific journals.
Below, the clutter half-conceals thin data
with some vibrating pyramids framedby an
unintentional Necker illusion, as the 2 back
planes optically flip to the front:
For such small data sets, usually a simple
table will show the data more effectively
than a graph, let alone a chartjunk graph.
Source of graph: N.T.Kouchoukos, et al.,
"Replacement of the Aortic Root with
a Pulmonary Autograft in Children and
Young Adults with Aortic-Valve Disease,"
New EnglandJournal of Medicine, 330
(January 6,1994), p. 4. On chartjunk, see
Edward R. Tufte, The Visual Display of
Quantitative Information (1983, 2001),

9. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

10. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

11. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

12. “PP convenience for the speaker can be costly to both
content and audience. These costs result from the
cognitive style characteristic of the standard default PP
presentation: foreshortening of evidence and thought,
low spatial resolution, a deeply hierarchical single-
path structure as the model for organizing every type
of content, breaking up narrative and data into slides
and minimal fragments, rapid temporal sequencing of
thin information rather than focused spatial analysis,
conspicuous decoration and Phluff, a preoccupation with
format not content, an attitude of commercialism that
turns everything into a sales pitch.” (p. 4)

14. Chartjunk

15. Escaping Flatland

16. Small Multiples

17. Color and Information

18. Layering and Separation

19. Layering and Separation

20. Micro/Macro Readings

21. Micro/Macro Readings

22. Narratives of Space and Time

23. Narratives of Space and Time

24. Narratives of Space and Time