Dans le cadre de mes emplois (consultant & chargé de cours), j’utilise PowerPoint de façon assez intensive. Pour être certain que mon message passe bien auprès de mon audience, j’essaie depuis quelques temps de simplifier mes présentations afin qu’elles soient des supports à ma prestation plutôt que un remplacement de celle-ci.
Dans cette optique, j’ai bien aimé cette petite réflexion trouvée sur Six pixels of separation :
If there is one rule of presenting that I constantly see broken, it’s the one where a presenter gives out their slides whenever they are asked. There are two very valid reasons why this is a bad idea:
- It means your slides had too much content on them. Lots and lots of headings, sub-headings and way too many bullet-points. This can only mean one thing: you wrote a document in PowerPoint and were reading your slides. Your slides aren’t really slides at this point: it’s a document. Your « slides » had so much content on them, that people would like a copy for future reference – the same way they refer back to a good white paper or article from a magazine.
- It means that people will misinterpret what you meant. If your slides follow more of the Presentation Zen and Slide:ology model – great images and beautiful design – then odds are that people want it, but will have a very difficult time being able to recall the true context of your slides.
Je suis tombé sur une petite réflexion en deux temps sur les techniques d’estimation et les biais possibles lorsqu’on demande à quelqu’un d’estimer quelque chose (que ça soit la durée d’une tâche ou la proportion de développeurs Sharepoint qui ont une voiture jaune).
Voici les conclusions de l’article, mais je vous invite à le lire au complet, le petit exercice est intéressant à faire 
What you should take away from this exercise is that when asked to estimate on something you are uncertain about, make your initial estimate. Then, pretend you are in the game show and you have to pick between this estimate and the marble. If you feel that you would take the marble over your estimate, increase the width of your range until you feel that it doesn’t matter which option you pick.
Conversely, if you are one of the wimps who are under confident, then reduce the width of your range, until you feel that you have no particular preference of your estimate vs. the marbles.
In the same way that reframing a problem led from something being unquantifiable to something that indeed had a upper and lower range, by reframing the estimate against a unambiguous probability such as a bag of 10 marbles with 9 red, helps you to account for cognitive bias in your estimates.
L’article complet est ici:
Tiré de http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/11/the-unclicking-84.html
Basically, all of the clicks for all the ads online come from only 16% of the surfers, and most of them come from just 4% of all internet users.
So, if you optimize your ads for clicks, it means you’re ignoring a huge population.
If your business is built around the kind of person who clicks, you win. If it isn’t, you either need to not buy ads online or buy ads optimized for attention and familiarity, not clicks.
Imagine that only left-handed people clicked on ads (it’s about the same percent). What are you going to do if you make a product for the right-handed portion of the population?
It’s okay to make an ad that isn’t easy to measure. If it works, that’s enough.
