[kqr]

There is one important difference between written lists and PowerPoint presented lists. IIRC Tufte emphasises this difference too.

A written list can be read in any order. You can go back and re-read previous items, and then go into the future and see what the conclusions from the current items are, and so on. This free-form temporal flow of any writing (including lists) is a very powerful tool of reasoning. Arguably, this property of writing is what leads to an intellectual explosion once a people learns how to write.

In a PowerPoint presentation, the temporal order is fixed. And humans have a tendency to infer causality based on order. So with a PowerPoint presentation, you can (more easily) convince someone of invalid conclusions of logic because you control the post hoc ergo propter hoc.

So, I guess, all of this to say: writing lists good. PowerPointing lists bad.

[delusional]

Hmm. Tufte does note that one of PPs specific ailments is the linear nature of the presentation, but he also goes directly for bulleted lists. He pretty clearly takes down deeply indented bulleted lists as the internal structure of "The Software Bureaucracy" leaking out through the software.

I think the salient argument is his argument that the CONTENT should drive the presentation style. Lists are good for some stuff, but not everything.

[edmundsauto]

Order matters, and will create bias or cognitive prioritization, regardless of whether something is a bullet point.

Take the famous Napoleanic map - top left Carrie’s similar weight as the first bullet item. It may not be linear (1d) since it’s 2D, but the same problems exist: the first items we are exposed to will create a stronger reaction due to an artifact of arrangement rather than importance.

[skybrian]

A bulleted list, particularly in a slide presentation, is all headings, no content.

Sometimes the presenter talks about each item, giving meaningful detail while the structure is there on the screen. But it means that someone reading the slides alone misses the detail. Someone not listening carefully misses it too.

In written work, the headings are just headings. The paragraphs under the headings are the content. You can write transitions, too.

[kqr]

While this is a valid concern, I think its importance is over stated.

Much like some people tune out the speaker and just read the bullet points, I have known people who read just the headings or just the first sentence of paragraphs and then take action based on what they perceived of the document.

There is an argument still, of course, that the PowerPoint situation is worse because (if presented badly) the reading competes with the listening. I would still be hesitant to judge a medium based on bad execution, no matter how widespread. I'm willing to admit that might be unpragmatic of me.

[mrslave]

In journalism there is the concept of the inverted pyramid. An article's structure should be in order of importance. This way readers can assess the incremental gains of persisting with the article against their interest in the subject.