(Based off of the tips from Garr Reynolds found here.)
I think Reynolds's key points were Audience Expectations and Attention, Keep It Concise, and Know What You're Saying and Own It. He mentions the audience a lot. A presentation shouldn't be presented in a unorganized and cryptic manner. They won't understand, they'll get irritated, then your presentation is, at best, useless. I liked that he mentioned that a good way to keep the audience's attention while keeping the presentation understandable was by including stories, especially personal ones.
Of course our presentations, hopefully, won't be 30+ minutes long, but we can still use these tips. We need to plan and organize what our point is. We need to make sure it's interesting and engaging enough so that our point doesn't fall upon sleeping ears. Not to mention, the tip about not information overloading is key. Many times people just talk and talk and have this big, long paragraph as a presentation- both very bad!
Just like designing a product, the a presentation has a task that it is supposed to be doing- like conveying a message or persuading an audience. They needs to do their tasks. Also, there are presentation that can fall into the design categories; visceral, behavioral, and reflective. They don't exactly work in the same way but they can still fall into those categories. Take behavioral. A behaviorally designed product has a purpose and does it, no frills. A person could have a presentation that is meant to inform people of a product and it can go the no frills, info-style presentation path. Of course, neither are expected to truly hold on their own without the help of a little visceral and reflective designing. There is always a balance. (That's like the #1 saying at this school!)
___________________________________________________________________________
I understand that nearing the end of this quarter we will only have time for three design topics to be discussed, but I don't exactly understand what it means by "design topic." Which "area of design?" I don't know. What are the "areas of design?" I think having a list would help me pick three out. Like, I would be interested in knowing how they test designs? Is that an "area of design?" Sorry. I know this isn't helpful.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Emo Pt. II
(Based on the same chapter from the last post.)
"Once a customer has learned the shop or shelf layout, it is time to redo it, goes this marketing philosophy. Otherwise,, a shopper wanting a can of soup will simply go directly to the soup and not notice any of the other enticing items. Rearranging the store forces the shopper to explore previously unvisited aisles. Similarly, rearranging how the soups are stored prevents the shopper from buying the same type of soup each time without ever trying any other variety. So shelves get rearranged, and related items are put nearby. Stores get restructured, and the most popular items are placed at the farthest ends of the store, with impulse items where they are most visible. There is a perverse set of usability principles at play here: make it difficult to buy the most desired items, and extremely easy for the impulse items."
I found this to be an enlightening passage as well as interesting. This is something I never knew. I mean, I thought that certain items were in the back, but as someone who doesn't eat dairy... I guess I never cared how far away the milk was. I did know that fruit is often put in the entryway to entice customers. I just find this passage so fascinating because it's such a creepy science. We're like lab rats and fall for the tricks!
Since Norman uses the three design types (Visceral, behavioral,and reflective) I find that these work well for each. Not because I had ever heard of the word visceral before, but now that I've learned these three by these names, it is hard to try to rename them. I would think that visceral could stand to have its name changed to something more obviously referring to visual appearances. I think behavioral could be more like functionality. I think reflective is such a "deep" topic, it would be tough to name it with a word that would correctly sum it up.
I think that every item that is to be designed should have an element of each of the three designs. I think that reflective design is going to be part of everything designed. Visceral makes me think of more simple products that can be more about looking cool than having a high performance. And behavioral is so important for all designs in the sense that a product should do its job and do it well. I don't think that there is a way to really determine which is more important for any given product. I think the simpler the design, the more visceral is can be; the more complex the design/functions, the more behavioral the design should be. I already mentioned that reflective kind of seeps into every aspect of design anyway.
"Once a customer has learned the shop or shelf layout, it is time to redo it, goes this marketing philosophy. Otherwise,, a shopper wanting a can of soup will simply go directly to the soup and not notice any of the other enticing items. Rearranging the store forces the shopper to explore previously unvisited aisles. Similarly, rearranging how the soups are stored prevents the shopper from buying the same type of soup each time without ever trying any other variety. So shelves get rearranged, and related items are put nearby. Stores get restructured, and the most popular items are placed at the farthest ends of the store, with impulse items where they are most visible. There is a perverse set of usability principles at play here: make it difficult to buy the most desired items, and extremely easy for the impulse items."
I found this to be an enlightening passage as well as interesting. This is something I never knew. I mean, I thought that certain items were in the back, but as someone who doesn't eat dairy... I guess I never cared how far away the milk was. I did know that fruit is often put in the entryway to entice customers. I just find this passage so fascinating because it's such a creepy science. We're like lab rats and fall for the tricks!
Since Norman uses the three design types (Visceral, behavioral,and reflective) I find that these work well for each. Not because I had ever heard of the word visceral before, but now that I've learned these three by these names, it is hard to try to rename them. I would think that visceral could stand to have its name changed to something more obviously referring to visual appearances. I think behavioral could be more like functionality. I think reflective is such a "deep" topic, it would be tough to name it with a word that would correctly sum it up.
I think that every item that is to be designed should have an element of each of the three designs. I think that reflective design is going to be part of everything designed. Visceral makes me think of more simple products that can be more about looking cool than having a high performance. And behavioral is so important for all designs in the sense that a product should do its job and do it well. I don't think that there is a way to really determine which is more important for any given product. I think the simpler the design, the more visceral is can be; the more complex the design/functions, the more behavioral the design should be. I already mentioned that reflective kind of seeps into every aspect of design anyway.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Emo Design
(Entry based of the reading of chapter three from Donald Norman's Emotional Design.)
There were so many points made in this chapter concerning each type of emotional design; Visceral, Behavioral, and Reflective designs. I really think that the main points were just the explanations of each design. Visceral design is based pretty much on just the physical appearance of a product, i.e. fancy shaped water bottles. It also includes other senses like the feel or sound, most of which are based on first impressions. It's basically things you see and go "pretty" to. Behavioral design is the design style that Norman talked a lot about in his other works that were discussed in the last couple posts. It is not the appearance, it's the use and performance. Function, understandability, and usability describe the elements involved in behavioral designing. A good BD performs the function it is supposed to do- and does it well. His example of bad behavioral design is regular cylindrical batteries. Many times it's hard to figure out which way they go- he notes that the fact that they all go different ways is just a bad design. He states that a good behavioral design satisfies "the needs of the people who actually use the product." Lastly is Reflective design. This is centered on the message is conveys and "the meaning of a product or its use." He notes about reflective design that sometimes the reflective value of an item will mean more to the user than the actual ease of use, or behavioral aspect of the design. He says it is about prestige, rarity, and exclusiveness.
A noticeable thing that was different about this chapter than the previous chapters was that, on page 97, he admits that he appears to be contradicting himself while he was talking about how creative designs can be more popular than good behavioral designs. He goes on to say that he usually talks about behavioral designs and how human-centered, tested-and-true designing works best. Then he notes that this isn't exactly the best approach for visceral or reflective designing. This chapter was also organized differently. It was topically, yet seemed a bit more chaotic. Sometimes I thought his transitions were a bit rough. I think it makes sense that it would be like this, though, because he was covering a bit more broad topics than before.
I think that books are often deigned viscerally. The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" may exist, but many people can't help thinking that "ooh, this book looks cool." In addition, every time I see a potted bamboo plant, I'm immediately drawn to it. Especially the curly stalked shoots. They don't serve any purpose in my room, yet I thought they were important enough to bring to my dorm. Calculators I have found are good behavioral designed items. When I first got my new calculator, I refused to use it because it was way more complex than my other one. (I went from a TI-83 to a TI-89 Titanium Edition.) When I finally forced myself to start using it (the features were so much more useful for calculus that I had to at least try it out!), I found out that it was much better in many ways. It wasn't about how cool I look with it (albeit I'm sure I look totally rad) or that it was such a beautifully crafted item (even though it is!!). Its functions are so useful that I have to love it. Finding a good reflective design is a bit tougher for me. The meaning is still a bit allusive. I think the iPod is a good example of an item that, no matter how good or bad the functions, owning one is almost the "it" thing to do. Just like many fashion designers. Sometimes people see a Marc Jacobs runway show, or even the RTW lines, and think that it's a mess. What is this designer doing? People spend the money to buy labels. It's not necessarily that the clothes are made better, the meaning makes it worth it to the customer. I also believe that magazines are part visceral, part behavioral, and part reflective. They reflectively use celebrities on the cover and tout designer labels. Behaviorally they aren't really hard to read, not to mention a table of contents is a behaviorally designed element. And viscerally they use bright colors and attractive models (for the most part) to win over your senses.
There were so many points made in this chapter concerning each type of emotional design; Visceral, Behavioral, and Reflective designs. I really think that the main points were just the explanations of each design. Visceral design is based pretty much on just the physical appearance of a product, i.e. fancy shaped water bottles. It also includes other senses like the feel or sound, most of which are based on first impressions. It's basically things you see and go "pretty" to. Behavioral design is the design style that Norman talked a lot about in his other works that were discussed in the last couple posts. It is not the appearance, it's the use and performance. Function, understandability, and usability describe the elements involved in behavioral designing. A good BD performs the function it is supposed to do- and does it well. His example of bad behavioral design is regular cylindrical batteries. Many times it's hard to figure out which way they go- he notes that the fact that they all go different ways is just a bad design. He states that a good behavioral design satisfies "the needs of the people who actually use the product." Lastly is Reflective design. This is centered on the message is conveys and "the meaning of a product or its use." He notes about reflective design that sometimes the reflective value of an item will mean more to the user than the actual ease of use, or behavioral aspect of the design. He says it is about prestige, rarity, and exclusiveness.
A noticeable thing that was different about this chapter than the previous chapters was that, on page 97, he admits that he appears to be contradicting himself while he was talking about how creative designs can be more popular than good behavioral designs. He goes on to say that he usually talks about behavioral designs and how human-centered, tested-and-true designing works best. Then he notes that this isn't exactly the best approach for visceral or reflective designing. This chapter was also organized differently. It was topically, yet seemed a bit more chaotic. Sometimes I thought his transitions were a bit rough. I think it makes sense that it would be like this, though, because he was covering a bit more broad topics than before.
I think that books are often deigned viscerally. The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" may exist, but many people can't help thinking that "ooh, this book looks cool." In addition, every time I see a potted bamboo plant, I'm immediately drawn to it. Especially the curly stalked shoots. They don't serve any purpose in my room, yet I thought they were important enough to bring to my dorm. Calculators I have found are good behavioral designed items. When I first got my new calculator, I refused to use it because it was way more complex than my other one. (I went from a TI-83 to a TI-89 Titanium Edition.) When I finally forced myself to start using it (the features were so much more useful for calculus that I had to at least try it out!), I found out that it was much better in many ways. It wasn't about how cool I look with it (albeit I'm sure I look totally rad) or that it was such a beautifully crafted item (even though it is!!). Its functions are so useful that I have to love it. Finding a good reflective design is a bit tougher for me. The meaning is still a bit allusive. I think the iPod is a good example of an item that, no matter how good or bad the functions, owning one is almost the "it" thing to do. Just like many fashion designers. Sometimes people see a Marc Jacobs runway show, or even the RTW lines, and think that it's a mess. What is this designer doing? People spend the money to buy labels. It's not necessarily that the clothes are made better, the meaning makes it worth it to the customer. I also believe that magazines are part visceral, part behavioral, and part reflective. They reflectively use celebrities on the cover and tout designer labels. Behaviorally they aren't really hard to read, not to mention a table of contents is a behaviorally designed element. And viscerally they use bright colors and attractive models (for the most part) to win over your senses.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Design of Everyday Things
(Entry based on the same first chapter from the same book as my last entry...)
Here is a brief passage I found interesting: Designing well is not easy. The manufacturer wants something that can be produced economically. The store wants something that will be attractive to is customers. The purchaser has several demands. In the store, the purchaser focuses on price and appearance, and perhaps on prestige value. At home, the same person will pay more attention to the functionality and usability. The repair service cares about maintainability: how easy is the device to take apart, diagnose, and service? The needs of those concerned are different and often conflict. Nonetheless, the designer may be able to satisfy everyone.
I thought this was an interesting passage because he mentions all these needs that I never really thought about before. I mean, a consumer (purchaser) completely changes his needs once he buys the item. This makes me think about my subconscious inner-monologue (...sometimes dialogue...) I didn't realize that I thought that much about all these things. In the post about the "perfect thing," I found it difficult to figure out what I look for. In this passage, Norman pretty much sums up the general thoughts of a consumer. Along the same lines, I knew that being a designer wasn't an easy task, but this really showed that the designer is being pulled in all directions to make an amazing product. The pressure is definitely on.
I think this book, even though first published in the 80's, still influences designers today because Norman speaks the truth. The purchaser hasn't really changed. We generally way the same thing, time and time again. The problem is that, even with this book, bad designs still exist and conquer. Just from reading the first chapter, it's apparent that this book has a unique perspective on designing and the uses of design. Designers should read this book. It's good to understand how people react and act towards design.
Because of this chapter, I would say that my checklist for design evaluation would be:
Here is a brief passage I found interesting: Designing well is not easy. The manufacturer wants something that can be produced economically. The store wants something that will be attractive to is customers. The purchaser has several demands. In the store, the purchaser focuses on price and appearance, and perhaps on prestige value. At home, the same person will pay more attention to the functionality and usability. The repair service cares about maintainability: how easy is the device to take apart, diagnose, and service? The needs of those concerned are different and often conflict. Nonetheless, the designer may be able to satisfy everyone.
I thought this was an interesting passage because he mentions all these needs that I never really thought about before. I mean, a consumer (purchaser) completely changes his needs once he buys the item. This makes me think about my subconscious inner-monologue (...sometimes dialogue...) I didn't realize that I thought that much about all these things. In the post about the "perfect thing," I found it difficult to figure out what I look for. In this passage, Norman pretty much sums up the general thoughts of a consumer. Along the same lines, I knew that being a designer wasn't an easy task, but this really showed that the designer is being pulled in all directions to make an amazing product. The pressure is definitely on.
I think this book, even though first published in the 80's, still influences designers today because Norman speaks the truth. The purchaser hasn't really changed. We generally way the same thing, time and time again. The problem is that, even with this book, bad designs still exist and conquer. Just from reading the first chapter, it's apparent that this book has a unique perspective on designing and the uses of design. Designers should read this book. It's good to understand how people react and act towards design.
Because of this chapter, I would say that my checklist for design evaluation would be:
- Is the operation system visible?
- Are buttons clearly labeled? If not, should they be?
- Does each button/part have it's own operation? If not, do the multiple operations make sense?
- Is it unnecessarily complex? Or over-simplified?
- Could the use be learned within two uses?
- Does it contain false clues?
- Is there proper feedback?
- Does it need instruction? If so, are they clearly stated/pictured.
- Is there definite natural mapping?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The Psychopathology of Everyday Things
(Based on Chapter One from Donald A. Norman's The Design of Everyday Things.)
The first chapter of this book was undoubtedly relate-able and (surprisingly) interesting, in the sense that it was a new perceptive on everyday things. Norman's key points were that everyday we use a plethora of common items, some well crafted and easy to use and understand (good design) and some complicated, hard to understand, or just plain crappy (bad design). He brings up the point: "Why do we put up with the frustrations of everyday objects?" Also mentioning that if we either don't send negative feedback or use it even though it sucks, they designer and co. will never really know how it is really perceived. He also emphasizes that visible clues that are easy to interpret (or perhaps, with limited interpreting needed) make a well-designed object.
I am a chronic door-opening failure. I push when I'm supposed to pull and pull when I should push... and bathroom stalls? A nightmare! Why would they open up INTO the stall? (Apparently so that I have minimal room to navigate out of the bathroom.) On the same note, a couple days ago, my roommate and I spent nearly 5 minutes trying to figure out where the off switch was on a TV. That shouldn't be difficult at all! I know that there are many times a day that I can't figure out how something works or can't seem to work something that appears to be so simple. I mean, why are re-lacing shoes so hard? The design of these things are certainly factors to why they are so difficult to use or work. When a door has a long horizontal bar across the entire width, how am I supposed to know to push on the left side, or the right side? Hiding the buttons on a TV... subliminal message or design flaw? Norman refers to visibility a lot and I have to agree. Simply cutting the door's horizontal bar a few inches and relocating the TV's buttons to the side would have saved me time- and a bit of mild embarrassment. I mean a little home-based testing and trial wouldn't hurt anyone right?
Personal testing is one of the things Apple did with the iPod to help with the trial and error of new designs. They also did a kind of group critique, throwing out possible complaints they imagine users would have. This helps a lot with figuring out just how well the conceptual model is going to be for the customer. And like I said before, as a person who has never had an iPod, I find them to be really easy to use. (Even if it did take a bit of trying to get Mr. Jobs to agree with certain elements.)
I like what Norman said on page 29: "Designing is not easy... The needs of those concerned are different and often conflict. Nonetheless, the designer may be able to satisfy everyone."
The first chapter of this book was undoubtedly relate-able and (surprisingly) interesting, in the sense that it was a new perceptive on everyday things. Norman's key points were that everyday we use a plethora of common items, some well crafted and easy to use and understand (good design) and some complicated, hard to understand, or just plain crappy (bad design). He brings up the point: "Why do we put up with the frustrations of everyday objects?" Also mentioning that if we either don't send negative feedback or use it even though it sucks, they designer and co. will never really know how it is really perceived. He also emphasizes that visible clues that are easy to interpret (or perhaps, with limited interpreting needed) make a well-designed object.
I am a chronic door-opening failure. I push when I'm supposed to pull and pull when I should push... and bathroom stalls? A nightmare! Why would they open up INTO the stall? (Apparently so that I have minimal room to navigate out of the bathroom.) On the same note, a couple days ago, my roommate and I spent nearly 5 minutes trying to figure out where the off switch was on a TV. That shouldn't be difficult at all! I know that there are many times a day that I can't figure out how something works or can't seem to work something that appears to be so simple. I mean, why are re-lacing shoes so hard? The design of these things are certainly factors to why they are so difficult to use or work. When a door has a long horizontal bar across the entire width, how am I supposed to know to push on the left side, or the right side? Hiding the buttons on a TV... subliminal message or design flaw? Norman refers to visibility a lot and I have to agree. Simply cutting the door's horizontal bar a few inches and relocating the TV's buttons to the side would have saved me time- and a bit of mild embarrassment. I mean a little home-based testing and trial wouldn't hurt anyone right?
Personal testing is one of the things Apple did with the iPod to help with the trial and error of new designs. They also did a kind of group critique, throwing out possible complaints they imagine users would have. This helps a lot with figuring out just how well the conceptual model is going to be for the customer. And like I said before, as a person who has never had an iPod, I find them to be really easy to use. (Even if it did take a bit of trying to get Mr. Jobs to agree with certain elements.)
I like what Norman said on page 29: "Designing is not easy... The needs of those concerned are different and often conflict. Nonetheless, the designer may be able to satisfy everyone."
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Perfect Thing
(Discussion based off of this article by Steven Levy from Wired. We're dealing with the creation and behind-the-scenes of the iPod.)
Essentially design all starts with an idea. "An MP3 music player that would woek with Apple's existing iTunes application and would not suck. Something with a nice visual interface that runs the database program that stores digital song files, then perferms the high-speed mathematical processes that make those fuiles into the same Jimi Hendrix and Yo-Yo-Ma tunes that you'd hear on a CD player." Then it all begins. In this case, the super top secret fun iPod needed a design team. If you're notable in the design techinology world, you could be contacted. Especially if you're Anthony Fadell. Steve Jobs gave his newest design engineer a task (see quote above)- and a deadline in which this design should be completed. There were so many requirements set up right away for him to consider; cost, size, weight, current market, etc. Mr. Fadell had a lot of research and collaborating to do. After a while he started creating models of what he wanted the device to look like. Before things were really put into further development, the models and prototypes had to be present the the Executives. If they all fail... I imiagine it's back to the drawing board... or you're replaced... Luckily, Fadell and Co. produced a design that impressed Mr. Jobs. "The project was a go." Pretty much now it was time to get people officially working on the software, interfaces, industrial design, and various other tasks. Then, the critical analysis happens. The devices she be questioned, poked, and prodded- and, in doing so, made better. Physical prototypes and examples are made and named. Physical damage tests and home testing ensue. Once the product is satisfactory, it's time to proceed to the business and selling department.
Bottom Line: "Development [is] a multi-track process."
Mr. Levy titled his article "The Perfect Thing," likely alluding to the iPod as such. Of course, for me, defining a "perfect thing" or just a "thing" in general is a bit vague, making it difficult to determine what factors I would use to evaluate this P.T. I suppose I would need to know the job that the thing is supposed to do. Does it accomplish it or it it a near-attempt? If it's supposed to be pocket-sized, it should, in fact, be pocket-sized! Generally a few factors I use in evaluating stuff is appearance, connotation, dependability, and popularity.
I don't consider the iPod to be "The Perfect Thing." I think that two strengths it has are its popularity and usefulness. "Cool people" have it and then everyone wants one- MP3 player are often wrongly referred to as iPods because of the immense popularity. I will give it the fact that it is downright useful. We've progressively made music devices and this one takes the cake. More songs, less space. Brilliant. Of course that is true for MP3 players in general. I don't own an iPod, but I have used one and have found it to be pretty easy to use, and the scroll-y thingy is ridiculously practical. On the flip side, I don't like iTunes. And pretty much don't like the privacy and copyright securities. Of course it was made to be against those things... doesn't mean I have to like it. I also tend to avoid Apple devices due to my father's disdain for them. I consider the fact that it is not $20 or less to be a weakness (or maybe my cheapness is a weakness...). I have known many iPods to break and I'm not about to thrown down hard-earned (or birthday earned) cash when I could just get a cheaper one that lets me override security/copyrights.
I'm pretty satisfied with my Creative brand Zen MP3 Player.
Essentially design all starts with an idea. "An MP3 music player that would woek with Apple's existing iTunes application and would not suck. Something with a nice visual interface that runs the database program that stores digital song files, then perferms the high-speed mathematical processes that make those fuiles into the same Jimi Hendrix and Yo-Yo-Ma tunes that you'd hear on a CD player." Then it all begins. In this case, the super top secret fun iPod needed a design team. If you're notable in the design techinology world, you could be contacted. Especially if you're Anthony Fadell. Steve Jobs gave his newest design engineer a task (see quote above)- and a deadline in which this design should be completed. There were so many requirements set up right away for him to consider; cost, size, weight, current market, etc. Mr. Fadell had a lot of research and collaborating to do. After a while he started creating models of what he wanted the device to look like. Before things were really put into further development, the models and prototypes had to be present the the Executives. If they all fail... I imiagine it's back to the drawing board... or you're replaced... Luckily, Fadell and Co. produced a design that impressed Mr. Jobs. "The project was a go." Pretty much now it was time to get people officially working on the software, interfaces, industrial design, and various other tasks. Then, the critical analysis happens. The devices she be questioned, poked, and prodded- and, in doing so, made better. Physical prototypes and examples are made and named. Physical damage tests and home testing ensue. Once the product is satisfactory, it's time to proceed to the business and selling department.
Bottom Line: "Development [is] a multi-track process."
Mr. Levy titled his article "The Perfect Thing," likely alluding to the iPod as such. Of course, for me, defining a "perfect thing" or just a "thing" in general is a bit vague, making it difficult to determine what factors I would use to evaluate this P.T. I suppose I would need to know the job that the thing is supposed to do. Does it accomplish it or it it a near-attempt? If it's supposed to be pocket-sized, it should, in fact, be pocket-sized! Generally a few factors I use in evaluating stuff is appearance, connotation, dependability, and popularity.
I don't consider the iPod to be "The Perfect Thing." I think that two strengths it has are its popularity and usefulness. "Cool people" have it and then everyone wants one- MP3 player are often wrongly referred to as iPods because of the immense popularity. I will give it the fact that it is downright useful. We've progressively made music devices and this one takes the cake. More songs, less space. Brilliant. Of course that is true for MP3 players in general. I don't own an iPod, but I have used one and have found it to be pretty easy to use, and the scroll-y thingy is ridiculously practical. On the flip side, I don't like iTunes. And pretty much don't like the privacy and copyright securities. Of course it was made to be against those things... doesn't mean I have to like it. I also tend to avoid Apple devices due to my father's disdain for them. I consider the fact that it is not $20 or less to be a weakness (or maybe my cheapness is a weakness...). I have known many iPods to break and I'm not about to thrown down hard-earned (or birthday earned) cash when I could just get a cheaper one that lets me override security/copyrights.
I'm pretty satisfied with my Creative brand Zen MP3 Player.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
For Friday September 17
Preface: It is a common theory that vegans are psychic. I am currently unable to confirm nor deny this allegation. (Yes, I know you didn't think that was a common theory...) It is, though, a theory...
I'm Shelbi Bolter. I'm from Gregory, MI. I'm a Pisces. If I could tell my local grocery store(s) to sell one flavor of soy ice cream, I'd suggest red bean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)