Download this articleConsider the humble timeline. A trial graphic staple, it is often the first to be constructed. There are even computer applications devoted to the automatic creation of timelines. However, in spite of the widely held opinion that storytelling is the most powerful means of communication, we often fail to tell our story in the one demonstrative especially suited for that purpose.
Properly conceived and executed, a timeline might more accurately be called a Plotline. Whereas a timeline simply arranges discrete events in chronological order, a Plotline weaves each event into a single, logical flow of information. A Plotline does not limit itself to the who, what and when. Rather, it adds the why and the how; the cause and effect; the motive, means and opportunity.
In the best stories, writers, directors and editors are careful to link one event to the next in a seamless progression. They work to provide the characters’ context, motivation and actions in sufficient detail for the audience to be immersed within the story – to emotionally identify with the characters. While litigators don't have all of the devices available in the art of novels and movies, with a few slides and some boards, litigators can strengthen their storytelling to great benefit.
To illustrate the issue, I have created two graphics. The first example is typical of what we have all seen in trial and what might be produced by timeline software. With a nod to Charlton Heston, I made up some facts surrounding an imaginary case between Omega and Soylent which involves claims for breach of a joint venture agreement, employee raiding and theft of trade secrets.
Standard format timeline with dissociated events – No story.
This timeline has the facts arranged in neat boxes with easily read text and a pleasant color scheme. However, it tells the audience virtually nothing about the story we wish to communicate. It does not provide character motivation or illustrate cause and effect. Its layout does not provide an easy framework for the mental insertion of other details that will be exposed during the trial.
In the second example, the Plotline, I've attempted to correct the deficiencies of the timeline shown above.
I would like to point out a few features:
1. Title: The title explains the meaning of the Plotline.
2. Structural Elements: As the least important elements, the time bar and the graph value lines are colorless and recede into the background.
3. Color Grouping: The purple group, the green group, the red group and the yellow group each have their meaning, and each are tied one to another to provide cause-effect links that follow logically in a common sense world.
4. Summary Statements: There are four summary statements (red, orange, green and black) which reiterate the story.
5. Limited Information: Each entry is brief with little in the way of detail. Evidence supporting each entry should be explored in detail separately (as addressed below).
Admittedly, the Plotline is more challenging to the audience. But, it is orders of magnitude more interesting. We were able to combine a flow chart, two line graphs, a pie graph, a bullet-point list and a traditional timeline into a single, coherent Plotline – and we were still able to leave plenty of white space in our design.
We often see complex information graphics such as this Plotline in newspapers and magazines. They are packed with information but require the viewer’s curiosity and time commitment. In trial, by contrast, we cannot wait while the jury figures out how to understand our more complex demonstratives. For this reason, we have been trained to severely limit the amount of information on any one demonstrative. I won't quibble with that basic premise. I would, however, argue that the jury can easily understand and benefit from more complex graphics if carefully designed and presented.
It would be advisable, therefore, to introduce the information on this Plotline in step-by-step fashion through an on-screen presentation. How many steps and in what order would depend upon the presentation. If presented in opening statement, the information could be revealed chronologically. If presented through a fact witness, it may be that certain elements might come out of time due to limitations of that witnesses knowledge. Either way, the revelation of each element should be supported by some piece of admissible evidence. One possible sequence is shown below:
Build the timeline in logical steps to ease the cognitive burden of the jury.
Regardless of the sequence, after being fully constructed, you may wish to produce a trial board for permanent display in the courtroom. Placing a large timeline on an easel provides easy reference for attorney, witness, judge and jury alike. It also provides a framework for discussion of evidence not literally included on the Plotline. For instance, Soylent emails to Omega employees can be framed into the "Employee Raiding" period shown on our demonstrative.
Neither our lives nor our cases are comprised of a series of discrete, unrelated events as we saw in the first conventional timeline example. Each event flows naturally from one to another through cause and effect, action and reaction. A good story follows this natural rhythm and so will a good Plotline.
Excellent! I'm curious as to what software was used to create the 2nd timeline?
Thanks, Randy. Nothing was used beyond good ol' PowerPoint in the making of the timelines. I prefer to draw in Illustrator but can get by pretty well with the basic tools in PPT. So I wanted to show others that you don't have to be a professional designer with sophisticated software tools to do a good job.
Great article Jason. I especially appreciate your comment about the ability of the jury to understand complex ideas if enough thought goes into concept and presentation.
Another very good option worth looking into is TimelineXpress, by inData (www.indatacorp.com), the same company that makes TrialDirector. This is a very powerful tool, and works very effectively in front of a jury.
Timeline Xpress can be very effective, but its power comes not from its ability to create graphics or juxtapose different elements to create a story, but rather from its ability to interactively link documents, video clips and, possibly, other graphics to each entry on the timeline. You can create very long timelines and scroll through time. The visual interface, though, is more like the first example above – boxes of text linked with lines to the timeline . It offers some control over fonts, colors and arrangement of the boxes. See it here:
[http://extranet.acsysweb.com/vSiteManager/inData/Public/Upload/Docs/TimelineXpressProductBrochure.pdf] or here [http://www.indatacorp.com/Products/Trial/timeLineXpress.aspx]
Excellent article and great samples. Other elements that can be added into the timeline to enhance its storytelling impact are key documents, videos, charts, etc. This can often be accomplished in PowerPoint, but sometimes we'll use Flash to bring in these elements interactively. Either way, as Jason points out so well, the objective should be a timeline that helps the attorney tell the story of the case, not simply recite a series of events.
Jason, Good article and follow up comments/responses. Your article touches on a number of things: design objectives, production tools, tools for developing concepts and refining copy/design objectives. It’s a rich little conversation you’ve got going.
I think timelines often get made because they are an expected feature of trial. More often, developing content (which automated tools like TimeMap and others are helpful with) is a great first step. Working out the content of a timeline helps the storyteller eliminate unnecessary information and plan for a final design. They are good planning tools, but not good design tools. I guess we need to remind trial lawyers that organizing the content via time entries plotted chronologically is the first step to a really persuasive message.
It’s stories that sell cases, and timelines in and of themselves don’t do this. It’s got to be more than that, like your plotline “got green” example. I like to ask clients to disregard their timeline for a minute and tell me the story. These storylines then inform the design objective – and it is being able to articulate a design objective that creates the foundation for transforming a pile of facts into a persuasive visual message.
I also like that you touch on authoring tools in this. Good ideas (which is what an initial copy edit exercise can help ferret out) can be produced in anything…..Ever seen a really good photographer take a snap on a basic camera? A good eye is a good eye. And you clearly have a good eye. Even with the fairly blunt tool of PowerPoint you’ve made an information-rich visually pleasing piece that, especially broken into a build, tells a good story. Nice work. –Laura
While I agree with all that the final product that is constructed is undeniably important and grouping information by topic/the part of the story that it fits into, I also really appreciate your comments about introducing the graphic in a step-by-step fashion.
"Building" the graphic in front of the jury as part of an opening statement (when allowed) or through a witness often gives the jury a sense of participating in the process and more of a sense of ownership which ultimately often gives the product more credibility and authority.
Plotlines rather than timelines is a nice turn of phrase, but the example is data dense (to use Tufte's terms) and filled with chart junk and inappropriate, distracting use of color. To assume that a jury will "get it", even with a gradual build is a large assumption. The goal is to make the complex simple, not just add colors, lines, and text.
Thank you for your comment and reference to Edward Tufte. I am an admirer of Tufte's work and have read each of his four books as well as much of his on-line postings. I have attended his seminars and even invited clients along with me to learn from his teachings on presentation techniques. However, one practicing the art of litigation presentation should be careful to qualify Mr. Tufte's lessons by listening to the context in which he intends them to be put to use. In my opinion, he is primarily concerned with the transfer of information among virtual peers, i.e., scientists teaching scientists. Clearly, this is not the situation in a courtroom. I would very much be interested in a full discussion on the application of "Tuftian" theory in litigation presentation. The subject has certainly come up in the ASTC list serve on several occasions. Perhaps we could collaborate on a future piece in this journal.
However, you make several substantive criticisms that should be addressed. First, Tufte teaches for – not against – data density. He argues against the "dumbing down" of presentations and for the proposition that people are smart enough to understand the complex. As with any presentation material we develop, we must assume the jurors will understand. The practice of jury research is largely built around minimizing the risk of assumption.
I agree that I have some so called "chart junk" in the graphic. As a professional designer, I dislike it and am somewhat embarrassed by its inclusion. In my defense, 19 years of experience suggests to me that jurors (and the public at large) seem to respond to iconic representation of ideas. I would argue that it can provide a visual hook or shorthand for concepts more fully developed elsewhere in the presentation.
As for color, many graphics rely on color-coding to distinguish various material or sections. The colors here attempt to link related objects and, I believe, are appropriately applied although I recognize that a legitimate difference of opinion can (and obviously does) exist.
Is there software available that is conducive or more conducive to turning time lines into plot lines?
The samples shown were created entirely within PowerPoint. The key to using PPT is not letting the auto-format, auto-correction, auto-graphing features control the design. You must control everything manually. If it can't be done in PPT, I use Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop to create graphics that can then be brought into PPT for display. Some folks like to use applications like TimeMap for timeline creation. Those apps suffer from the same automatic formatting problem and don't offer any way to avoid those restrictions. I find them useful for internal review and comprehension but would not use them for juror presentation at all.