PowerPoint has become a standard, but not a very good one. Litigators should use caution when preparing critical presentations and avoid the software’s inherent problems.
- PowerPoint slide shows can shift focus to the presenter rather than the content of the presentation. The suggested structure of bullet point lists with multiple size fonts and indentions can distract the viewer and cause them to become preoccupied with the layout and seek it’s linear progression from slide to slide.
- The nature of the software encourages cryptic bullet points. Don’t be lured into thinking these are effective. Bullets are generic, and often times overlook critical elements of grammar that are necessary to enforce relationships between facts or to make assumptions. Don’t confuse simplicity with a diluted message. Studies have suggested it takes 50 PowerPoint slides to generate the same amount of text found on one page of a Physicians Desk Reference. Consider handouts whenever possible.
- Templates and the software’s own default settings facilitate poor use of typography and charting features. The application provides many features such as transitions and animations that create additional distractions to your content. Bullet point strip-tease acts, block dissolves and poor choices in clip-art, type and color can only make the bad, worse.
The overbearing slide templates provided standard with Powerpoint make it very difficult for the viewer to decipher and retain your message.
Created by Peter Norvig, Peter@Norvig.com
A good presentation in the courtroom will stay true to the content and message you are trying to deliver and keep the audience focused on the facts. Graphical displays can be used, but sparingly and with specific intent, like teaching or explanation. Being recognized as the one who is promoting understanding in the courtroom will not only bring you credibility, but success.
One Comment
After reviewing the Gettysburg-Address-as-PowerPoint-Presentation effort, feel the need to come to its defense.
First, Lincoln obviously used an early version of the software, which worked to his advantage. With fewer features, there were no ill-chosen custom animations or transitions, the earlist bane of most presentations.
While the text only presentation could have been “punched up” with the importing of some maps, Matthew Brady daguerreotypes or Thomas Nast illustrations, he had little time to put it together while traveling by train to the battlefield. Regrettably, the railroad had yet to install any wi-fi capability for him to download, much less, incorporate pertinent web-based imagery.
Finally, Mr. Lincoln presumably used the presentation as cue cards for himself only and, as recorded by journalists at the time, he fleshed it out considerably from the podium.
I recently gave a PowerPoint presentation to a roomful of attorneys in Florida on the use of PowerPoint at trial and mediation. Before starting, I asked the room how many had used it before and had their opposing counsels used it in trials against them? By a show of hands, a third of the room responded affirmatively. Also, none of them had ever been aware of any criticism of PowerPoint. All of them admitted that they relied on the “overbearing” templates or had their presentation outsourced to someone who likely did the same. One attorney, after I walked through an example of a presentation used in an accumulated injury case, asked how much the presentation had cost because he had just shelled out $15,000 for a personal injury case. When he said the amount, the room started to murmur critically.
I can tell you that after showing several examples of PowerPoint presentations the “luddites” in the room were willing to pay someone to craft an opening remarks, or mediation presentation(most seemed to believe that they did not have anyone inhouse savvy enough to tackle the job). Those experienced liked the example of a multi slide timeline I showed them and its use of hyperlinking to the internet and other parts of the presentation.
The avoidance of text filled slides seemed intrinsically understood but there was a notable fear of getting in over their head by some of the attendees. Others wanted to see PowerPoint used in ways new to them, like hyperlinking. They appreciated the use of dissolves between images of pre and post xrays and other “neat” comparisons. Anything priced under $10k seemed to be swallowed as affordable or reasonable.
A came away with a half dozen solid leads for work and the impression that the use of the software’s methodical, linear style of storytelling appealed the audience regardless of the technology level of the attorney. Half of the leads were from first timers the others had some experience with it.