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.