EFFECTIVE SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS

Dan SeatonRoyal Observatory of Belgium

Space Science Training Week KULeuven ☀ 2013 September 16

Why does most scientific communication go wrong? Often, the problem is that PowerPoint templates reduce nuance and cause speakers to try to fit their information into inappropriately narrow constraints.

“Slideware often reduces the analytical quality of

presentations. In particular, the popular PowerPoint

templates (ready-made designs) usually weaken

verbal and spatial reasoning, and almost always

corrupt statistical analysis. What is the problem

with PowerPoint? And how can we improve our

presentations?”

—Edward Tufte, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint (2006)

Slideware can help speakers to outline their talks, show visual materials, and to communicate slides in talks, printed reports, and internet. But careless use can obscure meaning and context, inhibit deep analysis, or worse, distort the truth. How can we avoid this?

A CASE STUDY:SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA

COLUMBIABroke up on re-entry

1 February 2003

NASA (2003)

The Columbia broke up because insulating foam broke off its external fuel tank and struck left wing during launch, damaging thermal tiles needed to withstand extremely hot conditions during re-entry. Mission managers were aware of the risk during the flight, and Boeing engineers made a presentation on their risk analysis.

Review Of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for TilePenetration

The existing SOFI on tile test data used to create Crater was reviewed along with STS-107 Southwest Research data•

– Crater overpredicted penetration of tile coatingsignificantly• Initial penetration to described by normal velocity

Varies with volume/mass of projectile(e.g., 200ft/sec for3cu. In)

• Significant energy is required for the softer SOFI particle to penetrate the relatively hard tile coating

significant damage

Test results do show that it is possible at sufficient massand velocity

• Conversely, once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause

Minor variations in total energy (above penetration level)can cause significant tile damage

– Flight condition is significantly outside of test database • Volume of ramp is 1920cu in vs 3 cu in for test

2/21/03 6

Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report Vol. 1, p. 191 (August 2003)

This is a critical slide from the Boeing presentation. Note that “Crater” is the impact model used to evaluate the damage and “SOFI” means Spray-On Foam Insulation.

What is the most significant statement in the slide?

Review Of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for TilePenetration

The existing SOFI on tile test data used to create Crater was reviewed along with STS-107 Southwest Research data•

– Crater overpredicted penetration of tile coatingsignificantly• Initial penetration to described by normal velocity

Varies with volume/mass of projectile(e.g., 200ft/sec for3cu. In)

• Significant energy is required for the softer SOFI particle to penetrate the relatively hard tile coating

significant damage

Test results do show that it is possible at sufficient massand velocity

• Conversely, once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause

Minor variations in total energy (above penetration level)can cause significant tile damage

– Flight condition is significantly outside of test database • Volume of ramp is 1920cu in vs 3 cu in for test

2/21/03 6

Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report Vol. 1, p. 191 (August 2003)

How do you know what information is important when there are So many levels and so much information, not all of it critical?

Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report Vol. 1, p. 191 (August 2003)

Review Of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for TilePenetration

The existing SOFI on tile test data used to create Crater was reviewed along with STS-107 Southwest Research data•

– Crater overpredicted penetration of tile coatingsignificantly• Initial penetration to described by normal velocity

Varies with volume/mass of projectile(e.g., 200ft/sec for3cu. In)

• Significant energy is required for the softer SOFI particle to penetrate the relatively hard tile coating

significant damage

Test results do show that it is possible at sufficient massand velocity

• Conversely, once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause

Minor variations in total energy (above penetration level)can cause significant tile damage

– Flight condition is significantly outside of test database • Volume of ramp is 1920cu in vs 3 cu in for test

2/21/03 6

The most important point is that the model tested an impact by a projectile 640 times smaller than the piece of foam that struck the wing during launch. The post-accident report itself acknowledged the problems with this slide later on.

“As information gets passed up an organizational

hierarchy, from people who do analysis to mid-level

managers to high-level leadership, key explanations

and supporting information are filtered out. In this

context it is easy to understand how a senior

manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not

realize that it addresses a life threatening situation.”

—Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report, vol. 1 (August 2003)

Could this slide be improved?

Review Of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for TilePenetration

The existing SOFI on tile test data used to create Crater was reviewed along with STS-107 Southwest Research data•

– Crater overpredicted penetration of tile coatingsignificantly• Initial penetration to described by normal velocity

Varies with volume/mass of projectile(e.g., 200ft/sec for3cu. In)

• Significant energy is required for the softer SOFI particle to penetrate the relatively hard tile coating

significant damage

Test results do show that it is possible at sufficient massand velocity

• Conversely, once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause

Minor variations in total energy (above penetration level)can cause significant tile damage

– Flight condition is significantly outside of test database • Volume of ramp is 1920cu in vs 3 cu in for test

2/21/03 6

Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report Vol. 1, p. 191 (August 2003)

What is the pertinent information here? There was a real risk of penetration Extensive damage was possible The simulations looked at a scenario that was nowhere close to reality

A SOFI particle can• penetrate tile coating at high energy• cause major damage after penetration

Test data show damage is possible, but test models are not applicable

Columbia flight is way out of tested range(one fragment estimated at 1920 in3 vs. 3 in3 for tests)

Adapted from Doumont, Tech. Comm. (February 2005)

One proposal for a better version of this slide might look like this.

What is the lesson here?

What comes out of a talk depends on what goes into it.

What I mean here is that what the audience takes away depends strongly on how much effort goes into preparing the talk and the slides. If you make little effort the audience will probably take away very little meaning.

This talk is mainly about making better slides.

During this talk, I’ll assume you know most of the fundamentals of public speaking: Face the audience as much as humanly possible Avoid distractions (don’t wave pointer all over, for example) Speak clearly and loudly enough Make notes about what you need to remember—your slides should distill information, not serve as notes

FOUR CRITICAL ERRORS THAT CAN RUIN A TALK

1. Failure to organize the information presented

2. Unreadable or poorly organized slides

3. Unclear, unreadable, or inefficient visuals

4. Failure to understand your audience

If your content disorganized, the audience will not be able to follow the talk or determine what is new, what is context, and what the problem and solution are. The same goes for your slides.Remember also that PowerPoint is a visual tool, use it effectively: present complex info or complement/emphasize spoken presentation, which should be the focus of your slides.Finally, note that your audience gains nothing from a talk that is not appropriate for the level, setting, etc.

1. Failure to organize the information presented

2. Unreadable or poorly organized slides

3. Unclear, unreadable, or inefficient visuals

4. Failure to understand your audience

We have already examined the first two points in our case study on the Columbia.

1. Failure to organize the information presented

2. Unreadable or poorly organized slides

3. Unclear, unreadable, or inefficient visuals

4. Failure to understand your audience

Let’s look at what can go wrong with a slide.

Here’s a real slide from a talk I once attended.

What is being conveyed in this figure?

It’s hard to know what’s being conveyed. Why? There are several reasons:Both space and color are used confusingly. An audience might ask why there are bullets on right and left and are they related? They might ask what is meant by the colored text?The biggest problem is that the author has tried to shoehorn too much information onto a single slide, rendering the figures unreadable.

Is there a better way to convey complex information?

The Solar Cycle 13

Sunspot areas are also available from a number of solar observatories including: Catania (1978 –1999), Debrecen (1986 – 1998), Kodaikanal (1906 – 1987), Mt. Wilson (1917 – 1985), Rome (1958 –2000), and Yunnan (1981 – 1992). While individual observatories have data gaps, their data arevery useful for helping to maintain consistency over the full interval from 1874 to the present.

The combined RGO USAF/NOAA datasets are available online (RGO).These datasets have additional information that is not reflected in sunspot numbers – positional

information – both latitude and longitude. The distribution of sunspot area with latitude (Figure 8)shows that sunspots appear in two bands on either side of the Sun’s equator. At the start of eachcycle spots appear at latitudes above about 20 – 25°. As the cycle progresses the range of latitudeswith sunspots broadens and the central latitude slowly drifts toward the equator, but with a zoneof avoidance near the equator. This behavior is referred to as “Sporer’s Law of Zones” by Maunder(1903) and was famously illustrated by his “Butterfly Diagram” (Maunder, 1904).

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

AVERAGE DAILY SUNSPOT AREA (% OF VISIBLE HEMISPHERE)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

SUNSPOT AREA IN EQUAL AREA LATITUDE STRIPS (% OF STRIP AREA) > 0.0% > 0.1% > 1.0%

90S

30S

EQ

30N

90N

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/BFLY.pdf HATHAWAY/NASA/MSFC 2010/01

DAILY SUNSPOT AREA AVERAGED OVER INDIVIDUAL SOLAR ROTATIONS

Figure 8: Sunspot area as a function of latitude and time. The average daily sunspot area for each solarrotation since May 1874 is plotted as a function of time in the lower panel. The relative area in equalarea latitude strips is illustrated with a color code in the upper panel. Sunspots form in two bands, one ineach hemisphere, that start at about 25° from the equator at the start of a cycle and migrate toward theequator as the cycle progresses.

3.3 10.7 cm solar flux

The 10.7 cm Solar Flux is the disk integrated emission from the Sun at the radio wavelengthof 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) (cf. Tapping and Charrois, 1994). This measure of solar activity hasadvantages over sunspot numbers and areas in that it is completely objective and can be madeunder virtually all weather conditions. Measurements of this flux have been taken daily by theCanadian Solar Radio Monitoring Programme since 1946. Several measurements are taken eachday and care is taken to avoid reporting values influenced by flaring activity. Observations were

Living Reviews in Solar Physicshttp://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2010-1

Hathaway, Living Reviews Solar Phys., 7 (2010)

This is one example of a figure I think is very successful. It combines and relates multiple data in a way that adds information to the data.

The figure presents sunspot data in a condensed and concise way.

The Solar Cycle 13

Sunspot areas are also available from a number of solar observatories including: Catania (1978 –1999), Debrecen (1986 – 1998), Kodaikanal (1906 – 1987), Mt. Wilson (1917 – 1985), Rome (1958 –2000), and Yunnan (1981 – 1992). While individual observatories have data gaps, their data arevery useful for helping to maintain consistency over the full interval from 1874 to the present.

The combined RGO USAF/NOAA datasets are available online (RGO).These datasets have additional information that is not reflected in sunspot numbers – positional

information – both latitude and longitude. The distribution of sunspot area with latitude (Figure 8)shows that sunspots appear in two bands on either side of the Sun’s equator. At the start of eachcycle spots appear at latitudes above about 20 – 25°. As the cycle progresses the range of latitudeswith sunspots broadens and the central latitude slowly drifts toward the equator, but with a zoneof avoidance near the equator. This behavior is referred to as “Sporer’s Law of Zones” by Maunder(1903) and was famously illustrated by his “Butterfly Diagram” (Maunder, 1904).

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

AVERAGE DAILY SUNSPOT AREA (% OF VISIBLE HEMISPHERE)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

SUNSPOT AREA IN EQUAL AREA LATITUDE STRIPS (% OF STRIP AREA) > 0.0% > 0.1% > 1.0%

90S

30S

EQ

30N

90N

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/BFLY.pdf HATHAWAY/NASA/MSFC 2010/01

DAILY SUNSPOT AREA AVERAGED OVER INDIVIDUAL SOLAR ROTATIONS

Figure 8: Sunspot area as a function of latitude and time. The average daily sunspot area for each solarrotation since May 1874 is plotted as a function of time in the lower panel. The relative area in equalarea latitude strips is illustrated with a color code in the upper panel. Sunspots form in two bands, one ineach hemisphere, that start at about 25° from the equator at the start of a cycle and migrate toward theequator as the cycle progresses.

3.3 10.7 cm solar flux

The 10.7 cm Solar Flux is the disk integrated emission from the Sun at the radio wavelengthof 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) (cf. Tapping and Charrois, 1994). This measure of solar activity hasadvantages over sunspot numbers and areas in that it is completely objective and can be madeunder virtually all weather conditions. Measurements of this flux have been taken daily by theCanadian Solar Radio Monitoring Programme since 1946. Several measurements are taken eachday and care is taken to avoid reporting values influenced by flaring activity. Observations were

Living Reviews in Solar Physicshttp://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2010-1

Hathaway, Living Reviews Solar Phys., 7 (2010)

This is called the butterfly diagram, a figure first designed by Edward Maunder in 1904. It shows how the solar cycle starts with activity around 20-25° that then drifts to near (but not quite to) equator. The figure digests a complex dataset to show clear, but complex behavior, far beyond what is encoded in the sunspot number or sunspot observations alone.

What makes this figure successful?

The Solar Cycle 13

Sunspot areas are also available from a number of solar observatories including: Catania (1978 –1999), Debrecen (1986 – 1998), Kodaikanal (1906 – 1987), Mt. Wilson (1917 – 1985), Rome (1958 –2000), and Yunnan (1981 – 1992). While individual observatories have data gaps, their data arevery useful for helping to maintain consistency over the full interval from 1874 to the present.

The combined RGO USAF/NOAA datasets are available online (RGO).These datasets have additional information that is not reflected in sunspot numbers – positional

information – both latitude and longitude. The distribution of sunspot area with latitude (Figure 8)shows that sunspots appear in two bands on either side of the Sun’s equator. At the start of eachcycle spots appear at latitudes above about 20 – 25°. As the cycle progresses the range of latitudeswith sunspots broadens and the central latitude slowly drifts toward the equator, but with a zoneof avoidance near the equator. This behavior is referred to as “Sporer’s Law of Zones” by Maunder(1903) and was famously illustrated by his “Butterfly Diagram” (Maunder, 1904).

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

AVERAGE DAILY SUNSPOT AREA (% OF VISIBLE HEMISPHERE)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

SUNSPOT AREA IN EQUAL AREA LATITUDE STRIPS (% OF STRIP AREA) > 0.0% > 0.1% > 1.0%

90S

30S

EQ

30N

90N

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/BFLY.pdf HATHAWAY/NASA/MSFC 2010/01

DAILY SUNSPOT AREA AVERAGED OVER INDIVIDUAL SOLAR ROTATIONS

Figure 8: Sunspot area as a function of latitude and time. The average daily sunspot area for each solarrotation since May 1874 is plotted as a function of time in the lower panel. The relative area in equalarea latitude strips is illustrated with a color code in the upper panel. Sunspots form in two bands, one ineach hemisphere, that start at about 25° from the equator at the start of a cycle and migrate toward theequator as the cycle progresses.

3.3 10.7 cm solar flux

The 10.7 cm Solar Flux is the disk integrated emission from the Sun at the radio wavelengthof 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) (cf. Tapping and Charrois, 1994). This measure of solar activity hasadvantages over sunspot numbers and areas in that it is completely objective and can be madeunder virtually all weather conditions. Measurements of this flux have been taken daily by theCanadian Solar Radio Monitoring Programme since 1946. Several measurements are taken eachday and care is taken to avoid reporting values influenced by flaring activity. Observations were

Living Reviews in Solar Physicshttp://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2010-1

Hathaway, Living Reviews Solar Phys., 7 (2010)

1. Legible

The figure labels, scales, and legend are all readable.

The Solar Cycle 13

Sunspot areas are also available from a number of solar observatories including: Catania (1978 –1999), Debrecen (1986 – 1998), Kodaikanal (1906 – 1987), Mt. Wilson (1917 – 1985), Rome (1958 –2000), and Yunnan (1981 – 1992). While individual observatories have data gaps, their data arevery useful for helping to maintain consistency over the full interval from 1874 to the present.

The combined RGO USAF/NOAA datasets are available online (RGO).These datasets have additional information that is not reflected in sunspot numbers – positional

information – both latitude and longitude. The distribution of sunspot area with latitude (Figure 8)shows that sunspots appear in two bands on either side of the Sun’s equator. At the start of eachcycle spots appear at latitudes above about 20 – 25°. As the cycle progresses the range of latitudeswith sunspots broadens and the central latitude slowly drifts toward the equator, but with a zoneof avoidance near the equator. This behavior is referred to as “Sporer’s Law of Zones” by Maunder(1903) and was famously illustrated by his “Butterfly Diagram” (Maunder, 1904).

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

AVERAGE DAILY SUNSPOT AREA (% OF VISIBLE HEMISPHERE)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

SUNSPOT AREA IN EQUAL AREA LATITUDE STRIPS (% OF STRIP AREA) > 0.0% > 0.1% > 1.0%

90S

30S

EQ

30N

90N

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/BFLY.pdf HATHAWAY/NASA/MSFC 2010/01

DAILY SUNSPOT AREA AVERAGED OVER INDIVIDUAL SOLAR ROTATIONS

Figure 8: Sunspot area as a function of latitude and time. The average daily sunspot area for each solarrotation since May 1874 is plotted as a function of time in the lower panel. The relative area in equalarea latitude strips is illustrated with a color code in the upper panel. Sunspots form in two bands, one ineach hemisphere, that start at about 25° from the equator at the start of a cycle and migrate toward theequator as the cycle progresses.

3.3 10.7 cm solar flux

The 10.7 cm Solar Flux is the disk integrated emission from the Sun at the radio wavelengthof 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) (cf. Tapping and Charrois, 1994). This measure of solar activity hasadvantages over sunspot numbers and areas in that it is completely objective and can be madeunder virtually all weather conditions. Measurements of this flux have been taken daily by theCanadian Solar Radio Monitoring Programme since 1946. Several measurements are taken eachday and care is taken to avoid reporting values influenced by flaring activity. Observations were

Living Reviews in Solar Physicshttp://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2010-1

Hathaway, Living Reviews Solar Phys., 7 (2010)

2. Uses color effectively

There is little wasted ink; color is used to augment data comprehension. It is not used decoratively,Note that wasted color serves only to distract, confuse, or obscures the real meaning you are trying to convey.

The Solar Cycle 13

Sunspot areas are also available from a number of solar observatories including: Catania (1978 –1999), Debrecen (1986 – 1998), Kodaikanal (1906 – 1987), Mt. Wilson (1917 – 1985), Rome (1958 –2000), and Yunnan (1981 – 1992). While individual observatories have data gaps, their data arevery useful for helping to maintain consistency over the full interval from 1874 to the present.

The combined RGO USAF/NOAA datasets are available online (RGO).These datasets have additional information that is not reflected in sunspot numbers – positional

information – both latitude and longitude. The distribution of sunspot area with latitude (Figure 8)shows that sunspots appear in two bands on either side of the Sun’s equator. At the start of eachcycle spots appear at latitudes above about 20 – 25°. As the cycle progresses the range of latitudeswith sunspots broadens and the central latitude slowly drifts toward the equator, but with a zoneof avoidance near the equator. This behavior is referred to as “Sporer’s Law of Zones” by Maunder(1903) and was famously illustrated by his “Butterfly Diagram” (Maunder, 1904).

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

AVERAGE DAILY SUNSPOT AREA (% OF VISIBLE HEMISPHERE)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

SUNSPOT AREA IN EQUAL AREA LATITUDE STRIPS (% OF STRIP AREA) > 0.0% > 0.1% > 1.0%

90S

30S

EQ

30N

90N

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/BFLY.pdf HATHAWAY/NASA/MSFC 2010/01

DAILY SUNSPOT AREA AVERAGED OVER INDIVIDUAL SOLAR ROTATIONS

Figure 8: Sunspot area as a function of latitude and time. The average daily sunspot area for each solarrotation since May 1874 is plotted as a function of time in the lower panel. The relative area in equalarea latitude strips is illustrated with a color code in the upper panel. Sunspots form in two bands, one ineach hemisphere, that start at about 25° from the equator at the start of a cycle and migrate toward theequator as the cycle progresses.

3.3 10.7 cm solar flux

The 10.7 cm Solar Flux is the disk integrated emission from the Sun at the radio wavelengthof 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) (cf. Tapping and Charrois, 1994). This measure of solar activity hasadvantages over sunspot numbers and areas in that it is completely objective and can be madeunder virtually all weather conditions. Measurements of this flux have been taken daily by theCanadian Solar Radio Monitoring Programme since 1946. Several measurements are taken eachday and care is taken to avoid reporting values influenced by flaring activity. Observations were

Living Reviews in Solar Physicshttp://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2010-1

Hathaway, Living Reviews Solar Phys., 7 (2010)

3. Relates complex data clearly

The figure relates data in space and time in a meaningful way.

The Solar Cycle 13

Sunspot areas are also available from a number of solar observatories including: Catania (1978 –1999), Debrecen (1986 – 1998), Kodaikanal (1906 – 1987), Mt. Wilson (1917 – 1985), Rome (1958 –2000), and Yunnan (1981 – 1992). While individual observatories have data gaps, their data arevery useful for helping to maintain consistency over the full interval from 1874 to the present.

The combined RGO USAF/NOAA datasets are available online (RGO).These datasets have additional information that is not reflected in sunspot numbers – positional

information – both latitude and longitude. The distribution of sunspot area with latitude (Figure 8)shows that sunspots appear in two bands on either side of the Sun’s equator. At the start of eachcycle spots appear at latitudes above about 20 – 25°. As the cycle progresses the range of latitudeswith sunspots broadens and the central latitude slowly drifts toward the equator, but with a zoneof avoidance near the equator. This behavior is referred to as “Sporer’s Law of Zones” by Maunder(1903) and was famously illustrated by his “Butterfly Diagram” (Maunder, 1904).

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

AVERAGE DAILY SUNSPOT AREA (% OF VISIBLE HEMISPHERE)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010DATE

SUNSPOT AREA IN EQUAL AREA LATITUDE STRIPS (% OF STRIP AREA) > 0.0% > 0.1% > 1.0%

90S

30S

EQ

30N

90N

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/BFLY.pdf HATHAWAY/NASA/MSFC 2010/01

DAILY SUNSPOT AREA AVERAGED OVER INDIVIDUAL SOLAR ROTATIONS

Figure 8: Sunspot area as a function of latitude and time. The average daily sunspot area for each solarrotation since May 1874 is plotted as a function of time in the lower panel. The relative area in equalarea latitude strips is illustrated with a color code in the upper panel. Sunspots form in two bands, one ineach hemisphere, that start at about 25° from the equator at the start of a cycle and migrate toward theequator as the cycle progresses.

3.3 10.7 cm solar flux

The 10.7 cm Solar Flux is the disk integrated emission from the Sun at the radio wavelengthof 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) (cf. Tapping and Charrois, 1994). This measure of solar activity hasadvantages over sunspot numbers and areas in that it is completely objective and can be madeunder virtually all weather conditions. Measurements of this flux have been taken daily by theCanadian Solar Radio Monitoring Programme since 1946. Several measurements are taken eachday and care is taken to avoid reporting values influenced by flaring activity. Observations were

Living Reviews in Solar Physicshttp://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2010-1

Hathaway, Living Reviews Solar Phys., 7 (2010)

4. Well organized

The figure’s two panels are relatable directly, visually. Each panel augments our understanding of the otherOne takeaway lesson: Striving for simplicity in figures and presentations usually yields very good results.

1. Failure to organize the information presented

2. Unreadable or poorly organized slides

3. Unclear, unreadable, or inefficient visuals

4. Failure to understand your audience

Finally, let’s examine point four by looking at a figure that I think is very good.

2004 AL EASTThis figure is clear, color is used well, and lots of related information is presented in a distilled format. However, those who do not follow baseball will never recognize that this is the result of a baseball season, nor will they understand why it might be significant. Context would be required for the audience to follow this talk, even though the figure is a good one.

1. Failure to organize the information presented

2. Unreadable or poorly organized slides

3. Unclear, unreadable, or inefficient visuals

4. Failure to understand your audience

Here’s a quick review of the four things that could go wrong. But avoiding these errors is not enough. How can we make our talks great?

FROM GOOD TO GREAT

1. Start with the problem

2. Analyze the details, master the details

3. Practice, practice, practice

4. Never fear repetition

5. Finish early

QUESTIONS?