weinratgeber.info Personal Growth The Design Of Everyday Things Norman Pdf

THE DESIGN OF EVERYDAY THINGS NORMAN PDF

Thursday, May 2, 2019


[Psychology of everyday things]. The design of everyday things / Don Norman.— Revised and expanded edition. pages cm. ISBN (pbk.). The Design of Everyday Things - Don weinratgeber.info Things. Work. THE PHYSICS OF EVERYDAY LIFE th. Edition. Louis A. Bloomfield SENIOR DESIGNER. So show me more of those Norman doors, those faucets, those plastic bags of friends. The second title, The Design of Everyday Things—DOET—was more.


The Design Of Everyday Things Norman Pdf

Author:CREOLA POPICHAK
Language:English, Spanish, Hindi
Country:Russian Federation
Genre:Fiction & Literature
Pages:
Published (Last):
ISBN:
ePub File Size: MB
PDF File Size: MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads:
Uploaded by: LING

The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition [Don Norman] on weinratgeber.info *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The ultimate guide to. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Norman, Donald A. [ Psychology of everyday things] The design of everyday things / Donald A. Norman. Revealing how smart design is the new competitive frontier, this innovative book is a powerful primer on how--and why--some products satisfy customers while.

While there are some desktop computing examples given, this book is pre-Internet. Think of how much additional information is required in the wake of that. Think browsers, email, scams, viruses, While some of the examples are a bit dated, such as VCR's, they're not terrible. I don't think so. I know damn well that designers could do a much better job of laying out the controls for something as simple as a stove.

I have to read, sometimes even puzzle out symbols to figure out which is which. Even on my own simple stove, which we've had 5 years, I wind up reading to figure out the controls. OK, Marg usually cooks, but that's just STUPID design - one more minor irritation in a world filled with them, but one that could so easily be rectified with just a bit of thought!!! It's just infuriating. While I was reading this book, a couple of examples of its relevance slapped me in the face.

Consider the telephone. This is an excellent example of natural mapping. The control is in the shape of the seat itself: To move the front edge of the seat higher, lift up on the front part of the button.

To make the seat back recline, move the button back. Mercedes-Benz automobiles are obviously not everyday things for most people, but the principle doesn't require great expense or wealth. The tame princi- ple cetild be applied to mudt common objects.

There are several problems here. First, the description of the func- tion is relatively complex— yet incomplete: What if two people set up callback at the same time?

Norman D. The Design of Everyday Things

What if the person does not come back until a week later? What if you have meanwhile set up three or four other functions? What if you want to cancel it? Second, the action to be performed is arbitrary, pial Why 60? Why not 73 or Z7? How does one remember an arbitrary number? Third, the sequence ends with what appears to be a redundant, unnecessary action: If the phone system is smart enough to do all these other things, why can't it remember the number that was just attempted; why must it be told all over again?

And Hnally, consider title lack of feedback. How do I know I did the right action? Maybe I disconnected the phone. Maybe I set up some other special feature.

There is no visible or audible way to know immediately. The principles are simple but rarely incorporated into design. Good design takes care, planning, thought. It takes conscious attention to the needs of the user.

Once, when I was at a conference at Gmunden, Austria, a group of us went off to see the sights. I sat directly behind the driver of the brand new, sleek, Mgh-tedmology German tour bus. I gazed in wonda-at the hundreds of controls scattered all over the front of the bus. The driver was clearly puz- zled by the question. There is no difBculty. Controls are where they ought to be. One function, one control Harder to do, of course, than to say, but essen- tially this is the principle of natural mappings: I return to this topic later in the book, for the problem of determining the "natural- ness" of mappings is difBcult, but crucial.

I've already described how my car's controls are generally easy to use. Actually, the car has lots of problems. Here is a simple example: Rotate the wheel from left to right or right to left. Simple, except how do you know which way to rotate the control? Which direction moves the sound to die rear, which to the front? If yoa wantsomd to come mtt of the fnmt speaker, you should be able to move the control to the front.

See a Problem?

To get it out of the back, move the control to the back. Butthe way the control is actually mounted in the car, forward and backward get translated into left and right. Which direction is which? There is no natural relationship. What's worse, tte amtmi Isn't even labeled.

Even the tistractitm manual does not say htnv to toe it. Rotating the knob with the pictures of the speaker at either side makes the sound come entirely out of the front speakers when the knob is all the way over to one side , entirely out of the rear speakers when the knob is all the way the other way , or equally out of both when the knob is midway. Which way is front, which rear? You can't tell by looking. While you're at it, imagine trying to manipulate the radio controls while keeping your eyes on the road.

The control should be mounted so that it moves forward and back- ward. If that can't be done, rotate the control go' on the panel so that it moves vertically. Moving something up to represent forward is not as natural as moving it forward, but at least it follows a standard convaition. In fact, we see diat both the car and the telephone have easy func- tions and difficult ones.

The car seems to have more of the easy ones, the telephone more of the difficult ones. Moreover, with the car, enough of the controls are easy that I can do almost everydiing I need to. Not so with the telephone: In addition, there must be a close, natural relationship between the control and its function: Imag- ine trying to talk to someone when you cannot even hear your own voice, or trying to draw a picture with a pencil that leaves no mark: In the good old days of the telephone, before the American tele- phone system was divided among competing companies, before tele- phones were fancy and had so many features, telephones were de- signed with much more care and concern for the user.

Designers at the Bell Telephone Laboratories worried a lot about feedback. The push buttons were designed to give an appropriate feel — tactile feedback.

The Design of Everyday Things - Don Norman.pdf

When a button was pushed, a tone was fed back into the earpiece so the user could tell that the button had been properly pushed. When the phone call was being connected, clicks, tones, and other noises gave the user feedback about the progress of the call. And the speaker's voice was always fed back to the earpiece in a carefully controlled amount, because the auditory feedback called "sidetone" helped the person regulate how loudly to talk.

All this has changed. We now have tele- phones that are much more powerful and often cheaper than those that existed just a few years ago — more function for less money. To be fair, these new designs are pushing hard on the paradox of technology: But that does not justify backwitrd progress.

Why are the modem telephone systems so difficult to learn and to use? Basically, the problem is that the systems have more features and less feedback. Suppose all telephones had a small display screen, not uiilike the ones on small, inexpensive calculators. The display could be used to present, upon the push of a button, a brief menu of all the features of the telephone, one by one. When the desired one was encoimtered, the user would push another button to indicate that it should be invoked.

If further action was required, the display could tell the person what to do. The display could even be auditory, with speech instead of a visual display. Only two buttons need be added to the ONB: The Psychopathology of Everyday Things telephone: Of course, the telephone would be slightly more expensive.

The tradeoff is cost versus usability. The manufacturer wants something that can be produced economically. The store wants something that will be attractive to its customers. The downloadr has several demands.

In the store, the downloadr focuses on price and appearance, and perhaps on prestige value. At home, the same person will pay more attention to functionality and usability. The repair service cares about maintaina- bility: The needs of those concerned are different and often conflict. Nonetheless, the designer may be able to satisfy everyone. The diskette has a square shape: What happens if 1 do it wrong? Ah, the designer thought of that. A little study shows that the case really isn 't square: I try backward.

The diskette goes in only part of the way. Take another example of good design. My felt-tipped marking pen has ribs along only one of its sides; otherwise all sides look identical.

Careful examination shows that the tip of the marker is angled and makes the best line if the marker is held with the ribbed side up, a natural result if the foreBnger rests upon the ribs. No harm results if I hold the marker another way, but the marker writes less well The ribs are a subtle design cue — functional, yet visibly and aesthetically unob- trusive.

The Design of Everyday Things The world is permeated with small examples of good desigit, with the amazing details that make important differences in our lives. Then why is it that so many good design ideas don't find their way into products in the marketplace? Or something good shows up for a short time, only to fall into oblivion? I once spoke with a designer about the frustrations of trying to get the best product out: It usually takes Bve or six attempts to get a product right.

This may be acceptable in an established product, but consider what it means in a new one. Suppose a company wants to make a product that will perhaps make a real difference.

The problem is that if the product is truly revolutionary, it is unlikely that anyone will quite know how to design it right the Brst time; it will take several tries. But if a product is introduced into the marketplace and fails, well that is it. Perhaps it could be introduced a second time, or maybe even a third time, but after that it is dead: I asked him to explain.

A failure. No longer even tried. Too bad. It really is a good idea, for it can be very useful when the hands or eyes are busy elsewhere. But those Brst few attempts were very badly done and the public scoffed— properly. Now, nobody dares try it again, even in those places where it is needed.

At the same time. The Psychopathology of Everyday Things 29 added complexities arise to increase our difficulty and frustration. The development of a technology tends to follow a U-shaped curve of complexity: New kinds of devices are complex and difficult to use. As technicians become more competent and an industry matures, de- vices become simpler, more reliable, and more powerful. But then, after the industry has stabilized, newcomers figure out how to add increased power and capability, but always at the expense of added complexity and sometimes decreased reliability.

We can see the curve of complex- ity in the history of the watch, radio, telephone, and television set. Take the radio.

In the early days, radios were quite complex. To tune in a station required several adjustments, including one for the an- terma, one for the radio frequency, one for intermediate frequencies, and controls for both sensitivity and loudness.

Later radios were sim- pler and had controls only to turn it on, tune the station, and adjust the loudness. But the latest radios are again very complex, perhaps even more so than early ones. Now the radio is called a tuner, and it is littered with numerous controls, switches, slide bars, lights, displays, and meters. The modem sets are technologically superior, offering higher quality sound, better reception, and enhanced capability. But what good is the technology if it is too complex to use?

The design problem posed by technological advances is enormous. Consider the watch. A few decades ago, watches were simple.

All you had to do was set the time and keep them wound. The standard con- trol was the stem: Turning the knob wound the spring that worked the watch. Pulling the knob out and turning it made the hands move. The operations were easy to learn and easy to do. There was a reasonable relation between the turning of the knob and the resulting turning of the hands. The design even took into account human error: In the modem digital watch the spring is gone, replaced by a motor run by long-lasting batteries.

All that remains is the task of setting the watch. The stem is still a sensible solution, for you can go fast or slow, forward or backward, until the exact desired time is reached. But the stem is more complex and therefore more expensive than simple push-button switches. If the only change in the transition from the spring-wound analog watch to the battery-mn digital watch were in how the time was set, there would be little difficulty.

The problem is that new technology has allowed us to add more functions to the 30 The Design of Everyday Things watch: But the added functions cause problems: How do you design a watch that has so many functions while trying to limit the size, cost, and complexity of the device? How many buttons does it take to make the watch workable and leamable, yet not too expensive?

There are no easy answers. Whenever the number of functions and required opera- tions exceeds the number of controls, the design becomes arbitrary, unnatural, and complicated.

The same technology that sim plifies life by providing more functions in each device also compli cates life by mttk - ing the device harder to leam7Tiarder to use. This i s the pa radox of technology. The paradox of technology should never be used as an excuse for poor design. It is true that as the number of options and capabilities of any device increases, so too must the number and complexity of the controls.

But the principles of good design can make complexity man- ageable. In one of my courses I gave as homework the assignment to design a multiple-function clock radio: You have been employed by a manufacturing company to design their new product. The company is considering combining the follow- ing into one item: Your job is A to recommend what to build, then B to design the control panel, and Bnally C to certify that it is actually both what customers want and easy to use.

The Psychopathology of Everyday Things State what you would do for the three parts of your job: A, B, and C. Explain how you would go about validating and justifying your recommendations. Draw a rough sketch of a control panel for the items in the indented list, with a brief justification and analysis of the factors that went into the choice of design.

There are several things I looked for in the answer. First, how well did the answer address the 1. Completely unaccept- able. Thanks to Bill Gaver for devising and drawing this sample. Small TV placed for easy vie-ving Keypad for easy entry of: Alarm clock. Both the clock and the tviner are illuminated so you can easily glance at them in the night Radio tuner. The big hand is for the current station, the little hand is for the alarm-svitched station.

I expected my students to visit the homes of potential users to see how their current devices were being used and to determine how the combined multipurpose device would be used.

Next, I evaluated whether all the controls were usable and understand- able, allowing all the desired fimctions to be operated with minimum confusion or error. Clock radios are often used in the dark, with the user in bed and reaching overhead to grope for the desired control. Therefore the vmit had to be usable in the dark by feel only.

It was not supposed to be possible to make a serious mistake by accidentally hitting the wrong control. Alas, many existing clock radios do not tolerate serious errors — for example, the user may reset the time by hitting the wrong button accidentally. Finally, the design was ex- pected to take into accoimt real issues in cost, manufacturability, and aesthetics.

The finished design had to pass muster with users. The point of the exercise was for the student to realize the paradox of technology: She walked over to her Sling cabinet and attempted to open the top drawer. It wouldn't open. She pushed it forward and backward, right and left, up and down, without success.

I offered to help. I wiggled the drawer. Then I twisted the front panel, pushed down hard, and banged the front with the palm of one hand. The cabinet drawer slid open. I am so bad at mechanical things. Invariably people feel guilty and either try to hide the error or blame themselves for "stupidity" or "clumsiness.

I point out that the design is faulty and that others make the 34 same errors. Still, if the task appears simple or trivial, then people blame themselves. I once was asked by a large computer company to evaluate a brand new product. I spent a day learning to use it and trying it out on various problems. In using the keyboard to enter data, it was necessary to differentiate between the the "return" key and the "enter" key.

If the wrong key was typed, the last few minutes ' work was irrevocably lost. I pointed this problem out to the designer, explaining that I myself had made the error frequently and that my analyses indicated that this was very likely to be a frequent error among users. The designer's first response was: Didn't you read the manual? They have similar functions, are located in similar locations on the keyboard, and as a skilled typist, I often hit "return" automatically, without thought.

Certainly others have had similar problems. He claimed that I was the only person who had ever complained, and the company's secretaries had been using the system for many months. I was skeptical, so we went together to some of the secretaries and asked them whether they had ever hit the "return" key when they should have hit "enter. After all, they were encouraged to report all problems with the system.

The reason was simple: But when they made the "return" versus "enter" error, they blamed themselves. After all, they had been told what to do. They had simply erred. Of course, people do make errors. Complex devices will always require some instruction, and someone using them without instruction should expect to make errors and to be confused.

But designers should take special pains to make errors as cost-free as possible. Here is my credo about errors: The Psychology of Everyday Actions If an error is possible, someone will make it.

The designer must assume that all possible errors will occur and design so as to miiumize the chance of the error in the first place, or its effects once it gets made. Errors should be easy to detect, they should have minimal consequences, and, if possible, their effects should be reversible.

Misconceptions of Everyday Life Our lives are filled with misconceptions.

Conceptual Models and the System Image

This should not be surprising: Psychologists love errors and misconceptions, for they give important clues about the organization and operation of our minds.

Many everyday misunder- standings are classified as "naive" or "folk" understandings. And not just plain folk hold these misconceptions: Aristotle developed an entire theory of physics that physicists find quaint and amusing. Yet Aris- totle's theories correspond much better to common-sense, everyday observations than do the highly refined and abstract theories we are taught in school.

Aristotle developed what we might call naive physics. It is only when you study the esoteric world of physics that you learn what is "correct" and are able to understand why the "naive" view is wrong. Today's physicist says nonsense: This is Newton's first law of motion, and it contributed to the development of modem physics. Yet anyone who has ever pushed a heavy box along a street or, for that matter, hiked for miles into the wilderness, knows that Aristotle was right: Of course, Newton and his successors assume the absence of friction and air.

Aristotle lived in a world where there was always friction and air resistimce. Once friction is involved, then objects in motion tend to stop unless you keep pushing. Aristotle's theory may be bad physics, but it describes reasonably well what we can see in the real world. Think about how you might answer the following questions.

I take a pistol and, carefully aiming it on a level, horizontal line, I Bre a bullet. With my other hand, I hold a bullet so that the bullet in the pistol and the one in my hand are exactly the same distance from the ground.

I drop the bullet at the same instant as I Bre the pistol Which bullet hits the ground Brst? Imagine someone running across a Beld carrying a ball.

As you watch, the runner drops the ball Which path a, b, or c in Bgure 2. The fact that one bullet is traveling horizontally very rapidly has absolutely no effect on how fast it falls downward.

Why should we accept that answer? Shouldn't the speeding bullet develop some lift — sort of like an airplane — so that it will stay up a bit longer because it is kept up by the air? VVho knows? The theory of physics is based upon a situation where there is no air. The popular misconception is that the pistol bullet will hit the ground long after the dropped bullet; yet this naive view doesn't seem so strange. Which path does the ball take as it falls to the ground, path A, B, or C?

When this question was asked of sixth-grade students in Boston schools, only 3 percent answered A, the right answer; the others were eveiJy divided between B and C. Even high school students did not do well: The figure is reprinted from Intuitive Physics by McCloskey. All rights reserved. B A nvo: The Psychology of Everyday Actions In the case of the falling ball, our prediction is that the ball will drop straight down.

In fact, the falling ball follows trajectory A figure 2. As it is carried by the ruimer, it is set into horizontal motion. It then maintains the same forward speed upon being released, even as it also falls to the ground.

But at times they can get us into trouble. Yet we must have a way to digest the unfamiliar, for people are explan- atory creatures. These models are essential in helping us understand our experiences, predict the outcomes of our actions, and handle unex- pected occurrences. We base our models on whatever knowledge we have, real or imaginary, naive or sophisticated.

Mental models are often constructed from fragmentary evidence, with but a poor tmderstanding of what is happening, and with a kind of naive psychology that postulates causes, mechanisms, and relation- ships even where there are none. Some faulty models lead to the frus- trations of everyday life, as in the case of my unsettable refrigerator, where my mental model of its operation figure i. Far more serious are faulty models of such complex systems as an industrial plant or passenger airplane.

Misunderstanding there can lead to devastating accidents. Consider the room thermostat. How does it work? Here is a device that offers almost no evidence of its operation except in a highly round- about maimer. We walk into a room and feel too cold: Eventually we feel warmer. Note that the same thing applies to the temperature control for a cooking oven or a pottery kiln, or an air conditioner, or almost any device whose temperature is to be regulated.

Want to bake a cake, but the oven is off? Set the oven thermostat and the oven gets to the desired temperature. Is the room too hot? Set the thermostat on the air condi- tioner. Fine, but how does the thermostat work? If you are in a cold room, in a hurry to get warm, will the room heat more quickly if you turn the thermostat all the way up?

Or if you want 38 The Design of Everyday Things the oven to reach its working temperature faster, should you turn the temperature dial all the way to maximum, then turn it down once the desired temperature is reached?

Or to cool a room most quickly, should you set the air conditioner thermostat to its lowest temperature setting? If you think that the room or oven will heat or cool faster if the thermostat is turned all the way to the maximum setting, you are wrong. You hold a folk theory of thermostats.

There are two commonly held folk theories about thermostats: The timer theory proposes that the thermostat simply controls the relative proportion of time that the device stays on. Set the thermo- stat midway, and the device is on about half the time; set it all the way up and the device is on all the time. Hence, to heat or cool something most quickly, set the thermostat so that the device is on all the time.

The valve theory proposes that the thermostat controls how much heat or cold comes out of the device. Turn the thermostat all the way up, and you get maximum heating or cooling. It treats the heater, oven, and air conditioner as all-or-nothing devices that can be either fully on or fully off, with no in-between states. The thermostat turns the heater, oven, or air conditioner completely on — at full power — until the temperature setting on the thermostat is reached.

Then it turns the unit completely off. Setting the thermostat at one extreme cannot affect how long it takes to reach the desired tempera- ture.

The Design of Everyday Things - Don Norman.pdf

In the case of the thermostat, the design gives absolutely no hint as to the correct answer. In the absence of external information, people are free to let their imaginations nm free as long as the mental models they develop account for the facts as they per- ceive them.

Blaming the Wrong Cause "Look at this! The library did it! Every time I connect it to the library catalog I have trouble. Now 1 can't even use the terminal to read my computer mail anymore. The Psychology of Everyday Actions 39 power to the terminal. How could a computer program possibly do that kind of damage?

I always have trouble with that program. And this is simply too much of a coincidence to be anything else.

It turns out that the power supply to the terminal had burned out, a fact that had nothing to do with the com- puter program. Coincidence is enough to set the causal wheels rolling.

Earlier I suggested that people have a tendency to blame themselves for difficulties with technology. Actually, the point is a bit more com- plicated.

Other books: THE RED BOOK

People do tend to find causes for events, and just what they assign as the cause varies. In part people tend to assign a causal relation whenever two things occur in succession. If I do some action A just prior to some result R, then I conclude that A must have caused R, even if, as in the example above, there really was no relationship between the two.

The story is more complex when we intend an action to produce a desired result and fail, and there are problems when we have done the action through some intermediate mechanism.

Just where do we put the blame for failure? The answer is not clear. The psychology of blame or, to be more accurate, of attribution is complex and not fully understood. In part, there seems to have to be some perceived causal relationship between the thing being blamed and the result.

The word perceived is critical: Sometimes we attribute the cause to things that had nothing to do with the action. And sometimes we ignore the real culprit. As a result, blame or credit can be assessed almost independently of reality. Here is where the apparent simplicity of everyday objects causes problems. Suppose I try to use an everyday thing, but I can't: Where is the fault, in my action or in the thing?

We are apt to blame ourselves. If we believe that others are able to use the device and if we believe that it is not very complex, then we conclude that any difficulties must be our own fault. Suppose the fault really lies in the device, so that lots of people have the same problems. Because everyone perceives the fault to be his or her own, nobody wants to The Design of Everyday Things admit to having trouble.

This creates a conspiracy of silence, maintain- ing the feelings of guilt and helplessness among users. Interestingly enough, the common tendency to blame ourselves for failures with everyday objects goes against the normal attributions people make. In general, it has been found that people attribute their own problems to the environment, those of other people to their per- sonalities.

Here is a made-up example. Consider Tom, the office terror. Today Tom got to work late, slammed the door to his office, and yelled at his colleagues. He's so excitable — always gets mad at the slightest thing. That wasn't my fault — the radio's badly designed. I didn't even have time for my morn- ing coffee. Don't let the Norman door hit you on the way out. What does that even mean?

Well, read the book and find out! Kindle Edition Verified download. Its a good book with great examples. It does shed some light on the troubles with design and shows problems from another perspective and it should be rightfully considered as one of the key books regarding design in general. However, It's quite shallow and the author doesn't go into much of a detail.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a literary critic or anything but as a European, the style is not a strong suit. People, who are used to the American style of literature are going to be fine, but sometimes there is too much repetition of ideas and a bit deeper analysis of the problem would be beneficial. To sum up. The contribution of the author in the field of proper and functional design is huge and the terminology used is crucial for understanding the key principles of design is paramount.

But I would go into a bit more detail. In other words it's just anecdotal. And it reads like a crotchety old man who complains about everything.

Like, he can find the problem with every design, but doesn't spend half as much time talking about good design. To summarize, I find this book weak regarding the validity of it since it's just one person's opinion, it creates the experience of just listening to someone complains about everything, and doesn't leave me feeling like I'm learning any useful design skills. A pamphlet may be able to be reduced to a single-page flow chart. It's a Norman book in the same way a terrible door is a Norman door.

That assumes its purpose is to inform the reader in a succinct manner, and not generate money for the author who mentions his other works many times throughout. It's exceptionally good at generating revenue; maybe I'm applying his solution to the wrong problem, the correct problem being 'I need money for a boat.

Heavy on theory. Norman is really good at introducing concepts and painting it with examples. I only wish that this book picked our brains more. There could have been many times he could have displayed the information in fun, amusing, and even trivial ways. It felt like he was giving us the cheat-sheet without doing what great teachers do: This book is a primer, so if you are expecting some sick UX skill-based tips and tricks, you are out of luck.

The text is foundational information that helps create a thought-leading designer. In a classroom setting, using this book would be fantastic. It lends some great inspirational food-for-thought for the aspiring designer. There are many broad concepts, each with endless possibilities for lesson plans and teaching material. See all reviews. site Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers. Learn more about site Giveaway.

This item: Revised and Expanded Edition. Set up a giveaway. Customers who viewed this item also viewed. Picture This: How Pictures Work. Molly Bang. The Design of Everyday Things. Donald A. The Psychology Of Everyday Things.

Don Norman. Pages with related products. See and discover other items: There's a problem loading this menu right now. Learn more about site Prime. Get fast, free shipping with site Prime. Back to top. Get to Know Us.He turned around once more and tried the inside doors again.

That was all the instruction it twdc There are controls inside the car. Humans do not always err. In older days, business phones always had a button labeled "hold. Read more.

KANDIS from Greensboro
Look over my other articles. I have always been a very creative person and find it relaxing to indulge in ringette. I relish studying docunments utterly.