This presentation is designed to

explore the relationship between writing, technology and information. To facilitate this, several different tools

were utilized. Including Prezi, Twitter, Facebook, FontStruct, Kuler, Google

MyMaps, Wordle, Tweetstats, Twitter Top Friends Network, and Nexus. These tools work to show the connections

between the writer and the users as well as to further the “Writer as

Cartographer” metaphor.

With this presentation, I attempt to

show the writer’s influence over the content and depiction of images as well as

the many information ecologies that surround each of us. If we look at the graphics and the

presentation as a whole, we can see that the meaning behind the visual

representations, that is taken away by the audience, is carefully chosen by the

writer. Of course, there are occasions

where the meaning perceived by the audience is not the intended meaning in

which case the outcome is often confusion and frustration on both sides. However, in most cases the message is

carefully molded by the writer. Although

that fact is not inherently good or bad, the viewer should be aware that the

writer cannot be objective and cannot help but to create the message from their

own perspective.

When looking at the visual text

within this presentation we can see the influence of the writer in placement,

design, font, and color. As well as,

which items are prominent and the degree of attention given to each item. All of these choices are designed to

communicate a certain message to the viewer.

This idea is further explored since in this case the creator of the

presentation and the designer of the font are one and the same. Choices in the design and layout must be

meticulously considered in order to further the presentation’s argument. This is similar to a work of prose where

every word is meticulously chosen based on its meaning, drive, lyrical quality,

connotation, social and cultural baggage, etc.

To show more clearly the impact the

writer’s perspective has on text a map was drawn by the writer from memory of

Rowan University’s campus. This map is

designed to show the limitations and flaws of the human memory which were made

clear when the memory map was compared to the Google MyMaps representation of

the same area. The map also forced the

writer to prioritize what they believed warranted being placed on the map and

what did not. For example the building

that the writer attends class in maybe present but the tree they pass on the

way to class may not be. However it you

are studying the varieties of trees in South Jersey it may be much more

important.

Visual representations of activities

on Facebook, a social networking site, Twitter, a social networking site and

micro-blogging service, and the International Association of Online

Communicators blog are also present in the

presentation. The “tweets” of user

Wellthen24 can be analyzed with Tweetstats.com.

However the way that the statistics and graphs are presented and

showcased effects how they are perceived.

The graphs, images and wordle’s of Twitter statistics, Twitter friends,

Facebook friends, and IAOC blog entries are therefore also manipulated by the

writer. It is impossible for the writer

to be completely objective therefore, the writer and audience are forced to

look critically at what is presented.