←back to thread

210 points scapecast | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
bigstrat2003 ◴[] No.45059108[source]
I don't see how this has anything to do with PowerPoint. There wasn't clear communication; the medium was completely incidental to that. They could have been writing on a chalkboard and had a communication failure, does that mean that chalkboards should be blamed in that case?
replies(6): >>45059191 #>>45059348 #>>45059699 #>>45060601 #>>45061971 #>>45067121 #
stinkbeetle ◴[] No.45059191[source]
Because the medium is not conducive to dense amount of technical information that readers are expected to use to make or understand decisions. Other similar mediums like a chalkboard were not singled out because the problem was identified with PowerPoint specifically. And it wasn't a choice of mediums all with similar problems, but slides vs papers. From the article,

> “The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communication at NASA.”

replies(3): >>45059219 #>>45060207 #>>45063329 #
andrewflnr ◴[] No.45060207[source]
But the problem, if anything, was that too much dense information was conveyed at all. Based on the analysis in the post, of the engineers had replaced that slide with one that said "Don't go forward with reentry", that might have saved lives better than any change in medium. To be clear, I'm in favor of abolishing PowerPoint for any non-ephemeral use, but the problem here was focus and framing of the info.
replies(4): >>45060476 #>>45063567 #>>45064471 #>>45071283 #
1. cxr ◴[] No.45064471[source]
> Based on the analysis in the post

The analysis in the post is dogshit and misrepresents the review board's actual conclusions.

> But the problem, if anything, was that too much dense information was conveyed at all

That's totally opposite to what the members of the review board identified as the problem.