From Disaster to Design
Using a Space Shuttle Explosion to Inform Learning Experience Design
Did poor PowerPoint UX lead to a catastrophic space shuttle crash?
In 2003, Columbia space shuttle was launched into low orbit with seven astronauts on board. Eighty-two seconds into the mission a piece of spray foam dislodged from the spacecraft and collided with the left wing. Sixteen days later, NASA officials risked re-entry despite evidence that it may have caused serious damage.
Tragically, Columbia exploded once it was immersed in Earth’s atmosphere, killing all seven astronauts on board and destroying the scientific payloads.
What was the root cause of this regrettable decision? The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) concluded their findings with this:
“As information gets passed up an organization hierarchy…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….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.”
Read that last sentence one more time. An iconic space shuttle blown to pieces, almost 80 scientific experiments lost, and seven astronauts killed and the investigative board points to the deeply cultural use of PowerPoint to communicate technical papers as a key illustration of the problem. This heartbreaking incident serves as a stark reminder of the critical role that communication tools play in decision-making and behavior.
Take a look at one of the key slides:
Copy of one of the slides used during review.
Edward Tufte has a fascinating analysis of this slide. He questions the use of the initial VBB (Very Big Bullet), the optimistic title, the overuse of the vague term ‘significant(ly)’, and questionable language throughout. You really need to read his scrutiny yourself.
The only problem I want to explore is the hierarchical structure promoted by PowerPoint. The title is large and centered, signaling to the reader that it is the most important information on the slide. Unfortunately, this leads to the neglect of the less prominent bullet points, which are assumed to simply support the title. This same hierarchy can be observed in the decreasing font size of subsequent bullet points. As a result, vital information buried in the smaller text can be overlooked.
In truth, the test results indicated the possibility of significant structural damage even as the flight conditions were far more serious than the size and velocity of the foam used in the test. This vital information would have been better communicated in a report drafted in Microsoft Word.
The deliberate selection of tools is critical for instructional designers, as neglecting this aspect will impede the learning process.
Let me ask you a question – are you putting your learners first when selecting tools for your instructional design? Unfortunately, it is easy to fall into the trap of selecting tools that are centered around the trainer or developer, making their job easier rather than focusing on the learners’ needs. We’ll continue looking at PowerPoint as an example. It’s easy to use visuals and text to create a presentation, but this often enables lazy presenters who simply read the slides without putting much thought into the organization or delivery of the content. This approach is flawed because it doesn’t consider how people think and process information – not in bullet points, but in a compelling narrative that captures their attention and keeps them engaged. By relying too heavily on the hierarchical structure of PowerPoint, instructional designers risk misleading their audience about what information is truly important.
Let me be clear, PowerPoint is not the problem. It is a versatile tool that can make a high visual impact in little time, but only if used in the right way. As an instructional designer, it is crucial to keep the learner at the front of your mind during each stage of course development. Consider the consequences of choosing the wrong tools or failing to design with the learner in mind. Increased workplace accidents? Decreased product quality? Higher attrition? Lower sales?
The tool is not the problem. It’s our use of it. We must strive to use our tools in the best way possible to create compelling, effective learning experiences.
