You are here:

MS PowerPoint Use from a Micro-Perspective PROCEEDINGS

, German Institute for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Germany

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vienna, Austria ISBN 978-1-880094-65-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


In this paper, we want to take a close look at the surprising discrepancy between the critical and vehement discourse about the presentation software MS PowerPoint (PPT) and its ubiquitous use. We employ the ``Added-Value Analysis' method to analyze the context and the reasons for using PPT from the micro-perspective of users. On the one hand, this analysis reveals a fundamental distinction between the speaker and the audience member as user, and moreover, between the show, the presentational document, and the handout. On the other hand, it shows the intertwinement of Liddle's interaction design phases for software product use in PPT (which enables various use metaphors). With these distinctions at hand we can explain the rather emotional PPT discourse as addressing distinct PPT components as well as the rationality that explains the nonetheless heavy use of PPT.


Kohlhase, A. (2008). MS PowerPoint Use from a Micro-Perspective. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1279-1286). Vienna, Austria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 15, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Chapman, B. (2005). PowerPoint to E-Learning Development Tools: Comparative Analysis of 20 Leading Systems. Retrieved on 2008/05/02 at Brandon Hall Research.
  2. De Chernatony, L., Harris, F., and Riley, F.D. (2000). Added value: Its nature, roles and sustainability. European Journal of marketing, 34(1/2):39 – 56.
  3. Farkas, D.K. (2006). Toward a better understanding of PowerPoint deck design. In: Information Design Journal+ Document Design. Vol. 14, No. 3, P. 162-171, John Benjamin Publishing.
  4. Friedman, B. (1996). Value-Sensitive Design. Interactions, ACM, 16 – 23. Gr ö nross, C. (1997). Value-driven relational marketing: from products to resources and competencies. Journal of Marketing Management, 13:407 – 419.
  5. Holzkamp, K. (1995). Lernen: Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung. Campus Verlag.
  6. Kohlhase, A. (2006). What if PowerPoint became emPowerPoint (through CPoint)? In Crawford, C.M., Willis, D.A., Carlsen, R., Gibson, I., McFerrin, K., Price, J., and Weber, R., editors, Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (SITE ’ 06). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Orlando (USA), 2006-03-20/24. 2934– 2939.
  7. Kohlhase, A. And Kohlhase, M. (2004). CPoint: Dissolving the Author’ s Dilemma. In Asperti, A., Bancerek, G., and Trybulec, A., editors, Mathematical Knowledge Management (MKM ’ 04), number 3119 in LNAI. Springer Verlag, 175 – 189.
  8. Kohlhase, A. And Kohlhase, M. (2007). Re-examining the MKM Value Proposition: From Math Web Search to Math Web ReSearch. In Kauers, M., Kerber, M., Miner, R., and Windsteiger, W., editors, MKM/Calculemus 2007, number 4573 in LNAI. Springer Verlag, 266 – 279.
  9. Kohlhase, A. And Müller, N. (2007). Added-Value: Getting People into Semantic Work Environments. In Press in“ J. Rech, B. Decker, and E. Ras (editors): Semantic Work Environments”, ISBN 978-1-59904-877-2.
  10. Kohlhase, A., Schelhowe, H., and Lund, M. (2007). What Can the Hundred Languages of Children Teach Us? In Gross, T., editor, Interaktion im Plural, Konferenzreihe Mensch und Computer, Bauhaus-Universitä t
  11. Maeda, J. (2006). The Laws of Simplicity. The MIT Press.
  12. Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing Interactions. MIT.
  13. Norman, D. And Draper, S., editors (1986). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, US.
  14. Norman, D.A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. B & T.
  15. Norman, D.A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books.
  16. Normann, R. And Ramirez, R. (1998). Designing Interactive Strategy. From Value Chain to Value Constellation. Wiley and Sons.
  17. Parker, I. (2001). Absolute PowerPoint: Can a Software Package Edit our Thoughts? The New Yorker, pages 67 – 87.
  18. Schön, D.A. (1983). TheRe fl ective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. B & T.
  19. Sesink, W. (2004). In-formation: Die Einbildung des Computers. Number 3 in Bildung und Technik. LIT Verlag Münster.
  20. Shwom, B.L. And Keller, K.P. (2003). The Great Man Has Spoken. Now What Do I Do? A Response to Edward R. Tufte ’ s “ The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint”. Communication Insight, 1(1).
  21. Thielsch, M., Nikolaeva, D., and Förster, N. (2006). Usability von Prä sentationssoftware. In Bosenick, T., Hassenzahl, M., Müller-Prove, M., and Peissner, M., editors, Usability Professionals 2006. Stuttgart: German Chapter der Usability Professionals’ Association.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact