Communication mythbusting - are slides easier to read than docs?
Summary
Narrative based writing is often a superior way to convey ideas at work, compared to slideuments. But despite the overwhelming evidence against slideuments, death by PowerPoint is an enduring workplace phenomenon. Slides are not for reading unless you craft infodecks, which need excellent design skills. For the most part, though, slides are for presenting and docs are for reading. Simple as that!
Last week, I began a series on communication myths. First, we tackled the myth that live presentations are always superior to purpose-built video recordings. Now, let’s move on to the next myth I often hear. Here’s what a colleague said to me some days back.
“The slide format is more user-friendly for humans, as it condenses information into a few pages and makes it easy to scan.”
I’m sure you’ve heard variations of this argument. There’s a pervasive belief in the tech industry, Amazon’s 6-page memo notwithstanding, that if you chuck text into PowerPoint (or an equivalent tool) and dress it up in brand colours, with the odd smart art thrown in, the text magically becomes easier to consume.
I disagree. Let’s bust this myth. But I’ll do it differently for this article, since I’ve already written about the topic in my criticism of “slideuments”.
“Slides are slides. Documents are documents. They aren't the same thing. Attempts to merge them result in what I call the "slideument" (slide + document = slideument).” - Garr Reynolds.
So, please read that article before diving into the research I’ve curated for you. For the impatient (not you, obviously), here’s my opinion.
“Slideware is a poor tool for well-structured writing. When we start using slides as a document format, we force readers to consume information in fragmented, disconnected bursts.”
All right, that’s my assertion. Let me substantiate it with what the research says.
Slides make writing harder and reading tougher.
Creating slides versus writing a continuous text document involves different cognitive processes and skills. The available literature suggests that while slides can be quicker to draft at a superficial level, true clarity often emerges more readily in well-structured text.
| Consideration | How slides perform | How documents perform |
|---|---|---|
| Message clarity |
Unlike a document that demands a logical flow, slides often include fragmented points. Each slide is an
isolated chunk,
with many gaps in logic.
These gaps lead to a fragmented authoring of complex topics. |
Writing a comprehensive but easy-to-read document is time-consuming. A six-page memo
can take up to a week to create.
But, as Bezos says, the effort results in “the clarity of angels singing”. |
| Authoring ease |
While it may seem easy to author slides, much complexity is hiding behind that facade.
Crafting slides demands multitasking: writing content and arranging it visually. This exercise diverts energy from the substance to formatting. Indeed, such divided focus results in, as Edward Tufte said, “chartjunk” and “PowerPhluff.” According to Stephen Kosslyn, minor differences that the novice author may overlook, can produce significant differences in how people comprehend a slide. |
For novice designers, balancing the cognitive load of visuals and text can also be challenging.
A 2022 study found no significant difference in retention among students who viewed text-only vs. text and images. In that case, one would wonder if there is any value in authoring content in slides to make it “more visual.” Unlike slides, several writing tools, such as Grammarly, can help novice authors express their ideas clearly. |
| Reading ease |
Most technologists aren’t skilled designers. Poor design on slideuments forces
readers to parse the format instead of the message,
increasing their cognitive load.
A 1998 HBR report asserts that bullet-point lists, as commonly used in plans or presentations, “usually aren’t anything more than lists of ‘good things to do’” and rarely reflect deep thought or encourage real insight. |
Most tech workers have about 16
years of education. So it’s fair to assume that they have decent reading skills.
Yes, we are attention-poor, but using AI as an assistant (with caution) can improve our reading efficiency. As the HBR report by Shaw, Brown and Bromiley says, “Bullet outlines might be useful in presentations now and then, but sentences with subjects and verbs are usually better.” |
The mic-drop against slides as a reading medium, comes from Tufte’s critique of slideuments, as he notes how presenters simply “print out their PP slides”.
"By playing around with Phluff rather than providing information, PowerPoint enables a prankish conspiracy against substance and thought."
In short, the research tells us that slides don’t inherently make information easier to process—they often do the opposite. But there is still a place for slides, when it comes to creating content for reading.
Infodecks - the novice designer’s page layout solution
One of the big pluses in favour of slideware is that it offers a straightforward authoring interface for layout pages. They inherently support layer-based editing. Elements on top hide the elements at the bottom. What you see is what you get. Especially for web viewing, you needn’t bother with considerations like page size, margin width, etc. You can produce decent-looking ebooks without a lot of specialised design skill. Take for example a trip memoir that my son wrote, which I then created in an ebook format, with the help of slide software.
In corporate settings, this ease of authoring translates to other documents - Martin Fowler calls them infodecks. Infodecks aren’t slideuments. They don’t double as presentation devices. They’re only for what I’d call “light reading”. They juxtapose text with visuals and communicate information in a concise and approachable manner.
Martin’s website features several infodecks. You can download a version of the async-first manifesto here. My employer, Thoughtworks, has created several beautiful and practical infodecks. I encourage you to take a look at them here.
Responsible tech playbook (UN version)
Responsible tech playbook (business version)
While you can use sophisticated desktop publishing tools like InDesign or Affinity Publisher to produce such artefacts, software like PowerPoint, Keynote, Canva and even Google Slides offer an approachable editing interface for most knowledge workers. But you don’t get this editing superpower for free.
Authors must still write their content well — coherence matters. Effective infodecks don’t sacrifice ease of comprehension for brevity. As Mark Twain (or Blaise Pascal) famously said, “I’d have written a shorter letter, but I didn’t have the time.” Writing short but meaningful text is a skill that takes time to execute.
Word processing tools like Microsoft Word offer several tools to assist you in writing. You can use the collaborative features such as tracking changes and reviewing suggestions. When you compose the text for your infodeck using a word processing tool, you give yourself a better chance of writing coherent, readable information.
Finally, it’s all about design! At the risk of repetition, I’ll be rather direct. Most technologists lack effective communication and design skills. The scarcity of design sense among knowledge workers is one reason we fail at most attempts at creating infodecks. Indeed, the most significant cost in producing infodecks comes from recruiting skilful information designers who can collaborate with subject matter experts to produce the final artefact.
So, yes, I concede that laying out infodecks in the ubiquitous slide interface, can make concepts and ideas shine. I urge you to cultivate the design skills necessary to make infodecks effective. Duarte Design offers a beautiful, if dated guide to authoring what they call Slidedocs. Don’t confuse yourself with the title. “Slidedoc” is another name for an infodeck. Read the ebook, and you’ll learn several patterns that you can then implement in the slideware of your choice.
But all this design takes effort, and we’re up against a rising tide of workplace PowerPhluffication.
A rising tide that sinks the comprehension boat
Eight years ago, the MIT Sloan School of Management revealed some dire findings. Fewer than half of its incoming MBA students did meaningful, long-form writing at work. Is it any surprise that our workplaces are rife with shallow thinking?
Ideas are cheap. Execution is costly. The devil is always in the details, but as attention spans recede and we conflate speed with productivity, the details become scarce. Most of those MIT Sloan students considered producing presentations a meaningful part of their job. Two-thirds reported that they present every day or at least weekly. Indeed, this is why presentation skills at work must improve. For that to happen, slideuments must die.
MIT Sloan made another damning prediction.
"We're not likely to see future workplaces with long-form writing. The trend is toward presentations and slides, and we don't see any sign of that slowing down."
Remember that this prediction came 13 years after Jeff Bezos banned Powerpoint in Amazon boardrooms and asked for six-page memos instead. It’s also 14 years after the space shuttle Columbia disaster, which some observers, Tufte included, partly attribute to PowerPhluff or slideuments. Engineers at NASA used complex and unclear slides to convey the severity of the foam strike that would later result in the death of all seven crew members. In their report, the Columbia accident investigation board concluded,
“The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communication at NASA.”
So, let’s return to that original assertion.
“The slide format is more user-friendly for humans, as it condenses information into a few pages and makes it easy to scan.”
Are slides more user friendly, though?
Is condensing information always a good thing?
Is scanning ease the same as ease of comprehension?
The evidence is clear: slides don’t inherently make information easier to process—they often do the opposite. Yet, corporate bias toward "slideuments" persists. The next time you communicate an idea, choose your format wisely:
Start with your goal, not the format. Do you want quick scanning or deep understanding?
Use slides for persuasion, pairing visuals with sparse text in a live presentation.
Use documents for clarity, ensuring your ideas are understood, critiqued, and improved.
Use infodecks for concise yet structured reading, but remember: good design takes effort.
Don’t let the myth of the slideument dictate how you communicate. Writing with depth isn’t outdated—it’s a competitive advantage.