I finally seized the opportunity to see Edward Tufte deliver his one-day workshop Presenting Data and Information. Due to his rockstar reputation, I had some overblown expectations—something more theatrical, with flashy graphics, head stands, perhaps a light show? I spent the first two hours feeling a bit let down until I realized how antipodal his message is to the marketing flash of someone like Seth Godin. Tufte’s presentation is all about delivering substantive content that is cognitively engaging—an approach that he modeled expertly, sans bells and whistles. While I had overestimated Tufte’s histrionics, he did not underestimate my (his audience’s) intelligence.
The workshop is directed more toward those in the business world who need to present data and information to address engineering problems, inform budget decisions, and the like. However, I found a couple of take-aways for trainer-facilitators.
1. The Super Graphic (or Return of the Handout)
There is a tendency (especially in online learning) to reduce data and information to a minimal amount per screen, or to stretch data sets out over a series of screens. This is driven necessarily by the compact pixel real estate of the computer monitor, but the outcome is to shrink information toward meaninglessness or to confound the viewer’s cognitive ability to make comparisons and draw conclusions by scattering the inputs and forcing super-human acts of memorizing.
Enter the SUPER GRAPHIC! This is a printed, efficiently annotated graphic, dense with data, legal size or larger, that allows the learner to scan the entirety of an information set, make comparisons from proximal visual, numerical and textual information, and derive informed, self-propelled conclusions. This kind of information presentation could/should accompany most online training. Many courses include downloadable handouts of resources as more of an addendum than an integral part of the learning. Why not design a course around a super graphic, using the online portion to direct the learner’s attention, inject probing questions, and allow interactions to demonstrate the successful intake of knowledge?
2. Give the learner time to think
Several times during the workshop, Tufte asked the audience to study a data set or super graphic in one of his books, which we all had stacked in front of us. And then he stopped talking. Attention was not focused on the stage but on the pages of our books. There were some low murmurs of people sharing observations but the room of 400+ was otherwise quiet. This went on for five minutes—an eternity of “dead air” in broadcast parlance.
This was an aha! moment for me. Not only is it okay to give learners some studying-thinking time during instruction, it empowers them to absorb, reflect, and contribute to the formation of knowledge. It allows real learning to take place. Isn’t that more important than filling up every second of audio space?
Do I recommend going to see Tufte’s presentation next time he’s in your neighborhood? Sure! Yes, you can buy all the books for approximately half the price of the workshop, but you would miss the directed tour through the material and you would miss Tufte’s modeling of effective delivery.
Thanks for the critically important reminders that well designed visuals and time for reflection are key components of the learning process. Tufte obviously provides great examples of how the two can be combined in a way which serves trainer-teacher-learners effectively.
Still, I have to admit that with online sessions, any dead air makes me nervous. It’s a challenge to get over the feeling that it’s wasted time. I’d be curious to know if anyone has tried this.
I love the Tufte stuff. Mind you, I also like the Godin stuff
For me, it’s about horses for courses, so to speak. Godin’s approach is intended and designed to get over a couple of big, relatively abstract concepts, whereas Tufte’s stuff is much more orientated around detail, data-heavy scenarios. I suggest to people they use either or both (though not at the same time!
) depending on what it is they’re doing.
All too often I see people using a (not very good application of the Tufte) approach when the Godin approach is more appropriate.
Above all, know your audience and know your subject! Then you decide how to present it.
Simon
Excellent comments, Simon! I’m sure Tufte and Godin would both agree with your concluding line.
I do think, however, that the Tufte-style and Godin-style are not incompatible. In fact, Tufte modeled the combination in his presentation. He used colorful, attention-grabbing, text-less PowerPoint images projected on the large screens while directing the audience’s attention to study in intricate detail the hard copy print of his favorite super-graphic of Napolean’s March to Moscow.
Thanks for joining the conversation.
Great help. Well done.
Edmond Otis tried it for a thirty-second period on his Infopeople webcast a couple of years ago. No idea how it was for those listening–I was in the studio with him at the time. The overall evaluations for the hour-long session were great, and no one commented in favor of or against the (half) moment of silence.