What this means is that we shouldn't abbreviate the truth but rather get a new method of presentation.
What gets left out is the narrative between the bullets, which would tell us who's going to do what and how we're going to achieve the generic goals on the list.
The speculative part of my work is that these particular cognitive tasks - ways of thinking analytically - are tied to nature's laws.
The point of the essay is to change things.
The minimum we should hope for with any display technology is that it should do no harm.
The leading edge in evidence presentation is in science; the leading edge in beauty is in high art.
The idea of trying to create things that last - forever knowledge - has guided my work for a long time now.
The goal is to provide analytical tools that will last students a lifetime.
The commonality between science and art is in trying to see profoundly - to develop strategies of seeing and showing.
If you like overheads, you'll love PowerPoint.
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.
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.
I think it is important for software to avoiding imposing a cognitive style on workers and their work.
I was writing a chapter of Beautiful Evidence on the subject of the sculptural pedestal, which led to my thinking about what's up on the pedestal - the great leader.
It is straightforward for me to be ethical, responsible, and kind-hearted because I have the resources to support that.