Thinking About the Toothbrush
December 15, 2007 Filed in: Rhyme &
Reason
A March 2007 talk by designer Philippe Starck recently appeared
on TED.com, and it got me thinking
again about why I design slides the way I do and
how to continue refining the approach. Here's
the talk in its entirety, and you can read a
transcript right here. (While accents don't
usually throw me, I have to admit I found the
transcript very useful in this case.)
While not one of my favorite talks on TED, some of the quotes resonated as applicable even beyond his direct context (as many good talks do). In his presentation, done without the use of slides at all, Mr. Starck talks about three basic philosophies of design. Cynical design, narcissistic design, and humble design.
On cynical design:
I think many of us have seen slide presentations that are visually stunning but do little to add to the presentation itself. It's as if the presenter is trying to win the audience over with his mad PowerPoint skills rather than any specific content. I know this is an easy trap to fall into with Keynote, and I can only imagine the temptations in PowerPoint 2007.
Oddly enough, I think some of Microsoft's own slides illustrate this approach:
images from Microsoft.com
In these examples, the slides are visually impressive, but the impressiveness is at the cost of readability and clarity. We can do the same with too many graphics, unnecessary clip art, and a plethora of animations and transitions. We treat the slides as a weapon to attract (or distract?) our audience rather than to augment the important points and concepts.
Then comes the narcissistic approach. In Mr. Starck's talk, he defines these designers as those who design for the appreciation of other designers. In slide design, I see this as designing the slides for my own benefit. These are the slides you look at while talking, reading bullet points to the audience.
I'm not too proud to admit these are mine
These slides are designed for one person alone: me. I may say they are for the audience's benefit, but they really exist so I can read my presentation off the slides. I may even spend significant time with my back turned to the audience in the process. While common practice, such slides are basically selfish. They are used as a crutch rather than a supplement.
Finally, Mr. Starck touches upon a more humble approach:
A toothbrush is about the most basic thing you have laying around the house, but think of how many horrible toothbrushes you have used that look really great (as far as a toothbrush can go). Aren't some of the best toothbrushes the epitome of simplicity? They do the job, and they remain unobtrusive in doing it.
The same principle can be applied to slides. Ask, "How does this slide affect my attention, my eyes, my comprehension, my concentration?" Does my audience have to concentrate too hard to comprehend what the slide is communicating? Does the slide supplant me? Is it basically distracting? In my own slides above, an audience member might have to really concentrate on the slide to read it, concentration that comes at the expense of me. In fact, I could throw those slides up on a screen and walk offstage. They really render me quite useless. In the case of the Microsoft slides, they are simply distracting – cluttered and complex, requiring too much effort to decode and digest.
same presentations as above, revised (and reflection-obsessed)
Our slides are meant to benefit our audience, to help them digest the most important facts and ideas. If we're going to create effective slides, the focus has to externalize and consider how the slides impact an audience's impression of the overall presentation. In this, I think a certain balance must be present between aesthetics and functionality. Looking nice is important – but not to the detriment of meaning.
Next time you're working on a deck of slides, take a moment and remember our friend Philippe Starck. If your presentation was a toothbrush, how would it feel?
While not one of my favorite talks on TED, some of the quotes resonated as applicable even beyond his direct context (as many good talks do). In his presentation, done without the use of slides at all, Mr. Starck talks about three basic philosophies of design. Cynical design, narcissistic design, and humble design.
On cynical design:
The one, we can call it the cynical design, that means the design invented by Raymond Loewy in the '50s, who said, what is ugly is a bad sale, La Laideur se vend mal, which is terrible. It means the design must be just a weapon for marketing...
I think many of us have seen slide presentations that are visually stunning but do little to add to the presentation itself. It's as if the presenter is trying to win the audience over with his mad PowerPoint skills rather than any specific content. I know this is an easy trap to fall into with Keynote, and I can only imagine the temptations in PowerPoint 2007.
Oddly enough, I think some of Microsoft's own slides illustrate this approach:
images from Microsoft.com
In these examples, the slides are visually impressive, but the impressiveness is at the cost of readability and clarity. We can do the same with too many graphics, unnecessary clip art, and a plethora of animations and transitions. We treat the slides as a weapon to attract (or distract?) our audience rather than to augment the important points and concepts.
Then comes the narcissistic approach. In Mr. Starck's talk, he defines these designers as those who design for the appreciation of other designers. In slide design, I see this as designing the slides for my own benefit. These are the slides you look at while talking, reading bullet points to the audience.
I'm not too proud to admit these are mine
These slides are designed for one person alone: me. I may say they are for the audience's benefit, but they really exist so I can read my presentation off the slides. I may even spend significant time with my back turned to the audience in the process. While common practice, such slides are basically selfish. They are used as a crutch rather than a supplement.
Finally, Mr. Starck touches upon a more humble approach:
I try to not make the object for the object but for the result, for the profit for the human being, the person who will use it. If we take the toothbrush -- I don't think about the toothbrush. I think, "What will be [finger in mouth] the effect of the brush in the mouth?"
A toothbrush is about the most basic thing you have laying around the house, but think of how many horrible toothbrushes you have used that look really great (as far as a toothbrush can go). Aren't some of the best toothbrushes the epitome of simplicity? They do the job, and they remain unobtrusive in doing it.
The same principle can be applied to slides. Ask, "How does this slide affect my attention, my eyes, my comprehension, my concentration?" Does my audience have to concentrate too hard to comprehend what the slide is communicating? Does the slide supplant me? Is it basically distracting? In my own slides above, an audience member might have to really concentrate on the slide to read it, concentration that comes at the expense of me. In fact, I could throw those slides up on a screen and walk offstage. They really render me quite useless. In the case of the Microsoft slides, they are simply distracting – cluttered and complex, requiring too much effort to decode and digest.
same presentations as above, revised (and reflection-obsessed)
Our slides are meant to benefit our audience, to help them digest the most important facts and ideas. If we're going to create effective slides, the focus has to externalize and consider how the slides impact an audience's impression of the overall presentation. In this, I think a certain balance must be present between aesthetics and functionality. Looking nice is important – but not to the detriment of meaning.
Next time you're working on a deck of slides, take a moment and remember our friend Philippe Starck. If your presentation was a toothbrush, how would it feel?