Less is Not More
In the conclusion of their article “Ideology and the Map,” Barton and Barton argue that the alternative design practices they advocate for, collage and palimpsest, draw upon a “less is a bore” aesthetic. They characterize this aesthetic as one “ . . . that privileges complexity over simplicity and eclecticism over homogeneity, an aesthetic that tends toward the fragmentary and the local . . .” (248-249). Tufte echoes this call in “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within.” In a section discussing high-resolution visuals, he writes, “Indeed, quite often, the more intense the detail, the greater the clarity and understanding – because meaning and reasoning are relentlessly contextual. Less is a bore” (15). Less can be a bore – at least as far as content goes.
Both articles seek to articulate the underlying ideologies in everyday genres and in the process demonstrate how design influences our understanding of content. Barton and Barton’s discussion of the London Underground, in particular, called my attention to the rhetorical power of design. The iconic Underground logo, as well as the overall design of the tube map (one which strikes me as “clean” and aesthetically pleasing – much like the design of, say, Apple products) works to promote bourgeois values. Citing Barthes, the authors demonstrate how the London Underground Diagram’s clean design, which does not reflect the “messiness of the actual city,” is “ . . . a dissimulative attempt to engender chauvinism in the viewer” (242). Furthermore, the diagram’s design encourages a kind of capitalist consumption of the city (243). Design is not innocent.
Tufte’s article also focuses on deconstructing a common tool – one that is much more familiar to me as a student and teacher. I am not often tasked with designing maps (or at least not ones that will be seen by anyone but myself), but I have made my fair share of PowerPoint presentations. In a scathing critique, Tufte points to the inadequacies of PowerPoint intrinsic in the software itself. For example, PowerPoint templates allow users to easily create lists and bulleted points. As Tufte notes, “too often the speaker is making power points with hierarchical bullets to passive followers.” He goes on to link this structure to hegemonic systems (7).
As I read through Tufte’s article, I couldn’t help but notice how much of what Tufte critiques is similar to the practices outlined in the textbook I use in ENGL 305. Over and over again, the textbook stresses creating hierarchical lists and bulleted points (as long as they fit into generic conventions). Creating lists is described as a way to make the text more user-friendly.
In the case of power points, Tufte argues that lists do not allow for the deep contemplation of information necessary for serious reports. In his review of NASA slides, he asks, “How it is that each elaborate architecture of thought always fits exactly on one slide?” (12). In reality, it doesn’t, but PowerPoint dictates that we present information that way.
In other genres, of course, hierarchical lists and bulleted points are effective ways to present information. However, I wonder how much the cognitive style of PowerPoint has infected my students’ and, I worry, my own writing. Although the textbook stresses that content comes first, just like in a power point, however, it is easy for us to create visually pleasing documents in Microsoft Word, for example, that lack actual content. The received wisdom in the technical writing textbook I employ seems far too close to the practices that lead to the kind of sloppy thinking PowerPoint promotes.
The solution? Both Barton and Barton and Tufte argue for more content – again, we see that “less is a bore.” In many ways, Tufte’s article can be read as an ethics of PowerPoint. The underlying ideology in the software itself, which he characterizes as “a smirky commercialism that turns information into a sales pitch and presenters into marketeers” (4), promotes sloppy thinking. Like Barton and Barton, Tufte promotes an alternative – in this case, Microsoft Word or other word processing software to create print documents. However, PowerPoint is relatively easy to use and ubiquitous. It is the primary software for creating slide presentations, whether the content is “serious” or not (although I’m no longer convinced it should be used if the content is less serious, either). Because PowerPoint is so firmly entrenched in academic and business culture, we should focus our efforts on creating better presentations. Christina’s post is a great resource.
Works Cited
Barton, B. F., & Barton, M. S. (2004). Ideology and the map: Toward a postmodern visual design practice. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication, (pp. 232–252). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tufte, E.R. (2006). The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Pitching out corrupts within (2nd ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.