Reflection of Google Earth and Geospatial Projects on the Shenandoah Valley Event

Hello all,

 Here's my feedback on the Google Earth presentation. I actually found it kind of interesting. Not to say that it isn't interesting stuff, but it was the kind of information that could easily be really dull and I think all the presenters did a pretty decent job of keeping it interesting. 

  

The kind of visuals I seemed to find myself mostly looking at and critiquing were those that were Representational, like the old historical maps that ended up looking like buildings that were still in tact or around today, and visuals of Anologic value.  The Analogic ones were more of the scientific examples like the in depth examples of rocks that didn't actually show rocks, but they were meaningful in getting the visual across that they were still discussing rocks. The people who created these images were a large group so I'm going to try to remember the best I can; The makers of Google Earth who layed the foundation for what The Geospatial group was doing, The Geospatial group themselves, Sandburg Map Company, and many more that I'm sure I'm forgetting. 

      I think the purpose of showing the visuals they did was to aid in the understanding of the information that was being presented. Typically, these kinds of presentations can become rather dry, and extra visuals can help make it more interesting, which is exactly what they did for me. From what I understand the intended audience  for the visuals as they are normally used is the public who is interested in the geologic aspects of where they live. The basic visuals were from Google Earth so all of society that wants to know more about where they live, or any other place for that matter is the natural general audience, including scientists/geologists/etc. 

     The presentation was a little too scientific for me which makes me think that the presenters assumed that their audience has had a background in this kind of information or has participated/actively involved in geology before they came to the presentation. They talked a little fast, and used words that I'm not familiar with, namely science slang. I didn't really learn any new terminology related to visuals though, just learned big scientific words.

     The visuals were and were not accurate representations of something. There were blueprint visuals which exemplify both these answers. The blueprints showed what buildings were initially supposed to be in the Harrisonburg area and then the men pulled up images of what the space looked like now, and some visuals did not exist/anymore. For example, the old Tannery is now where the main Parking Deck is on campus. The visuals didn't really change my understanding of the subject as much as they helped my understanding. The visuals just ended up showing me that this topic is a lot more complicated than I was prepared for.

    The visuals were presented to us most likely off of a PowerPoint program and shown to us through a projector/Mac computer. The quality of the images was certainly affected by the projector because projectors seem to skew and in this case widen the images from what they normally look like. The lighting was off too, making some slides less appealing than what they would originally appear to be.

    Voices that were more unheard in the visuals seemed to be historians, scientists, my own head voice critiquing, and voices that were actually heard through the visuals were those who were presenting in essence, their jobs, and/or what they have spent so much time and energy creating.

  

Food for thought: Steve Whitmeyer, one of the big brains of this project said eloquently: " A map is an interpretation as much as it is what's actually on the ground." I think that goes for all visuals, they can be representational, or they can stretch the mind and limits of what they are to achieve a whole new meaning or message.