05-viz

[jakobzhao]

No description provided.

[reconjohn]

GIS is more than a tool, as a technology that is based on three kinds of representational models - a grid of geographic coordinates, map projections affecting shape, angle, and relative positions, and visual representations - vector and raster (Knowles et al., 2015). Furthermore, geospatial data is unique in that it has 4 dimensions (latitude, longitude, height, and time) with meaningful names of objects that can be another source of information. Depending upon scales, the information presents an emergent behavior. How to transform data into information or knowledge is critical including the incorporation of location and time in addition to geographic meaning within the represented environments. This may require extensible methods and tools to involve complex geospatial data and the characteristics of a human-centered approach (MacEachre and Kraak, 2001).

There are several limitations in GIS as a research methodology for human scholarship (human experience in terms of space, place, time, language, and perception) since the translation of qualitative source material to the typical GIS models may lose the invention of meaning. This may cause a distance between the viewer and the experience embodied in the map (Knowles et al., 2015). In this context, Knowles et al. (2015) found from their case studies of the Holocaust that testimonies do not exist meaningfully in coordinate space; the time experience is not linear; the relationship between spatial and temporal scales is inverse.

By considering the map as a vehicle for communication, communication models reflecting cartographic theories could be developed in consideration of the loss of information between maker and the user who gets more power and control over geographic visualization due to technology that allows users to make their own digital maps. The new map communication model features feedback through social media for cartographers as generating feedback is a crucial element of the communication system (Kent, 2018).

Roth (2020) argued that cartographic design could be considered as visual storytelling, which is fundamental to the human experience. The author introduced narrative in terms of set-up, conflict, and resolution regarding the eight narrative arcs - destruction, genesis, emergence, metamorphosis, cause and effect, convergence, divergence, and oscillation. He defined genres as interactive techniques to present narrative sequences linearly and tropes as visual design techniques to develop a narrative in terms of continuity, mood, dosing, attention, redundancy, metaphor, and voice. Moreover, he left visual design, ethics, and literacy (capable of identifying bias and telling deep and meaningful stories) as future research.

Furthermore, the current practice of GIS as representations of space may evolve to include people's everyday movement, time-space, and representational space involving the transformation of space into place we put the meanings on. Narrative mapping (efforts to visualize spatial narratives and human experience of place to cartography) and deep map (depicting place, emotion, events, and different perspectives) are examples in addition to inductive visualization that may stimulate creativity and support the development of open-minded yet critical collaboration (Knowles et al., 2015).

[shuangw1]

Kent (2018) mentioned an interesting phenomenon that happened recently which is the rise of the user-cartographer. As we can see from this pandemic, there were a lot of nonprofessionals, or at least non-cartographers, who are involved in online map building. Just by a quick search, we can see many covid maps generated last year. Although there is debate about quality control of those maps – for example, the scale mismatch of some visual representations is misleading. It makes me think about the relevance of this phenomenon with our previous reading about data generation by the public. There is opportunity along with challenges when the digital landscape in our era is different, data and geospatial data were generated in an unprecedented amount, and how to ensure the quality of them becomes an issue.
Knowles (2015) paper used a particular example, the Holocaust, to identify and analyze spatiality in survivor testimony. It aims to provide discussions about the value of flexible methodology for teaching students spatial thinking and encouraging them to find creative and powerful tools to visualize the story.
MacEachren’s article (2001) stated that over 80% of data generated today have some geospatial components. And because the data is complex and interlinked, but “geospatial referencing provides a fundamental mechanism for linking the diverse forms of data needed to attack these problems”. They also mentioned what we discussed in the previous class about knowledge construction, by suggesting to “integrate visual and computational tools that enable human and machine to collaborate in the process of knowledge construction”.
Roth’s article (2020) reviews considerations and techniques for telling stories using maps. He listed out a few types of visual storytelling and different genres. This article is useful in helping us think about the PE we are going to do this week. I also think this interactive storytelling is emerging because of the growth of new techniques so that maps are not static objects anymore. A lot of enterprises are also using this technique to tell their own stories, for example, Starbucks built an online story map using the ESRI’s platform to show how their coffee beans were cultivated in the original country, transported across the ocean, processed in the Kent factory, and finally serve customers around the US.

[jennylee719]

05/03
Jenny Lee

This week’s readings explore the various ontological and epistemological commitments of geography studies and their visualization of space. As Kent (2018) notes, in its inception, cartography was largely influenced by postpositivist communication theories: the purpose of maps was to deliver information to the map users. Accordingly, clarity and accuracy were key to visual representation of space. However, following the paradigm shift in communication studies, cartography too began to challenge postpositivist understanding of maps: “maps like other texts are not value-free or neutral” (Kent, 2018, p. 89) and they do not only deliver a message, but open up “a possibility” (p. 90) of interpretations. Scholars began to direct attention to users’ interpretation of maps and acknowledged how their decoding of maps do not exist in a linear and fixed manner. In particular, with the advent of social media and participatory culture enabled by interactive technologies, users not only engage in the dissemination and translation of maps, but becomes users as cartographers.
While Kent’s (2018) new map communication includes space for the connotation of maps and users’ agency, it does not take into consideration the importance of context. Users’ feedback in the form of liking and sharing of maps do not exist in a vacuum but are rooted in particular social, cultural and political contexts. For instance, some of the visual story telling themes in Roth's (2020) article, such as situated, persuasive, and political, highlights the importance of contextualized understanding of space and their social significance. Kent’s (2018) conceptualization of feedback as a response to positive posts seem to limit the myriad possibilities of maps as political tools (eg maps revealing sexual predators footprints, Asian hate crime maps, etc) and space for constructing and challenging social realities.
Knowles et al. (2015) further illuminates the difficulty of understanding human experience through closed representations of spaces. While GIS is well equipped to analyze the representations of space, it is limited in capturing spatial practice and representational space - the social meaning of spaces. Through their research on Holocaust survivors and their accounts, the authors introduce inductive visualization as a method to study humans’ lived experience. While inductive visualization shares similarities with other qualitative methodologies such as grounded theory in examining texts through an inductive manner, it differs in that each case or text (in the case of their study interview transcripts) calls for different modes of visualization. This made me curious about the ways in which inductive methodology is evaluated in the humanities scholarship. What type of inductive visualization is counted as a good and valid analysis of the human experience? And also, what is the role of researcher’s positionality in the interpretation of space in inductive visualization? Similar to how Kent’s (2018) new map communication lacked some key elements, Knowles et al. (2015) inductive visualization also seems to require further refinement in order to be adapted into research and also educational settings as offered by the authors.

[stevenBXQ]

05/03
Steven

Before taking GEOG 315, I had always been regarding maps as objective visualizations that present “facts” about places, a thought that was obviously under the influence of the Western cartography’s endeavor during the twentieth century, according to Roth (2020). However, this week’s readings highlight the increasing attention on the human experience side of GIS, particularly geovisualization. It is inspirational to see the humanistic approaches in cartography and GIScience in this “post-truth” world.

MacEachren and Kraak, (2001) emphasized the prevalent, complex, yet not well-treated spatial data in their 2001 paper. In the paper, they mentioned the importance of designing geoviz techniques that could assist collaborative and exploratory work in multi-discipline research, which was later reflected through accomplishments in GIScience, such as Geo-Narrative by Kwan and Ding (2008) and Inductive Visualization by Knowles et al. (2015).

As mentioned above, Knowles et al. (2015) discussed the meaningfulness of “inductive visualization,” which, to me, is similar to the concept of cognitive mapping. The Holocaust studies adopted by the authors is an excellent example that points out the weaknesses, and even to some extent, “inhumanness” of using traditional “cold-blooded” maps to present the paths of genocide victims. The value of mapping human emotions/experiences is emerging through this case study.

Kent (2018) approaches geovisualization from a communication perspective. In the “social media age,” the feedback aspect in the communication model could also contribute to map design, production, and improvement. While this will certainly help the democratization of GIS/mapping, I wonder how “filter bubble,” which entrenches bias through the use of social media, will play a role in this process.

Roth (2020) offers a framework of visual storytelling using geovisualization. As Roth describes story as a vehicle for communicating experiences, I view his paper as a “user manual” for expressing human emotions through geovisualization techniques. Furthermore, I find his emphasis on “visual ethics” and “visual literacy” especially important in our contemporary “post-truth” world. Because maps are no longer objective, it is necessary for us to learn how to express and capture the meaningful emotional elements in maps, while ensuring not being biased by them.

References:
Kent AJ (2018) Form Follows Feedback: Rethinking Cartographic Communication. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 13(2): 96–112. DOI: 10.16997/wpcc.296.
Knowles AK, Westerveld L and Strom L (2015) Inductive Visualization: A Humanistic Alternative to GIS. GeoHumanities 1(2): 233–265. DOI: 10.1080/2373566x.2015.1108831.
Kwan MP and Ding G (2008) Geo-narrative: Extending geographic information systems for narrative analysis in qualitative and mixed-method research. Professional Geographer 60(4): 443--465. DOI: 10.1080/00330120802211752.
MacEachren AM and Kraak M-J (2001) Research Challenges in Geovisualization. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 28(1): 3–12. DOI: 10.1559/152304001782173970.
Roth RE (2020) Cartographic Design as Visual Storytelling: Synthesis and Review of Map-Based Narratives, Genres, and Tropes. The Cartographic Journal: 1–32. DOI: 10.1080/00087041.2019.1633103.

[larissa-soc]

Knowels et al. (2015) struck me in a number of ways. To start, it engaged with philosophical concepts in a truly applied way. I remember being in my philosophy courses working to understand these concepts as abstract and discipline specific, I would have appreciated learning concepts of epistemology through a practical lens such as the production of maps. Much more importantly is the innovation of Inductive Visualization. For example, figure 11 shows a line representing time and the oscillation frequency of this line indicates how much historical time was covered in the interview segment. Not only does this give the researcher a better idea of what times and places are most present in the interviewees mind (presumable those oscillations for short historical time in long testimony), but also a source of comparison between individual experiences. I wonder if having hundreds of these types of visualizations could reveal patterns of experiences in relation to class and gender. I also think that Inductive visualization is ripe for inter-disciplinary research. For example, psychologists are interested in people’s memories of traumatic events, sociologists of the life course are interested in people’s perceptions of that course, and social psychologists/psychological sociologists are interested in the interaction between the self and society. The opportunity for cross-disciplinary research that Inductive visualization offers addresses concerns raised by both MacEachren (2001) and Kent (2018). MacEachren lays out a list of 6 actions the academic community can take to overcome the challenges of geo-visualization. In his list, MacEachren suggests focusing on “crosscutting problems for more impact,” taking advantage of the tools at our disposal, and emphasizing collaboration across disciplines. Indictive visualization is able to crosscut for more impact by addressing the inherent tension of humanistic endeavors and GIS computation, it recombines available tools to produce information that is valuable to a variety of disciplines. Furthermore, inductive visualization may help bridge the gap between cartographer expertise and user experience by bringing human experiences to the fore. Finally, the Knowels piece made me consider my own research agenda. I am studying the spread of a religious social movement, but that movement is responding to the sexual abuse of children, something that, like the holocaust, is imbued with raw human emotion. A victim’s experience of places like local parishes, the Vatican, or the courthouse transcends longitudinal points. However, another consideration that has weighed on me is the possibility of re-traumatization. One criticism of using GIS software when studying the Holocaust was that it reduced human experiences and atrocities to digital colors and representations. While I agree with that critique, I have to consider the context of my research. So much of the discussion surrounding child abuse by Catholic Priests is about the trauma the victims undergo, and every time the issue is re-visited victims are forced to relive their trauma. So, it seems to me that Inductive Visualization as a methodology may need to have some ethical guidelines before being widely adopted.
• MacEachren, A.M. and Kraak, M.J., 2001. Research challenges in geovisualization. Cartography and geographic information science, 28(1), pp.3-12.
• Knowles, A.K., Westerveld, L. and Strom, L., 2015. Inductive visualization: A humanistic alternative to GIS. GeoHumanities, 1(2), pp.233-265.
• Roth, R.E. 2020. Cartographic Design as Visual Storytelling: Synthesis & Review of Map-based Narratives, Genres, and Tropes
• Kent, A. J. 2018. Form follows feedback: rethinking cartographic communication. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 13 (2). pp. 96-112.

[nvwynn]

These papers together came at a serendipitous time for me: I had just finished rereading Jung and Anderson’s 2017 article in which they created a geovisualization of access to grocery stores in Buffalo, New York. However, instead of measuring distance in terms of “fixed space” (i.e. miles), they use public transportation time as a proxy in order to render “the temporal space of accessibility…in visual form” by way of a cartogram. (Jung and Anderson, 2017, p.918) I see this as an example of what Roth terms hybridization in cartography—their project is clearly transdisciplinary, bridging questions of urban inequality and food geographies with Census data-based map-mapping. Importantly, the visualizations provided in this paper are not just captioned, but contextualized and narrated in such a way that the authors’ political decisions are transparent. Critical geovisualization, by complicating traditional interpretations of foundational geographic concepts, like distance, can effectively visibilize previously unseen and unacknowledged phenomena. But, as Roth argues, along with this significant rise in geospatial referencing (MacEachren and Kraaka, 2001) a new type of visual literacy is needed.

Given that visual communication existed long before written communication (Kent cites Utrilla et al., 2009 here), in one way it seems counterintuitive that the collective “we” might need to be taught to see, but the rationale for such a form of literacy is not simply a response to the emergence of new medias and technologies producing ever more complex and creative geovisualizations, like the inductive visualizations described by Knowles et al, but the accessibility of these technologies , which carries with it a tide of what Chilton and Kent call “neo-cartographers.” This “democratization” of mapping (Kent, p 97) parallels challenges that other forms of communication have faced: the communication models for newspapers, just as with maps, were devised at a time “when the dominant medium…was paper (and, hence, static).” (p. 97) In this way, the challenges of information democratization in our fast-moving digital landscape cannot be siloed as purely cartographic or even geographic, but must be addressed in the broader context of epistemic awareness on the part of both the creators and the audience.

[gracejia513]

MacEachren began this week’s series of reading emphasizing the importance of properly presenting the geospatial data and calling for future actions the academic community should take to overcome foreseeable challenges. It is interesting to cross-compare MacEachren’s work (and the international teams he led) in 2001 and Roth’s introduction to visual storytelling in 2021. Twenty years of continuous research advancement and technology breakthroughs have, to some extent, addressed challenges proposed by MacEachren and yet posed new issues worth investigating.

Geospatial data, in its primitive form, is rather a hodgepodge: most likely with some aspects of the data unstructured and with key messages hidden, waiting to be deciphered. MacEachren argued that it is utterly important to develop “theory, method, and tools for visual exploration, analysis, synthesis, and presentation of geospatial data.” I especially liked the illustration of the Map Use Cube which characterizes the audience, interaction, and data relations in map-based visual display. How different stages like explore, analyze, synthesize, and presentation sit in this cube represents how unstructured data is transformed into a structured, interpretable, and presentable format, though with a trade-off between interaction and what is known/unknown. The coevolution between maps and the platform/environment to host such maps is evident from both pieces of work. MacEachren stated that maps are no longer bounded to static or 2D format but become highly interactive thanks to the virtual environments. Roth agreed with this statement and went on to discuss the visual storytelling genre. Roth introduced the static visual story, long-form infographic, dynamic slideshow, narrated animation, etc. It is rather interesting to observe that technology makes such a genre possible to deliver information in various forms but introduces additional issues. For example, the long-form infographic lets users scroll vertically for more information, but information becomes harder to capture when the audience tends to miss important plot points when scrolling result in skimming, and hence an F-shaped reading pattern.

MacEachren presented a list of 6 actions the academic community can take to overcome geo-visualization challenges. And I personally think the personalized story maps mentioned in Roth’s work further strengthened the actions by allowing non-designers to create “stories” of their lived experiences and to share these stories collectively through easy-to-use geoweb technologies. In this way, geo-visualization is not limited to the experts, and it opens a new realm of research on the “first-person narrative for integrating narrative cartography.”

References:
Roth, R. E. (2021). Cartographic Design as Visual Storytelling: Synthesis and Review of Map-Based Narratives, Genres, and Tropes. Cartographic Journal, 58(1), 83–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087041.2019.1633103
MacEachren, A. M., & Kraak, M.-J. (2001). Research Challenges in Geovisualization. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 28(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304001782173970

[Jxdaydayup]

I appreciate the discussion about what is GIS in Knowles’ piece (2015). It points out that GIS is perceived as a tool and a technology by humanities scholarship. However, for scholars who have an academic background in science, for example, Michael Goodchild, argues that GIS is one of the core fields of research and an influential branch of geography. Some scholars even consider GIS as a discipline independent of geography. “Those who treated GIS as a tool were prone to ignore how it shaped its users’ understanding of society, as well as the troubling associations of GIS with power hierarchies embedded in the military, economic development, and social violence against disadvantaged minority populations” (p235). Resonating with this critic, a group of GISers in academia do have a great enthusiasm to study and reflect on the social implications of spatial phenomena in a critical and innovative way apart from employing advanced GIS technologies in their research. Besides, GIS is viewed probably ultimately unsuitable for studying human experience. It is argued that bringing qualitative source material into representational models involves acts of translation, which would lead to the loss of information or meaning. However, when trying to represent the qualitative source material, one might have to cope with the difficulties of the trade-off between ‘give and take’, conveying the most important information and voices to readers. In addition, it’s interesting to read critics of GIS mapping, space-time representation in the tradition of time geography, and the symbolic nature of representational space. The paper does point out their shortcomings and reminds readers of the difficulties of representing people’s lived experience of place. In this case, inductive visualization is a new and complementary way of representation.

Roth’s piece (2020) summarizes and generalizes ten visual storytelling themes in an all-rounded way. In particular, visual stories can promote empathy and incur emotional responses (affect and emotion) from the audience. Their subjective experience is situated, which means they are encouraged to relate the stories to their personal backgrounds. Visual stories can not only capture but also shape their memories. The fact that visual stories welcome various interpretations makes them like open-ended stories. This has higher requirements for the designers who at the same time have the power to decide what information is likely to convey.

[skytruine]

The first article (MacEachren and Kraak, 2001), serving as a broad research agenda for geo-visualization and cartography, may be information-intensive at first glance. For researchers in a related field, it can serve as a framework for literature review. To me, I believe both inductive visualization (Knowles and Strom, 2015) and storytelling map (Roth, 2020) is to some extent a response to "crosscutting challenge 4: To develop a human-centered approach to geovisulization" mentioned in MacEachren's article. By the way, since my research is mainly focused on Geographic 'mis'-informaiton, I notice one widespread academic rumor was used in this paper without reference -- "80% of all digital data generated today include geospatial referencing (e.g., geographic coordinates, addresses, and postal codes)". According to my knowledge, its original version limited all digital data to specific government materials. On the other hand, a relevant study did delve into this statement, and the percentage is far less than 80% for "all digital data".

When it comes to inductive visualization, I don't think the article offered a very clear definition of "inductive visualization" nor did it offer a consistent repeatable inductive visualization practice methodological framework. What I caught is the rejection or insufficient argument towards visualization in absolute-linear time-space, and I think that inductive visualization emphasizes the importance of reflecting human-centered experience and perception in a descriptive and eclectic manner while ignoring the linearity or accuracy of time and space on the objective world. Besides, the meaning of "GIS" in this article mainly referred to conventional GIS which consists of a reductionist ontology and positivism epistemology. Hope I can gain a better understanding of inductive visualization in our seminar discussion, and its relationship with qualitative GIS, deep map, narrative mapping.

Last but not least, Roth (2020) structurally framing existing storytelling maps. It reminds me of some of my own works when I was an master student. Attached are two of my past storytelling maps, and I think they suit the genre of "static visual story". In my own understanding, storytelling maps contains more art components than science, and time and space are relatively highlighted in comparison to other forms of story, but the emphasis is not limited by scientific rules of conventional cartography.

[JerryLiu-96]

It seems the author came up with the idea of inductive visualization amid the organization of narratives derived from victims of Holocaust. I understand their experience in place cannot be easily pinned down on maps. For example, they may not know where Nazi took them to. Their experience in place were perceived through relationship with surrounding people or surrounding environments. As a result, the author argued the map need not to appear in the visualization outcome. But my question is, if map need not to appear, then what is the boundary of geovisualization? Apparently not all visualizations are geovisualization. The author need to give a formal definition of geovisualization.

(Roth, 2020) introduced three ways to describe design space. The author defined "visual storytelling with map" as story communicated through illustrations, graphics, imaginary, and video instead of or in addition to oral, written, and audio formats, with a map potentially just one scene in the overall story. The author then introduced sequence, genre, and tropes of storytelling, the detail of which I will omit here. What draws my interest is the role of subjectivity and objectivity. It seems the author thought the storytelling should "show yourself" following critiques of Feminisms, by which he meant the storytelling should be subjective rather than objective. Actually I am a proponent of the drive for subjective storytelling, but on the other hand I am afraid that such subjective drive may also contribute to the fake news surge in the era of post-truth.

[S-Arnone]

Knowles et al.’s discussion of how GIS has been made available for nonquantitative analysis stood out to me as a result of my final project work, which is tied to the interpretation of place and space based on their compilation on social media platforms which serve as a GIS. I have found that working within the context of a city has emphasized to me the limitations of some of the ways GIS is used to represent space generally. Places are not just material structures of brick and mortar, but bear special meanings which are cultivated through experience and interpretation. GIS mediation which stresses the brick and mortar alone can surely have some advantages, particularly in creating a product of mass-accessibility or one which gives some more freedom of interpretation and interaction to the individual whose experiences and interpretations are being mediated. But on the other hand, the concept of representational space, in stressing “how we imbue space with significance” (Knowles et al. 237), seems to enhance a GIS’ overall capabilities and flexibilities in challenging the static nature of representing space. When I think of the way I interact with a standard program like Google Maps, for example, the program’s basic capabilities are enhanced by pushing beyond the recreation of the road map. Capabilities that allow individuals to rate, review, and catalogue locations give depth to the environment being represented and empower the user as one who can read and write in space. In a more complex environment like Raqqa, the subject of my research, this increased breadth takes on a deep significance as users are able to recreate destruction and rebuild what has been lost a thousand times over again, interacting with geographic information as a means by which to inform and express themselves. The city, in this case, is not only what exists in brick and mortar and how people experience and interpret it – but a layering of pasts, presents, and futures which all inhabit the same objective location.
Inductive visualization, though not something I intend/know how to incorporate in my own research, seems to stand out as a tool in engaging with this complexity. The ability of this method to transcend a linear representation of time stands out as a way to engage with narratives and explanations of individual and social behavior that rely on interdependent constructions of the past, present, and future. Being able to access these explanations, or at least representations, seems important not only in the process of reconstruction but as a form of social catharsis that can center the urban environment as a forum and means for progress. Borrowing from Knowles et al.’s assertion that, “Inductive visualization is not based on topographical relationships, but is an excellent method for detecting and thinking about them” (Ibid 255), inductive visualization seems like a productive method for bringing together the biological and environmental considerations of the city in a politically productive way. Roth, who picks up this thread, seems to provide a good way to approach the problem of putting this inductive visualization to work through storytelling. The set-up and conflict can act as a means to situate visualization and explanation while leaving the resolution as something which is more participatory, allowing the elements of the former stages to coalesce in accordance with – if not the general will, at the very least – the dominant will, creating a broadly applicable social roadmap. Advances in digital governance models, however, seem to precede our ability to use geographically situated and participatory storytelling as a means to actuate political change.

[amabie000]

Knowles, Westerveld, and Strom (2015) note that GIS is increasingly being utilized by humanities scholars and researchers and point to the ‘spatial turn’ in the humanities and the power of GIS visualizations in deepening the understanding of the spatial elements of digital humanities research and teaching. The authors call to humanist geographers and other humanists to find “critical and creative” approaches to geovisualizations rather than simply “critiquing maps without ever having made them” (234). The debate in geography over whether GIS is a tool, a technology, or a field of research (GIScience) brings into focus how GIS is picked up by other disciplines and the potential loss of critique and other interventions by feminist and qualitative geographers. The authors offer inductive visualization as an alternative or complement to GIS and computer cartography, which they note is ill suited to capture representational space and spatial practices (from Lefebvre), the quotidian meaning making that connects the human experience to space and place. Using examples from their holocaust research and student projects, the authors conclude that inductive visualization is iterative and exploratory, has no a priori structures or parameters, is not based on topological relationships, but is “an excellent method for detecting and thinking about them” (255). Inductive visualization as a methodology promotes slow thinking, stimulates creativity, supports open-minded yet critical collaborations, and can bridge the gaps in student technological ability and the cost of technology (hand drawn visualizations, for example are essentially free) in the classroom. The authors conclude from their experiences that inductive visualization may be a suitable replacement for GIS visualization in case when the focus on place elaborates the meaning making that is not meaningful in coordinate space, the temporal progression of narrative is not linear, the experience of place and time is closely linked to changes in scale, and the existence of place names in narratives is lacking or nonexistent. Roth (2020) brings attention to approaches of narrative storytelling as they can relate to their cartographic iterations such as story maps, visual storytelling telling and spatial narratives. Interestingly, Roth defers to the articulations of the structural elements of story (the three acts structure of Aristotle), and manipulating devices (referred to questionably as tropes) employed by storytellers to bring meaning and emotion into narrative construction, such as mood, repetition, and metaphor. Roth concludes with a call to consider further the implications of visual storytelling through visual design, visual ethics, and visual literacy. Roth seems to be seeking a one to one relationship between cartographic visual storytelling and other forms of visual storytelling as he suggests visual narrative storytelling as a hybridization of theory and practice across disciplines and practices. This was a little confusing to me, and I feel that a critically missing piece of Roth’s commentary relates to the necessity to transform theory and practice around the medium, rather than the other way around. The medium dictates what is possible.