There are only two industries that refer to their customers as users.
The commonality between science and art is in trying to see profoundly - to develop strategies of seeing and showing.
The leading edge in evidence presentation is in science; the leading edge in beauty is in high art.
I do believe that there are some universal cognitive tasks that are deep and profound - indeed, so deep and profound that it is worthwhile to understand them in order to design our displays in accord with those tasks.
The central claim of the book is that effective analytic designs entail turning thinking principles into seeing principles.
The know-your-audience philosophy can be a big step down the road to pandering to the audience.
The point is that analytical designs are not to be decided on their convenience to the user or necessarily their readability or what psychologists or decorators think about them; rather, design architectures should be decided on how the architecture assists analytical thinking about evidence.
If you like overheads, you'll love PowerPoint.
Second, simply use PowerPoint as a slide projector rather than an information tool.
There are many true statements about complex topics that are too long to fit on a PowerPoint slide.
It's not that PowerPoint brought the Columbia down, but the method of presentation broke up the argument into tiny fragments, and it's intensely hierarchical-no sentences, just little phrases.
If the statistics are boring, then you've got the wrong numbers.
My father worked for governments all his life as an engineer and public works director.
I hope that I am generous and tolerant, but certainly on the intellectual side I think that there are discoverable truths, and some things that are closer approximations to the truth than others.
What this means is that we shouldn't abbreviate the truth but rather get a new method of presentation.