DMI Blogs » Items by jasonrbailey

Feeds

471 items (450 unread) in 9 feeds

• Agata (34 unread)
• Cici (6 unread)
• Dan (84 unread)
• Elaine (93 unread)
• Colin (45 unread)
• Jason (48 unread)
• Joe (17 unread)
• Scott (86 unread)
• Simon (37 unread)

Items by jasonrbailey

Jason

• 

  Posted: July 9th, 2009, 9:10pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  I am taking Colin Owens “Sound for Dynamic Media” class this summer and started working on a project involving the visualization of sound. We saw several interesting examples from the design field that you can find on the class website. I thought this more scientific example was pretty cool and wanted to share.

• 

  Posted: May 25th, 2009, 2:24pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  Looked at my blog for the first time in a while today. To my surprise, the basketball visualization of NBA shot location that I worked on with my brother Matt last November has received some positive attention recently including a mention on Boing Boing Gadgets. Also got a mention onVisualization Blog in an article about visualization in sports. Always great to get feedback, especially when it is positive!

• 

  Posted: February 21st, 2009, 9:29am PST by jasonrbailey

  

  This is an image from a project I am working on with Processing and live video. It uses the location of the brightest pixel on each video still to define the video stills position in space. Currently working on a version that maps RGB to XYZ for both translation and rotation. The goal would be for the red images to cluster and build in a separate space from say the green or blue. Subtle gradations in color would lead to subtle structural variations, quick jumps in color would produce gaping structures.

  It is an fun project that is yielding some interesting images. I think it has potential as an interactive piece as it is fun to point the camera at different people/objects and see the frames coalesce into sculptural 3D forms. I also like the idea of sharing authorship between the programmer, the computer, the environment, the videographer the actors and complete chance.

• 

  Posted: December 13th, 2008, 2:56pm PST by jasonrbailey

  I am sure that I am the millionth blog to post this but I couldn’t help it. Very cool typographic video.

• 

  Posted: November 9th, 2008, 2:04pm PST by jasonrbailey

  

  My brother Matt and I collaborated this morning to put together this visualization of shot frequency for the entire 07-08 NBA season. The graphic rotates when you click and drag the mouse and you can zoom in and out with the “S” and “T” keys. We currently have 2 versions, one with cubes and one with bars. The Bars version runs a little slower than the cubes.

  I think this is a good example of how location data (where on the court?) lends itself to a 3D visualization. I think you may lose something by mapping this data in 2D. You can compare ours to a heat map version that appears to be constructed from the same data. Next step would be making it interactive so you could check by team or player. Thanks to BasketballGeek.com for the data.

• 

  Posted: October 26th, 2008, 12:17pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  

  I have been looking around at algorithmic drawing apps to see what I can learn that might help in developing my own app. Thought I would share a few on the blog.

  The first is “Super Draw“, an interface that Peter Kirn introduced us to in the summer Processing class at Mass Art. “Super Draw” is by New York based artist Joshue Ott, you can see video’s of it in action here, or play with a greatly simplified version here.

  I also found some similar work done much earlier by Golan Levin who received his Masters at MIT Media Laboratory in 2000. Several examples of his early work are online including Floccus (1999), Meshy (1998) and Yellow Tail (1998). Levin also performed live in February 2004 at the TED conference using his interfaces. You can see the video here.

  Let me know if any of you are familiar with other similar interfaces I may not be aware of.

• 

  Posted: October 20th, 2008, 9:45pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  I am not a huge video game player but I have to admit that video games are responsible for the most interesting interface work being done over the last several years. Obviously the Wiimote has changed how we look at interface and interactivity but there are two newer games that I think will leave equally large impressions on the future of interface design.

  I mentioned Will Wright’s “Spore” a few months ago on my blog and have yet to mess around with it. You can see a video of the Spore monster creator here.

  The video above is for a game called “Little Big Planet” that I will definitely be checking out. From the video it looks like it allows you to intuitively build 3D & 2D environments that are governed by physics. Both Spore and Little Big planet seem to understand that it is much more fun to build your own characters, levels and games that to just play someone elses. The fun is in the making. Looks like I will have to wait to check it out though because they just announced a recall.

• 

  Posted: October 7th, 2008, 6:57pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  I just finished reading the Design Quarterly “HATS” by Richard Saul Wurman. Amongst other things, he elegantly describes the juxtaposition of information to reveal new information. “The creative organization of information creates new information” he elaborates:

  “The hats never change, but hanging them in different patterns or with different rules or on different racks can affect what we learn about them”.

  This got me thinking about permanence and flexibility in information design. I think Wurman’s description makes an excellent case for the value of interactive visualization. A visualization with an interface that is static or permanent is locked in a single configuration denying the other potential meanings from coming to the surface. The hats are in effect glued to the rack. Whereas a flexible interface allows for rapid reconfiguration and unlocking of additional meanings.

  I interpret a static interface for information design such as a poster as an authoritative conclusion. It is authoritative because the manipulating of the hats was taken care of by the expert and the expert has distilled the findings into a static image. On the opposite side, I see the dynamic interface as an invitation to explore and produce new meaning. It is an invitation to move the hats.

  I don’t think either of these approaches is universally better than the other when it comes to communicating with intent. What interests me is how successful each method is in engaging the viewer/user. I think engagement presupposes all learning and I suspect that meaningful interactivity increases the chances of engagement. This belief spawned my pre-thesis statement:

  How does the assertion and relinquishing of authorial control over message and experience in visualization influence participation and experience for the audience?

  My response to this question in my pre-thesis is that when the user has a stake in the creative process the experience is more meaningful. Which leads me to the question, if the most distilled information design is not necessarily the most engaging, are there more effective means of communicating information?

• 

  Posted: October 5th, 2008, 8:19pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  I am taking Design as Experience this semester and have been enjoying the hands-on projects. One of our assignments is to manipulate a piece of rope every day for 15 minutes and document it before and after. I have been doing a lot programming over the last several months and I am learning a lot but working on non-computer projects has been a lot of fun. Sometimes I forget there is a world outside of the computer and how nice it is to work with something other than pixels.

• 

  Posted: October 2nd, 2008, 5:56pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  
  Typography is not my strong suite but every once in a while I see type that really stands out for me. I found myself really liking the menu board at Chipotle today. The signs are very simple, reflecting the relatively few choices on the menu. Although I had not been to a Chipotle before, I was able navigate menu and order my food without the usual anxiety that comes with navigating a new menu. With all the confusing information I face on a daily basis this menu stood out as a welcome relief. It made me wonder what the world would look like if extreme clarity became fashionable.

• 

  Posted: September 30th, 2008, 5:35pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  I saw this cool data visualization of state to state personality tendencies and wanted to share. I think it would be interesting to present this data as a Chernoff Face.

• 

  Posted: September 21st, 2008, 12:47pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  

  Ball Droppings is “an addicting and noisy play-toy” designed by Josh Nimoy. It has been around for 4 or 5 years and received a lot attention when it first came out. I was surprised that I had not heard it mentioned in DMI circle’s as it is the kind of thing we DMI folks go crazy for. It requires a download and install to get it going but it is totally worth it. Basically you drop several balls from the top of the screen and draw lines that the balls interact with using simulated gravity and collision. The catch is that each time a ball hits a line a sound is produced based on the length and position of the line. For the serious Ball Dropper, you can even program your own custom sounds and use it as a live performance tool!

  In terms of new media, I think Ball Droppings fits nicely with other apps like Phun, Line Rider and even things like Draw Ball and Swarm Sketch. I am not sure that we really have a name for these types of apps, I would not really call them games, nor are they really tools. I guess toy is more accurate but I feel like that in some way diminishes how interesting they are in terms of digital media.

  There are several things I find interesting about these apps. For one thing, they have an ability to quickly engage and hold our attention. I think designers often take for granted that people would want to interact with whatever it is they are designing. This gets amplified when ideas never reach the a stage where interaction can happen. Without engaging the user there is no interaction.

  The apps also share a minimal learning curve but allow for increasingly complex operations with out a substantial time commitment. They are open ended and facilitate the users creativity. It also seems like they are frequently created by a single person or small group. I am curious as to what others think about this group of apps. Are you familiar with others that I did not list? What would be examples of analog predecessors? How would you classify them relative to other digital media?

• 

  Posted: September 14th, 2008, 11:02am PDT by jasonrbailey

  

  

  I knew I should have paid more attention in math class. I have been trying to wrap my head around sine, cosine, recursion and other such things. Made a few simple Processing sketches to help me along.

• 

  Posted: August 30th, 2008, 3:29pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  Spent some time messing with Ira Greenberg’s flock code. You can find it in the 14th chapter of the pink Processing book which is available free online here. You can interact with my version but I have had mixed results viewing it online. If it seems to move a bit slow and you want to run it full speed just cut and past the code into Processing.

• 

  Posted: August 9th, 2008, 11:01am PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  Version 2.0

• 

  Posted: August 3rd, 2008, 2:16pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  I don’t think it is a secret that I am a pretty big basketball fan and a stat geek at that. So when we were assigned a data visualization project I started messing with some data from Doug stats to see what I could make. This visualization builds caricatures based on NBA player stats for the 07-08 season.

  Head Size = Shots taken
  Head Aspect Ratio = Percent of shots made
  Arm length = Blocked shots
  Leg Length = Rebounds
  Eye Size = Assists
  Eye Aspect Ratio = Turnovers

  Here is what I have so far.

• 

  Posted: August 1st, 2008, 5:41pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  I am interested in creating tools that facilitate creative reasoning. In thinking about this, I have come to the conclusion that computers are horrible judges of creativity, in fact, they reward you for a lack of creativity. I recently read an article on the algorithmic revolution that defined the concept of an algorithm as “…essentially an instruction consisting of a finite number of rules designed to solve a specific problem.”. Isn’t following a finite set of instructions and rules the polar opposite of creativity?

  To clarify, computers are great tools for facilitating creativity as long as you do not rely on them to judge the creative output. As an anology, a saxophone is a creative instrument but we don’t expect it to judge the creativity of the music it produces.

  Maybe this is all obvious. I think it bears investigation though because the types of interactions people design (myself included) often leave the user little more responsibility then to function as a trigger.

  One of my favorite quotes from when I studied art history in undergrad is from Marcel Duchamp, he said “there is no solution because there is no problem”. To me it speaks to the idea of the creative act as an end to itself. I also enjoy this quote from Mihai Nedin:

  “The visionaries in effect broke through the barrier of reductionist determinism and their work no longer solved problems, but generated problems! They were no longer in the service business, but contributed to the multiplication of possibilities implicit in a given product. ”

  While it’s true that there are a great many useful operations that do not require creativity, I think using the computer to create tools that go outside of the problem solution mindset would be fun to explore.

• 

  Posted: July 20th, 2008, 8:23pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  Another test of the Processing .obj importer, this time with a higher poly count model that I made in Maya. Same code as the previous example, just a different model.

• 

  Posted: July 20th, 2008, 6:57pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  If anyone is interested in working with 3D content in processing, SketchUp is a free, easy to use program for creating 3D content. You will need to download the .obj exporter to get your SketchUp model into processing. You will also need the .obj library for Processing. I added a couple lines of code to the sample file to make the the “t” and “s” keys into zoom in and zoom out keys. I also changed the code so the model follows the mouse. Here is a link to a quick test I made. You may need to hit the “s” key a few times to zoom out before you can really see the model. If you are interested, the modified sample code is below.

  //import processing.opengl.*;

  // .OBJ Loader
  // by SAITO
  // Placing a virtual structure represented as mathematically
  // three-dimensional object.
  // SModel.load() reads structure data of the object stored
  // as numerical data.
  // SModel.draw() gives a visual form to the structure data.
  // processing standard drawing functions can be used to manipulate
  // the visual form to create deep visual experiences.
  // Created 20 April 2005

  import saito.objloader.*;

  OBJModel model;
  float rotX;
  float rotY;
  float changeSize = 30;

  void setup()
  {
  size(800, 600, P3D);
  frameRate(30);
  model = new OBJModel(this);
  model.debugMode();
  model.load(”DMI.obj”);
  }
  void draw()
  {
  background(255);
  lights();
  pushMatrix();
  translate(mouseX, mouseY);
  rotateX(rotY);
  rotateY(rotX);
  scale(changeSize);
  model.draw();
  popMatrix();
  }

  boolean bTexture = true;
  boolean bStroke = true;
  void keyPressed(){
  if(key == ‘t’){
  changeSize++;
  }
  if(key == ’s’){
  changeSize–;
  }
  else if(key==’1′)
  model.drawMode(POINTS);
  else if(key==’2′)
  model.drawMode(TRIANGLES);
  else if(key==’4′)
  model.drawMode(POLYGON);
  }

  void mouseDragged()
  {
  rotX += (mouseX - pmouseX) * 0.01;
  rotY -= (mouseY - pmouseY) * 0.01;
  }

• 

  Posted: June 20th, 2008, 5:38pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  Very cool intuitive interface for developing complex 3D characters for the soon to be released Spore game. More here.

• 

  Posted: May 17th, 2008, 1:07pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  This is a pretty cool idea, wouldn’t be surprised if this caught on in a big way. As they describe it on their site, Parralel Kingdom “brings new meaning to Role Playing Games by using GPS to place the virtual world on top of the real world”.

• 

  Posted: May 15th, 2008, 2:38pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
• 

  Posted: April 23rd, 2008, 8:51pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  My last post left me thinking about researching educational philosophy as a source for insight to experience design. I remembered that I had read some interesting stuff from Carl Rogers earlier this semester. Rogers was both a psychologist and an educational theorist. Much of what he wrote surrounded the mechanics of experience. I think the 19th of his “19 Propositions” is particularly insightful in considering experience design.

  19# As the individual perceives and accepts into his self structure more of his organic experiences, he finds that he is replacing his present value system - based extensively on introjections which have been distortedly symbolized - with a continuing organismic valuing process.

  The other 18 propositions can be found here. Coincidently, Wikipedia tells me that his approach to psychology was the model for Weizenbaum’s Eliza.

• 

  Posted: April 22nd, 2008, 7:03pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  

  Are we designing for observers, manipulators or co-creators? For example, I create a program in Flash which allows a user to manipulate the contents of that program. Who is the creator? Is it the team that wrote the Flash software? Is it the person who wrote software with Flash (me)? Is it the person who manipulated the software I wrote with flash into it’s final form? Is it the people that wrote the programing language that was used to write Flash in the first place?

  I bring it up because the question has forced me to think about what I am doing as a designer, specifically as a visual communicator. Am I designing for observers, manipulators or co-creators? Stated another way, how much power should I afford my audience to alter what I have created? I believe having an answer to this question is fundamental to good design. The design requirements for these 3 audiences are very different. An observer needs something worth contemplating. A manipulator needs something worth configuring. A co-creator needs room to contribute something of near equal value to the creator. Here are a few examples of how these requirements can be conflicting. A successful interface is often one that requires the least contemplation. If you leave too much work for a manipulator they may grudgingly feel like they are being asked to co-create. A manipulator may get bored if allowed only to observe.

  If I assume I am designing interactions, and no longer just designing visuals for observation, how does that affect the message I am communicating with my design? Interaction suggests a series of choices to be made by a user. Without choices, there is no room for interaction. Each additional choice given to the user means I am imposing my will less as a designer. I am no longer making a statement but instead asking questions. For example, if I provide a volume slider on an interface, I am saying “would you like to change the volume” instead of having a fixed volume which says “this is the ideal volume for you to listen at”. If I pass enough of these decisions to the user could they not be considered co-creator instead of just manipulator?

  Another way to look at it is to ask “am I imposing myself as an expert, or am I facilitating independent discovery, or both”? This sounds more like a question about pedagogy than it does about aesthetics. Perhaps reading up some more on educational philosophy could provide some valuable insight to answering this question.

• 

  Posted: April 19th, 2008, 9:18pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  Two interesting articles on ubiquitous interface. Both pretty short.

  Tai Chi
  Anywhere Interactive Interface

• 

  Posted: April 15th, 2008, 11:44pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  

  Some of those rules from Mau’s manifesto reminded me of my favorite poet, Tristan Tzara. Here is a line from a website with some of his poems as translated by Robert Motherwell, one of my favorite artists.

  “There is a literature that does not reach the voracious mass. It is the work of creators, issued from a real necessity in the author, produced for himself. It expresses the knowledge of a supreme egoism, in which laws wither away. Every page must explode, either by profound heavy seriousness, the whirlwind, poetic frenzy, the new, the eternal, the crushing joke, enthusiasm for principles, or by the way in which it is printed.”

• 

  Posted: April 14th, 2008, 10:05pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  Don’t know if you guys are already hip to Bruce Mau. I stumbled upon his “Incomplete Manifesto for Growth” and found it to be both funny and useful. My favorite rule is:

  22. Make your own tools. Hybridize your tools in order to build unique things. Even simple tools that are your own can yield entirely new avenues of exploration. Remember, tools amplify our capacities, so even a small tool can make a big difference.

• 

  Posted: April 12th, 2008, 8:28pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  

  I had one of those nights where I was only half asleep and my brain was trying to think about theory instead of turning off and letting me sleep. I kept thinking about why we do things versus how we do things. What’s great about thinking when you are asleep is that it gives you a whole new outlook. For example, in thinking about visual communication I realized that so much of what we design is an instruction set, a how to manual. My sleepy brain then decided that anything that can be limited to instructions could and likely would be automated in the future. I then started thinking about why we do things, I think this goes back to the mapping project from last semester. In the mapping project I was thinking about how maps usually tell us how to get somewhere but tell us very little about why we should go there.

  The earliest maps did a much better job of addressing this question of “why leave where we are to go some where else” and “which places should be avoided all together”. One of the books I am reading, The Mapmakerss, describes how the Christian maps of the middle ages were based more on doctrine than fact and observation. While they could not be trusted for navigation they were full of use full information about the savage monsters and mythical beasts that inhabited distant lands. Of course the beasts did not really exist as described on the maps but they symbolized the genuine danger of the unknown. Although not very accurate from a cartographic point of view, these warnings as to where you should and should not go would serve as a useful distinction between known and unknown lands.

  Some times I think it would be nice to have a scary monster on the subway map marking the high crime areas. In some ways the scary monster would be more accurate and based more on fact and observation than the dot typically used to mark a subway stop. I think there is more to describing a space then just positioning it’s distance relative to other spaces. Information that helps me anticipate the type of experience I can expect at a given location would be useful in daily navigation. I guess this question of why go typically falls within the domain of travel guides.

• 

  Posted: April 8th, 2008, 5:36pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  

  I have been thinking a lot about visual representation and how different people often choose to represent the same experience in strikingly different ways. Choosing which details to retain and which to remove in order to communicate with more emotion or clarity. If the same object or experience can be represented in a multitude of ways, could it be possible to design an interface that allows us to slide gradually between these multiple representations and examine the subtle ways in which the message is changed?

  How many times have I heard someone say “I can see it in my head but I can’t get it down on paper”? Would an elastic representation that required manipulation of variables in place of manipulation of paint, graphite or pixels give these people the tools for expression they desire? Or would it be doomed to the same fate as the early Photoshop filters which rapidly became meaningless because of the ease of use and abuse they afforded? I am not sure.

  Over the weekend Elaine and I went out to a great restaurant in China Town with a gentlemen we met at the Massaging Media Conference. During the car ride to the restaurant he mentioned that he heard Jaron Lanier give a speech on cuttle fish several years back at the new england aquarium. I stumbled upon a written version of same lecture a few weeks ago in a book about science and optimism and found it to be fascinating and somehow related to my own ideas about elastic representation.

  I did not buy the book, but found an extended version of the essay online. Here is an excerpt from a section that I found to be particularly interesting:

  Our software tools are not yet flexible enough to enable us, in virtual reality, to think ourselves into different forms. Why would we want to? Consider the existing benefits of our ability to create sounds with our mouths. We can make new noises and mimic existing ones, spontaneously and instantaneously. But when it comes to visual communication, we are hamstrung. We can mime, and indeed when I give lectures on cephalopods I like to pretend to be the crab and the cuttlefish to illustrate the tale. (More than one student has pointed out that with my hair as it is, I am looking more and more like a cephalopod.) We can learn to draw and paint, or use computer-graphics design software. But we cannot generate images at the speed with which we can imagine them.

  You can find the rest of the article here, and Jaron’s web site here.

• 

  Posted: April 7th, 2008, 8:57pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  I found another interesting article on UXmatters that I wanted to share. I really enjoy the tag line for UXmatters, “Insights and Inspirations for the User Experience Community”, lots of great info.

• 

  Posted: April 4th, 2008, 9:06am PDT by jasonrbailey

  
  I picked up a copy of Ready Made magazine the other day and they had an advertisement for this brilliant fruit plate. You choose a location from Google maps and this company will take the topographical data from that location and create a plate milled out of plywood using a CNC machine.

  I especially enjoyed the interface for ordering one of these, it allows you to move around in Google maps and then preview your plate in 3D at the press of a button . A really creative idea for a product with an equally creative interface.

• 

  Posted: April 2nd, 2008, 9:48pm PDT by jasonrbailey

  It’s funny how once you start looking for something you see it everywhere. When I started thinking about the potential for real-time 3D online collaborative spaces, I was aware of Second Life, Croquet, and of course, games like World of War Craft. Since then I have discovered a wide variety of collaborative environments including:

• Disney’s Club Penguin for children
• Sun’s project wonderland
• IBM’s Blue Grass
• Qwaq (built on the Croquet platform)
• Something called Vivaty that Scott sent me a link to
• Playstation 3’s Home, which aesthetically seems the most advanced

I am sure there are many more that I have not included. To be honest, I don’t feel compelled to use any of them. Why do all the 3D collaborative spaces that keep cropping up try to reproduce the elements from reality that really just slow us down? In real life, the meaningful activities I engage in with other people aren’t enhanced by traveling around buildings and terrains. For example, I travel to school because I have to, in order to engage with my classmates and my professor, not because driving to the campus and taking the elevator up to a classroom (that is pretty much empty) somehow enhances my experience. It is the engagement with the people that makes it meaningful. The building exists so we don’t get rained on or snowed on, and the commute is a drawback, not a benefit. There are many advantages to meeting with people in real life that should be evaluated in developing a collaborative digital experience, but I don’t think my commute is one of them.

I am starting to give in to the fact that I will not single-handedly develop the next revolutionary collaboration tool, but I am still firm in believing that what we need from such a tool is to know that someone else is there and that that someone can work with us or share with us, communicate with us using tools that are appropriate to a digital environment.

How are 3D graphics appropriate to a digital environment? After all, our computer screens are 2D. Right? When it comes to conceptual representation, I believe 3D graphics are a far superior visualization mechanism to 2D. Think of it this way: once you have a well built 3D model, you can produce an infinite amount of 2D representations with an infinite amount of rendering styles. Additionally, you can animate this model in space to describe motion and interactions with other objects. If we were to have a collaborative environment, which is essentially a blank screen onto which we can conjure up complex models from an existing library as visual aids, we could better share concepts and would really be taking advantage of what 3D technology can offer. There are other examples of people using 3D graphics in a similar fashion. For example, CAD designers don’t take a virtual hike through a virtual forest before they start designing a part.

In an attempt at expanding my thesis direction, I have been asking myself why I am interested 3D graphics. I think visual representation is at the core of most of my interests as a designer. I am fascinated by the choices we make in visually representing experience. The excitement of choosing what stays and what goes in the sorting process of visual representation never gets old for me. As an artist, I developed a symbolic language built from personal experience, and used this to describe my view of the world. As a designer, I try to use prescribed symbols from a shared language to communicate specific messages to known audiences in the clearest terms possible. Both are processes of visual reduction, selectively removing elements from what is seen and experienced in the real world to better draw the viewers’ attention to specific elements.

What gets lost in the process of translating real life experience into symbols and simulation? Whether for the purpose of clarity, emotional emphasis, or technical necessity, the subjective decision of which elements to leave out of a visualization can assist in describing what a thing or experience truly is in its objective form. The idea that a single object or concept can be represented on a sliding scale of details and styles, each carrying a different message, fascinates me. I am using this theme as a frame through which to view my future projects and research, and so far it has been helpful in developing new ideas.