Information overload in presentations

At the conference on REACH I attended a few weeks ago, as usual, all the speakers used slides crammed with information – far too much to cover in the short time slots they were allocated. In every case they either moved through the slides too quickly (so the audience didn’t have time to finish reading the individual slides) or ended up skipping and missing a number of slides.

Why do they do this?

I think that one of the reasons is that speakers at conferences usually have a limited time slot, but have a lot of information they want to communicate. By cramming information onto slides you reduce the total number and fool yourself into thinking that the amount of material you are trying to get across is manageable in the time available. It’s a little like burying your head in the sand. The problem of too much material disappears – until you try to present it!

Most presenters at conferences I’ve attended don’t seem to put thought into the design of their slides. Typically they default to using the easy option of using the standard Powerpoint template which encourages the use of bullet points and sub bullets.

Slides should support the presentation – they’re not a substitute for it. However, where they are used they need to be well designed if they are to perform their function effectively. I think that most presenters don’t put too much thought into that aspect of their presentation. They tend to default to using the standard Powerpoint template that focuses on using words, structured as bullets and sub-bullets.

Research has shown that its better to minimise the number of words on a slide and to use pictures or other visuals where possible. I don’t intend to go into it here, but there is a good explanation of the theory in a recent post on Olivia’s Mitchell’s blog “Speaking about Presentation” which includes a summary of some recent work by Chris Atherton, a cognitive psychologist from the University of Central Lancashire.

Some good advice on slide design is available also available in a number of books such as Beyond Bullet Points by Cliff Atkinson, Presentation Zen by Garr Reynolds and Slideology by Nancy Duarte.

BOHS Examination changes

A few weeks ago BOHS announced that from November the 1st all module examinations will have a new format.

The exam will still be in two parts but from 1st November

• Part A will consist of 40 short answer questions rather than 60 multiple choice questions. There are pros and cons for candidates, but the biggest advantage is that there will no longer be any negative marking.
• Part B will changed so that candidates will be required to answer 5 "micro-essay" questions from a choice of 8.
• The pass mark will remain at 50%

Personally I think the change to part A will be beneficial. As there is no negative marking it will be advisable to try to answer all the questions. Currently some candidates hesitate on some questions where they are not 100% confident, even though they may know the answer. And it will only be necessary to get 20 out of 40 right. Another benefit is that as each question is worth 4 marks, some answers may gain partial marks. This will be particularly helpful with calculation questions where marks can be gained providing an appropriate method is used even if the final answer is incorrect due to a slip in the calculation (working will need to be shown to ensure this happens). Currently a small slip results in a negative mark for an incorrect answer even where the candidate understands the principles involved.

For Part B, instead of one long question from a choice of two, candidates will be required to answer 5 out of 8 "micro-essay" questions. BOHS have now released some example questions which can be accessed here.

Given the time available for the exam hasn't changed (2 hours 15 minutes total) with 45 minutes meant to be devoted to Part B, they are expecting no more than 15 minutes to be devoted to answering each of these "micro-essay" questions, so candidates answers will need to be concise, while ensuring that the key points are included. Experience will show how easy it is to achieve this.

Slideology Webinar

Yesterday I participated in a webinar held by Nancy Duarte of Duarte Design, the author of “Slideology“. I’m a big fan of her book and her approach to presentation design so was keen to listen to what she had to say. I had some computer problems so missed the first twenty or so minutes of the 60 minute session, but it was still worthwhile logging in.

The points made by Nancy really covered the same ground as her book, but it was good to hear them presented “in person”, so to speak. I also found it interesting to look at the slides she’d designed for her presentation. The key points that I took away from the session were:

• when preparing for a presentation, stand back from the computer. Presentation design programs like Powerpoint can lead the user and limit their imagination. The brain isn’t digital and its good to use old fashioned tools like paper, note cards and sticky notes to brainstorm and arrange ideas
• Don’t try to cram too much on one slide. “Slides are free”. Split ideas over many slides rather than cramming them all on to one.
• A good slide designer needs to be a communicator, a graphic analyst and a draughtsman!
• Deliver a profound experience to the audience – a “STAR” moment (Something They’ll Always Remember)

Safari Books will be posting a recording of the webinar on the net in the next day or two. I don’t know whether it will be generally available but as I participant I’ll be downloading it and watching the presentation again.

Conferences ae always a "mixed bag" and this was the case with the REACH meeting held in Brussels on 30 September/1 October. Overall, it was worthwhile attending and I certainly learned more about the requirements of REACH relating to occupational exposures were being implemented in practice. Some of he contributions wee a little too basic, given the nature of the conference and the audience, but the majority were useful.

The key points I took away from the conference were:

• there remains a clear conflict between the requirements of REACH and occupational health and safety legislation. The objectives are the same (i.e. protecting the health of workers and others) but there are significant differences in their approaches which could potentially lead to conflicting perceptions of risk and requirements for control.
• insufficient thought was given to how the REACH requirements on hazard and exposure assessment could be applied in practice before the legislation was introduced. Companies implementing the requirements are having to develop the methodologies as they go along and the timescales are too tight to allow then to be properly validated before deadlines have to be met.
  
• REACH DNELs(derived no effect levels) are consistently tighter than Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) due to the major differences in the ways they are established. This can lead to confusion and as DNELs are used in the risk assessment process to develop "risk management measures" (RMMs) it is highly likely that the REACH process will result in tighter controls being specified than those based on a risk assessment using established OELs. Although this problem has been known about for a number of years, it has still not been resolved.
• The tools needed for exposure assessment, which is required to allow RMMs to be specified, are still not fully developed and validated.
• the Advanced Reach Tool (ART) looks promising and may have wider occupational hygiene applications, but needs to be validated.
• there are a number of "first tier" exposure assessment tools (i.e. basic exposure modelling methods). A number were described during the conference. It would have been useful to see them demonstrated, using the different tools for the same substance so that their conclusions could be compared.
• modelling techniques are always going to have their limitations, and this is particularly true for the basic "first tier" models. They need to be used by people who understand exposure assessment and these limitations. Ideally they shoul only be used as part of the exposure assessment process. There is a real danger that this won't happen in many cases and that RMMS will end up being specified by inexpeienced people using only the flawed, basic models. From what I saw at the conference the models tend to err "on the side of safety" (just like COSHH Essentials). This may mean that worker health won't be adversely affected but it could have economic consequences for he employers and possibly damage employment.
  

The occupational hygiene community has the expertise to develop the methodologies, and also has the knowledge and experience to work out how the REACH process could be improved. Unfortunately, I doubt that we have sufficient "clout" to influence the powers that be on this and we are going to have to live with, and try to manage, the consequences once the Regulations start to impact on "downstream users".