Can an interaction designer creat (great) interaction without (great) visual design skills?

15 Oct 2008 - 2:35am
3 years ago
73 replies
10005 reads
R. Groot
2006

Hi all,

in my daily work as an interaction designer I mostly create wireframes and
support the visual designers in their creation of the visual design for
these wireframes.

I notice though, that there is a strong dependency on how/if the interaction
will work and the (eventual) visual design.

My question: can an interaction designer create great working interaction
without having visual design skills?

Kind regards,
Rein Groot

Comments

27 Oct 2008 - 6:31pm
Anonymous

Here are things in my apartment that I interact with that do not
really have (great) visual designs:
Microwave
Digital display on my stove
DVR/cable menu
DVD/VHS player
TV menu
iPod - maybe the one exception...but really it's mostly text
mp3 player
alarm clock

Here's stuff at work:
Printer/Copy machine
IP phone
Vending machine
Car radio (on the way to work)
Badge security scanner (actually only consists of a dual LED, dual
sound response, and a scanner, but everyone who's never used it
before always sets it off b/c you have to wait 2 seconds before going
through the gate.)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34316

28 Oct 2008 - 1:49am
Andy Polaine
2008

Ah, but the question was (I think) whether they have great
interactions even if they don't have great visual design.

I have a feeling that this is a self-selecting process, though. I
think most companies who care about having great interaction design
would also have at least pretty good and probably great visual design.
The reverse isn't true though - there are plenty of things that look
great but the interaction is rubbish – almost all consumer electronics
by Sony, for example.

Best,

Andy

On 27 Oct 2008, at 17:31, allison wrote:

> Here are things in my apartment that I interact with that do not
> really have (great) visual designs:
> Microwave
> Digital display on my stove
> DVR/cable menu
> DVD/VHS player
> TV menu
> iPod - maybe the one exception...but really it's mostly text
> mp3 player
> alarm clock
>
> Here's stuff at work:
> Printer/Copy machine
> IP phone
> Vending machine
> Car radio (on the way to work)
> Badge security scanner (actually only consists of a dual LED, dual
> sound response, and a scanner, but everyone who's never used it
> before always sets it off b/c you have to wait 2 seconds before going
> through the gate.)
>

28 Oct 2008 - 8:49am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:49 AM, Andy Polaine wrote:

> I think most companies who care about having great interaction
> design would also have at least pretty good and probably great
> visual design.

Have you used Craigslist in the last 5 years? What visual designer
would put the Craigslist design in their portfolio?

Jared

28 Oct 2008 - 2:46pm
Anonymous

> Ah, but the question was (I think) whether they have great
interactions even if they don't have great visual design.

I understood the question to be 'Can the designer create great
interaction without great visual design skills?' This seems like a
difficult question to answer objectively without personally knowing a
designer and their designs.

My point was that while interactive products need to have great
interaction, not every interactive product needs to have *visual*
design. What about the Metro card machines in the NYC subway system?
They're cute but the UI is pretty basic. Despite this the
interaction design is great b/c they're fast and so easy to use.
What level of visual or product design skill, or engineering for that
matter, did those designers need to have in order to create a great
interaction design?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34316

28 Oct 2008 - 2:55pm
Andy Polaine
2008

>> I think most companies who care about having great interaction
>> design would also have at least pretty good and probably great
>> visual design.
>
> Have you used Craigslist in the last 5 years? What visual designer
> would put the Craigslist design in their portfolio?

Yup. It's a great idea, service and system, but it's no great shakes
in either interaction design or visual design. That's not where its
strength lies. It doesn't make it bad (it's good) and it does go to
show a simple idea can have a simple design, but it doesn't go against
what I originally said. I still can't think of something that has
great interaction design and rubbish visual design, but I can't think
of plenty the other way around.

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

28 Oct 2008 - 3:12pm
Anonymous

> that there is a strong dependency on how/if the interaction will
work

Rein, what do you mean by this?

I'm under the impression that "how/if the interaction will work"
would be the main focus of an interaction designer's job... This
statement sort of sounds like, well, it's not...??

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34316

28 Oct 2008 - 3:29pm
Ian Chan
2005

>
great point -- as there are also many ticketing machines that are well
designed, visually, but hard to use. Some because they use similar or
even the same slot for inserting ccard or ticket (that always throws
me off); or because the sequencing of steps is out of visual order
(e.g. not top left to bottom right but higgledy - piggledy). I love
the ones that have pasted-on hand-written explanations or drawings.

For example of the proper way to hold the ccard when sliding -- strip
in or out (this one also throws me all the time). Which creates an
example of good interaction but bad UI on the help messaging (there's
nothing wrong with the ccard slider but the graphical perspective of
the card is weird).

and what of the interaction design on a voicemail navigation system?

interaction and interface, whether its visual, acoustic, sequenced,
serial, discontinuous, continuous, seem only loosely coupled to me

a

> My point was that while interactive products need to have great
> interaction, not every interactive product needs to have *visual*
> design. What about the Metro card machines in the NYC subway system?
> They're cute but the UI is pretty basic. Despite this the
> interaction design is great b/c they're fast and so easy to use.
>

cheers,

adrian chan

415 516 4442
Social Interaction Design (www.gravity7.com)
Sr Fellow, Society for New Communications Research (www.SNCR.org)
LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/in/adrianchan)

28 Oct 2008 - 6:21pm
Barbara Ballard
2005

On Oct 28, 2008, at 1:46 p, allison wrote:
>
> My point was that while interactive products need to have great
> interaction, not every interactive product needs to have *visual*
> design. What about the Metro card machines in the NYC subway system?
> They're cute but the UI is pretty basic. Despite this the
> interaction design is great b/c they're fast and so easy to use.
> What level of visual or product design skill, or engineering for that
> matter, did those designers need to have in order to create a great
> interaction design?
>

Any thoughts about whether http://www.livescribe.com/ Pulse
constitutes great interaction?

---
Barbara Ballard
barbara at littlespringsdesign.com

Designing compelling, usable, and device-appropriate software and web
sites for mobile devices.

29 Oct 2008 - 4:15am
Andy Polaine
2008

> Any thoughts about whether http://www.livescribe.com/ Pulse
> constitutes great interaction?

Has anyone here used one much, for that matter? Are they any good as a
pen as well as the tech of it? Looks like it might be a quick way of
capturing research notes, but then a scanner/camera and a normal pen
and paper might be just as fast.

Best,

Andy

29 Oct 2008 - 4:20am
Andy Polaine
2008

I think I mentioned ticketing machines a while back in this thread,
albeit in the other direction, that they can have a lot of visual
design sometimes but very little direct interaction (a single button
press on some). Both, of course, are part of the UI, which just goes
to show how overlapping interaction design and visual design can be.

I really think the answer to the question "Can an interaction designer
create (great) interaction without (great) visual design skills?" is:
It depends.

If the user experience is primarily visually driven (something with a
lot of graphic information design, for example) then visual skills are
important to think through and design the interaction. If it's
primarily action driven (perhaps on a physical product) then the
interaction skills would come to the fore. Multitouch requires them
both because often the interface and the content are the same thing,
as it were. Then, of course, there are disciplines like Service Design
that might be about designing verbal or human-human interactions,
which requires another set of skills, not primarily visual, although
it helps to describe what you are on about.

It also depends on who you are working with too. Martin Scorsese's
storyboards for Taxi Driver were pretty much just stick men drawings.
Michael Chapman's cinematography brought to life the miserable rain-
soaked loneliness of late-night New York taxi driving. (Thanks to the
wonder that is YouTube, you can watch a side-by-side comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvQV21hkMjI
)

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

29 Oct 2008 - 5:18am
Dave Malouf
2005

Barbara, The idea seems good, but even from the video it is hard to
know how it all executes. But to the point of the thread there are a
ton of Visual elements throughout the design ecosystem for sure!

Please send a Pen & notebook my way for evaluation and review. ;-)

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34316

29 Oct 2008 - 8:34am
Michael Micheletti
2006

Hi Andy,

There are two guys I work with who use them. One is the writer on our dev
team - he records every meeting with his pen while taking notes and gets a
lot of interesting little details that way. We chuckle sometimes when he
says "hold on a sec - I need to reboot my pen" but he's capturing good stuff
with it.

Both of the guys using the pen have evolved interesting indexing strategies
with the special notebooks the pens use. It's like a real-time IA project
for them to configure navigation into content. They've created tables of
contents and so on in their notebooks. It's the first time I've seen end
users invent their own content navigation into a repository that's half
paper and half digital and entirely spontaneous.

I have noticed that both of them take deliberate concise notes in a neat
hand. Scrawlers/doodlers like me probably would have some trouble with it.

Michael Micheletti

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Andy Polaine <apolaine at gmail.com> wrote:

> Any thoughts about whether http://www.livescribe.com/ Pulse constitutes
>> great interaction?
>>
>
> Has anyone here used one much, for that matter? Are they any good as a pen
> as well as the tech of it? Looks like it might be a quick way of capturing
> research notes, but then a scanner/camera and a normal pen and paper might
> be just as fast.
>
> <snip/>

29 Oct 2008 - 12:20pm
Anonymous

>user experience is primarily visually driven...then visual >skills
are important to think through and design the >interaction

How do "visual skills" help you think through and design
interaction? In my art class, we talk about weight, line, mass
(etc)...but no one "interacts" with our artwork, except to form an
opinion or emotional response. When is an interactive system not
action driven? Remember, we're talking about interaction
design...(emphasis on the "-action"). How can action not always be
implied?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34316

29 Oct 2008 - 1:07pm
Andy Polaine
2008

>> user experience is primarily visually driven...then visual >skills
>> are important to think through and design the >interaction
>
> How do "visual skills" help you think through and design
> interaction? When is an interactive system not action driven?
> Remember, we're talking about interaction design...(emphasis on the
> "-action"). How can action not always be implied?

I think this is a real issue in much interaction design and certainly
in a great deal of web design. The web's roots and (initial)
underlying paradigm of pages has narrowed a lot of thinking and
design. Many graphic designers moved over from print or static design
to the web and the screen and web pages felt very static for a long
time. Then Flash happened and we all know what went on there.

Now we're just coming out of that and thinking a bit differently
again, but I think the ripples of 'page design' are still prevalent.
All the multitouch stuff is the first really new set of interactions
I've seen for a long time - the other sensor and camera-based stuff
has been around for decades. Multitouch presents a whole new and
interesting set of interactions (and I'm looking forward to Dan's book
on it!)

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

29 Oct 2008 - 2:36pm
Anonymous

Frankly, I disagree with the statement that any aspect of the web has narrowed.

As to the topic, while I see how an interaction designer should have a (great) understanding of how the context of use affects form or structure, which then affects action or behavior, I do not see that great visual design skills beget great interaction design.

For screen-only interfaces (i.e., web), I think a good interaction design depends more on how the context of use is represented in the form or structure, which then drives the action or behavior %u2013 which is what you%u2019re after anyway, IMO.

Personally, I don%u2019t consider the design of form or structure, for the purpose of driving action or behavior, the same as visual design (though I do see how visual design can drive (re-)action/behavior), but if you do then I can see how the answer to the original question is %u201Cyes%u201D.

29 Oct 2008 - 1:01pm
Andy Polaine
2008

Interesting to hear. I guess it packs it all into a small device. The
pen looks too thick for my tastes though.

> Both of the guys using the pen have evolved interesting indexing
> strategies with the special notebooks the pens use.

I saw this - they've cleverly made some faux Moleskines for it -
Fauxskines maybe?

Best,

Andy

29 Oct 2008 - 3:24pm
Ian Chan
2005

Andy,

I think the point you're making is extremely valuable. I've been
posting recently about lifestreaming apps, and the need for new
paradigms for designing time-based social media. The user experience
in lifestreaming (twitter, friendfeed, etc) involves message and
presence-related issues, notifications, message addressing (@reply,
direct), grouping, channels, and embedded media in a river or flow-
based view that breaks the framework set up in web-page based social
media.

Swurl is interesting, for its calendar view of user posts: http://gravity7.swurl.com/timeline
Even more cool is dipity, which uses a horizontal timeline: http://www.dipity.com/gravity7
(also check the flipbook mode; both are cool-looking but add little
in terms of utility)

And of course most of us use desktop apps or mobile for tweeting,
where the scrollbar is a much more effective navigation mode than
paging back through older posts.

cheers,
adrian

http://www.gravity7.com/blog/media/

> Andy,

> Now we're just coming out of that and thinking a bit differently
> again, but I think the ripples of 'page design' are still prevalent.
> All the multitouch stuff is the first really new set of interactions
> I've seen for a long time - the other sensor and camera-based stuff
> has been around for decades. Multitouch presents a whole new and
> interesting set of interactions (and I'm looking forward to Dan's
> book on it!)

29 Oct 2008 - 5:49pm
Andy Polaine
2008

> Swurl is interesting, for its calendar view of user posts: http://gravity7.swurl.com/timeline
> Even more cool is dipity, which uses a horizontal timeline: http://www.dipity.com/gravity7
> (also check the flipbook mode; both are cool-looking but add little
> in terms of utility)

Swurl's timeline is nice, but still very much in the paper calendar
mode (kind of retro blog these days even).

I suppose I'm thinking of the pure action>reaction>interaction of
interactivity and interaction design when I think about trying to
think beyond the page. It's often a case of moving beyond thinking of
the screen (or browser window) as a framed space where things can be
placed and more thinking of it as a window on a space where things can
happen and that window can move over the space (as we're now seeing
with things like the iPhone UI).

That's where, for example, Exposé was so interesting when it came out.
It totally broke the metaphor of the desktop, but didn't interrupt the
flow of working. In fact it enhanced it because it tapped into an
metaphor of intention (analogous, I think, to peeking into a pile of
papers and pulling the one you want out) as well as a wish for a magic
desktop that spreads all its wares out and then neatly piles them back
again. That more abstract or lateral usage of metaphor can be really
powerful and is why I suspect that Bumptop is an awful idea: http://www.bumptop.com
as a UI or OS. It's so literal it suffers from the same problem of a
real, physical desktop, which seems to defeat the purpose. (I haven't
used it yet though, maybe it feels great).

Best,

Andy

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy
Interaction Concept Design
Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine
Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com
http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com
http://www.omnium.net.au
http://www.antirom.com

30 Oct 2008 - 8:28am
sylvania
2005

Visual design and interaction should not be considered separate issues, and as long as they are, the final design will not be truly great.

The very fact that exceptional visual design can compensate for poor interaction should be a big clue that, for the user, the whole design is one thing - that the visual aspects *are* the design in many ways, and to draw some imaginary line between visual and interaction design is artificial and often likely to erode the synergy of the final design.

When these skills are found in one person - which does happen - so much the better. It's easier and faster to get holistic design when the designer has solid skills in both areas because there's a lot less back-and-forth involved; having a great interaction and a great visual designer is fine too, but they should become conjoined twins for the design process to enable great design.

Having visual skills absolutely helps to design interaction. One of the first interactions the user has with a product is eye movement. Where the user's eye travels, how it tracks the product, what it is drawn to, all are a direct result of the visual design. If a workflow consists of "click this, go there, click that," the workflow is really "notice this, ignore those, click this, go there, ignore all of that, click that." If the visual flow isn't supporting that workflow, even subtly, you have a usability problem.

The visuals - not just icons and prettiness, but how the design principles are employed, such as visual flow, continuity, hierarchy, feedback, proximity, visibility, mapping, visual distribution, etc. - are part of the overall experience and users will react to them. And this emotional response is absolutely a part of the interaction.

"... no one "interacts" with our artwork, except to form an [...] emotional response..."
That is the interaction.

Consider these two things:
http://screencast.com/t/pXQ9ia7FG
Their designs are pretty much identical with only visual differences, but will a user interact with them in the same way?

Sylvania Dye
User Experience Designer
Techsmith Corp.

30 Oct 2008 - 3:06pm
Ian Chan
2005

Andy,

I think you're spot on and what you say about moving beyond the page
totally resonates with the approach I'm trying to take on social
interaction design. There are of course constraints on what can be
done within a framed space, but you're right that present and future
applications will require thinking "outside the box," so to speak. The
interface will in some cases be a window onto a space, that space
being a visual space, an information "space" (misnomer I think), may
even be video/televisual.

In the case of social media, where user interaction is often
communication, and is social, meaning that it is as much about how a
user relates to other users as it is about how she relates to the
screen, I use the concept of a "social interface." I break the screen
into three modes: mirror, surface, and window, where the mirroring
mode is involved when users see themselves reflected in the social
"space," the surface is a filmic, print, web app or other
representational design of content and activity, and the window mode
is involved when users communicate directly to one another.

Ascribing modalities seems to liberate, at least for me, the screen
constraints (including layout, nav, visual design) from the user's
mode of interaction. As I see it, the user mode of interaction is very
different when he's engaged in a self-reflective relation to his own
profile (e.g. on facebook) than when he's viewing a friend's profile.
In the former, the user reflects on his own self as presented back to
him; in the latter he projects into the friend's profile and brings to
it the history of their relationship. (The user "experience" of
viewing that profile pag differs for a good friend vs a new friend).
This stuff transcends what's on the page, so it's seemed to me that we
need design language for the modality of the user's engagement -- what
each user brings to the personal and social representations framed in
the page.

Where you say action>reaction>interaction -- which is great -- I'd
then add, for social media:

action>reflection
reaction>interaction
action>communication
communication>reciprocation

and so on. Not worked out, but the gist of it would be to formulate
action systems for mediated social environments. I take a stab at this
in some of my slideshare presentations http://www.slideshare.net/gravity7
(originals are at: http://gravity7.com/slides.html).

Actions in social systems are not limited to the interaction with
what's on the screen -- social actions such as in facebook social
games are better understood through the framing and handling of social
interaction as covered by Erving Goffman, for example. Other
communicative actions, which are those that solicit a response, again
are governed by social convention, linguistics (questions vs promises
vs gifts vs greetings etc etc), and so on.

It's immensely complicated but I think a three part framework for
social interaction can be designed around a few insights provided by
sociology and psychology:

self (self reflecting on self)
other (self interested in other, or paired)
relation (self interested in social action, requiring three + people)

which gives us:

monadic (one person)
dyadic (a pair)
triadic (a group)

This works out nicely too in that it's reflected in social network
analysis, where networks are understood in terms of an individual
node, a pair, and triads. The triad is significant in that it forms
the basis of social, as opposed to inter-personal, interaction. Triads
mean that if A, B, and C are in a relation, then an interaction
between A+B affects C. You can build all of society on 1, 2, and 3. A
group of 4 can be two pairs, or a triad and an isolate. And so on...

Social action then forms the basis of the interaction end of social
interaction design; and screen modalities of mirror, surface, and
window form the basis of the visual design.

Or something like that!

;-)

adrian

On Oct 29, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Andy Polaine wrote:
>
> I suppose I'm thinking of the pure action>reaction>interaction of
> interactivity and interaction design when I think about trying to
> think beyond the page. It's often a case of moving beyond thinking
> of the screen (or browser window) as a framed space where things can
> be placed and more thinking of it as a window on a space where
> things can happen and that window can move over the space (as we're
> now seeing with things like the iPhone UI).
>

1 Apr 2010 - 5:23pm
Patricia Colley
2010

Great thread! I appreciate the thoughtful replies. Jonas (brilliant), David, William, Mark, Alan. Christine, all I can say is ell-o-ell. I can relate to everything you said. Also FYI, mirrored shadow effects are in until the summer, when Apple will unveil the next hot new design thingy for us to copy. Anyway... I'm enjoying all the perspectives, and I agree with everyone except Andrei (sorry).

Andrei, i think you're confusing visual design with visual language and perception. And you may not be the only one. Check out "Human Factors for Technical Communicators" by Marlana Coe - it's a whole book on cognitive factors affecting user experience. Lots of (really good) cognition, sensation, and visual perception information, not a lick of visual design guidance. 

It is important for interface/interaction designers to understand the basic cognitive principles that affect the user's perceptions, as these perceptions shape their mental models about the product or site: what is here, what the relationships are between things, what is possible, what to do next, all that good stuff. That is not the same as graphical refinement, skinning and branding, as others have pointed out.

Now Andrei, on this next point I am confused. At first I thought you were saying that you cannot be a great interaction designer without also being a great visual designer. But on your last post, you said that you simply had not seen someone who embodies both. Maybe you mean to say that there are no great interaction designers? :o) 

Other replies have effectively quashed the argument that great interaction design requires great visual design, so I will just add "Right on!"

Generally, I get suspicious when I hear any argument that claims we have to do "more" in order to prove our worth as designers. Are we really that bad at demonstrating our value? Are our designs inferior if we don't skin them (and/or code) ourselves? As David alluded, maybe the problem really is, as a community of practice, we still don't know what our value is. 

2 Apr 2010 - 2:20am
Nina Eleanor Alter
2009

... an out of the blue response to a 2 year old thread.

Reading through the thread from October 2008 I felt a lot of pride & optimism, realizing how far our community has come in just 1.5 years, growing our understanding & appreciation for the interdependencies between flat, textural, cognitive and emotive and cues, in making or breaking Great interactive experiences.

Go go craftspeople of Great user experiences, go!

:) n

On Apr 1, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Patricia Colley wrote:

> Great thread! I appreciate the thoughtful replies. Jonas (brilliant), David, William, Mark, Alan. Christine, all I can say is ell-o-ell. I can relate to everything you said. Also FYI, mirrored shadow effects are in until the summer, when Apple will unveil the next hot new design thingy for us to copy. Anyway... I'm enjoying all the perspectives, and I agree with everyone except Andrei (sorry). > > Andrei, i think you're confusing visual design with visual language and perception. And you may not be the only one. Check out "Human Factors for Technical Communicators" by Marlana Coe - it's a whole book on cognitive factors affecting user experience. Lots of (really good) cognition, sensation, and visual perception information, not a lick of visual design guidance. > > It is important for interface/interaction designers to understand the basic cognitive principles that affect the user's perceptions, as these perceptions shape their mental models about the product or site: what is here, what the relationships are between things, what is possible, what to do next, all that good stuff. That is not the same as graphical refinement, skinning and branding, as others have pointed out. > > Now Andrei, on this next point I am confused. At first I thought you were saying that you cannot be a great interaction designer without also being a great visual designer. But on your last post, you said that you simply had not seen someone who embodies both. Maybe you mean to say that there are no great interaction designers? :o) > > Other replies have effectively quashed the argument that great interaction design requires great visual design, so I will just add "Right on!" > > Generally, I get suspicious when I hear any argument that claims we have to do "more" in order to prove our worth as designers. Are we really that bad at demonstrating our value? Are our designs inferior if we don't skin them (and/or code) ourselves? As David alluded, maybe the problem really is, as a community of practice, we still don't know what our value is. > >

20 Aug 2011 - 10:24pm
hakim
2011

hey buddy, great post and good work.

plese check this one buddy, thanks.

red leather backpack

Syndicate content Get the feed