1) Use white/yellow text on dark background if you can, it is easier to read.
Actually, AT&T discovered back in 1989 that for some users light text on a dark background glows [or "halates"] making the text harder to read. If the goal is to make your presentations "universal" [and to avoid ADA/508 lawsuits for creating inaccessible educational material], the rule is DON'T use white/yellow text on a dark background.
See "Open Look: Graphical user interface style guidelines."
The California State University [23 campuses, 400K students] has a interesting way to deal with this; they request that instructors use the following boilerplate written by the CSU general counsel:
Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject to submission for textual similarity review to Turnitin.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers will be included as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. You may submit your paper in such a way that no identifying information about you is included. Another option is that you may request, in writing from your instructor, that your papers not be submitted to Turnitin.com. However, if you choose this option you will be required to provide documentation to substantiate that the papers are your original work and do not include any plagiarized material.
The "substantiation" usually involves requiring students to photocopy the source of every quote or borrowed concept and attaching that photocopy to the student's paper. Miss one and you fail. The faculty then pull sections from the students papers and looks for hits at Google. "Problem" solved.
Also consider that Stanford is a private university, not public.
And is therefore not bound by the accessibility laws the public institutions are.
I'm kind of looking forward to the train wreck that is about to happen:
1. A VP at State U will see what Stanford is doing and decide State U should follow course. 2. State U will put up hundreds of lecture podcasts, but not one will come with a text transcript. 3. Mary Jane, a deaf student at State U, won't be able to access the material. 4.... 5. Profit.
Well, it depends on what you goal is. At best, pictures do no harm. At best. If you want to entertain, go crazy with the pictures. If you want to TEACH, however, you should only use pictures that truly demonstrate the point you are trying to make on a particular slide.
The problem is that the human brain processes images (text on the slide, pictures, etc) separately from audible speech. Using an unrelated picture on a PowerPoint slide (like, say, that stupid duck with the sledgehammer) causes interference on the visual channel -- the text on the screen doesn't match the picture -- and actually impedes learning and retention.
In fact, if you take a simple text PowerPoint presentation; pretty it up with text, transitions, and multimedia; and then compare the test scores of students who view the plain and enhanced versions, the students who view the enhanced presentation do 10% worse.
I am in the early stages of writing a textbook on how to teach with PowerPoint [anyone know a good publisher?], and I have found a BUNCH of research on PowerPoint effectiveness. A nice place to start is:
Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77-86.
And to add insult to injury, RIAA's Carey Sherman (at yesterday's Educause roundtable in Anaheim) took a backhanded stab at iTunes claiming it was an "old business model." [One of the new business models he mentioned was an iPod loaded with locked music files -- you pay to unlock each song.]
Sherman's happy to be selling to Apple, but what I gathered from both him and Jack Valenti is that the RIAA and MPAA are hoping to one day force all of us into a utility pricing model. If you pay the monthly fee, your songs and videos will play. Skip a monthly payment, however, and all of your music and videos lock up tighter than a coon dog full of 12 pounds of government cheese.
I remember a NASA PowerPoint slide from a few years ago that said that the impact resistance of the RCC was something like 16 inch pounds. A 2 pound piece of foam travelling 500 MPH exerts slightly more than that (KE=1/2 MV^2).
I've always believed that one of the contributing factors to the loss of the orbiter and crew was that not one engineer remembered the (high school) equation for kinetic energy.
The penny a post tax sounds like a good idea at first, but the reality is that it would be the end of the large, free, opt-in mailing lists like Fred Langa's Langalist, Jack Teems' "Neat Net Tricks," and Bob Rankin's and my "Internet Tourbus."
Tourbus has 84,803 subscribers at last count, and we [try to] send out 2 posts a week. If the penny a post tax comes to pass, it will cost me almost $90,000 a year to send out my posts. That's almost twice as much as my entire student loans!
There has to be a better solution to the spam problem that wouldn't kill the Langalist... and TechGuy... and Woody's Windows Watch... and Kuro5hin Email Digest... and Lockergnome... and Tourbus... and...
I think the RIAA may be on to something. Under the new, "legitimate" P2P services, in return for a monthly fee you get the right to download X number of songs a month. Stop paying the monthly fee and all the songs you have downloaded stop working.
THIS IS THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING CRISIS! Colleges and universities should follow the RIAA's lead and start charging a monthly fee in perpetuity. Stop paying your monthly "education utility bill" and the bursar's office shows up, rips up your degree, and gives you a lobotomy.
An interesting observation about spam was made a few years ago by either Dylan Tweeny or Robert Sideman (I forget who):
Spam doesn't actually have to work. It only has to give the APPEARANCE that it works.
The real money in the spam business comes not from spamming itself but from selling spam services -- mailing lists, distro services, and so on -- to (if you'll pardon the stock market analogy) greater fools.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Use white/yellow text on dark background if you can, it is easier to read.
Actually, AT&T discovered back in 1989 that for some users light text on a dark background glows [or "halates"] making the text harder to read. If the goal is to make your presentations "universal" [and to avoid ADA/508 lawsuits for creating inaccessible educational material], the rule is DON'T use white/yellow text on a dark background.
See "Open Look: Graphical user interface style guidelines."
The California State University [23 campuses, 400K students] has a interesting way to deal with this; they request that instructors use the following boilerplate written by the CSU general counsel:
The "substantiation" usually involves requiring students to photocopy the source of every quote or borrowed concept and attaching that photocopy to the student's paper. Miss one and you fail. The faculty then pull sections from the students papers and looks for hits at Google. "Problem" solved.
Also consider that Stanford is a private university, not public.
...
And is therefore not bound by the accessibility laws the public institutions are.
I'm kind of looking forward to the train wreck that is about to happen:
1. A VP at State U will see what Stanford is doing and decide State U should follow course.
2. State U will put up hundreds of lecture podcasts, but not one will come with a text transcript.
3. Mary Jane, a deaf student at State U, won't be able to access the material.
4.
5. Profit.
Or something like that.
How can asynchronous communication be wiretapped?
You've had THREE cars catch fire? Where do you live, Bagdhad?!
> 2) avoid text on your slides at all costs
Well, it depends on what you goal is. At best, pictures do no harm. At best. If you want to entertain, go crazy with the pictures. If you want to TEACH, however, you should only use pictures that truly demonstrate the point you are trying to make on a particular slide.
The problem is that the human brain processes images (text on the slide, pictures, etc) separately from audible speech. Using an unrelated picture on a PowerPoint slide (like, say, that stupid duck with the sledgehammer) causes interference on the visual channel -- the text on the screen doesn't match the picture -- and actually impedes learning and retention.
In fact, if you take a simple text PowerPoint presentation; pretty it up with text, transitions, and multimedia; and then compare the test scores of students who view the plain and enhanced versions, the students who view the enhanced presentation do 10% worse.
I am in the early stages of writing a textbook on how to teach with PowerPoint [anyone know a good publisher?], and I have found a BUNCH of research on PowerPoint effectiveness. A nice place to start is:
Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77-86.
And to add insult to injury, RIAA's Carey Sherman (at yesterday's Educause roundtable in Anaheim) took a backhanded stab at iTunes claiming it was an "old business model." [One of the new business models he mentioned was an iPod loaded with locked music files -- you pay to unlock each song.]
Sherman's happy to be selling to Apple, but what I gathered from both him and Jack Valenti is that the RIAA and MPAA are hoping to one day force all of us into a utility pricing model. If you pay the monthly fee, your songs and videos will play. Skip a monthly payment, however, and all of your music and videos lock up tighter than a coon dog full of 12 pounds of government cheese.
Nothing satisfies like the rich, warm aroma of a fresh cup of Sanka.
Oh, wait. You said Paul Anka.
Nevermind.
I remember a NASA PowerPoint slide from a few years ago that said that the impact resistance of the RCC was something like 16 inch pounds. A 2 pound piece of foam travelling 500 MPH exerts slightly more than that (KE=1/2 MV^2).
I've always believed that one of the contributing factors to the loss of the orbiter and crew was that not one engineer remembered the (high school) equation for kinetic energy.
I agree with Danny on this one.
... and TechGuy ... and Woody's Windows Watch ... and Kuro5hin Email Digest ... and Lockergnome ... and Tourbus ... and ...
The penny a post tax sounds like a good idea at first, but the reality is that it would be the end of the large, free, opt-in mailing lists like Fred Langa's Langalist, Jack Teems' "Neat Net Tricks," and Bob Rankin's and my "Internet Tourbus."
Tourbus has 84,803 subscribers at last count, and we [try to] send out 2 posts a week. If the penny a post tax comes to pass, it will cost me almost $90,000 a year to send out my posts. That's almost twice as much as my entire student loans!
There has to be a better solution to the spam problem that wouldn't kill the Langalist
I think the RIAA may be on to something. Under the new, "legitimate" P2P services, in return for a monthly fee you get the right to download X number of songs a month. Stop paying the monthly fee and all the songs you have downloaded stop working.
THIS IS THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING CRISIS! Colleges and universities should follow the RIAA's lead and start charging a monthly fee in perpetuity. Stop paying your monthly "education utility bill" and the bursar's office shows up, rips up your degree, and gives you a lobotomy.
An interesting observation about spam was made a few years ago by either Dylan Tweeny or Robert Sideman (I forget who):
Spam doesn't actually have to work. It only has to give the APPEARANCE that it works.
The real money in the spam business comes not from spamming itself but from selling spam services -- mailing lists, distro services, and so on -- to (if you'll pardon the stock market analogy) greater fools.