Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [myNewWave] [this page]
Andeweg (20) "The effectiveness of visualisations compared to text slides in lectures" [you can get a copy by finding it online via Google]
Adams,C. (2007) "On the 'informed use' of PowerPoint: rejoining Vallance and Towndrow" J. of Curriculum studies vol.39 no.2 pp.229-233
Tufte,E. (2003) "Powerpoint is evil: power corrupts. Powerpoint corrupts absolutely" Wired vol.11 no.9 www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
** Tufte,E. (2006) The cognitive style of Powerpoint: Pitching out corrupts within (Cheshire, CT, USA: Graphics Press LLC)
Turkle (2003) "From powerful ideas to powerpoint" Convergence into New Media Technologies vol.9 no.2 pp.19?-25
Vallance,M. & Towndrow,P.A. (2007) "Towards the 'informed use' of information and communication technology in education: a response to Adams' "PowerPoint, habits of mind and classroom culture" J. of Curriculum studies vol.39 no.2 pp.219-227
A counter argument could be, that it was the human engineers who created the slides who summarised incorrectly the key point. Essentially by emphasising the main success, rather than the main danger / error estimate / caveat. That latter is a wide spread problem -- in psychology most studies are summarised by looking at the difference in means (between control and expt. group): whereas the main message may be in the variance.