We‘ve recently read IDEO Tim Brown‘s book Change by Design (HarperCollinsPublishers, 2009) and felt like sharing our likings with you. This is not a review of the book, rather bits and pieces we thought are interesting, fresh, good for thought or simply funny.

On design thinking

The book starts with tackling difference between being a designer and thinking like one. References to, thoughts on and examples of design thinking are prevalent in the book. To no surprise, since in recent years IDEO and Tim Brown in particular are acting as gospellers of it. For a quick review of the notion, refer to Tim Brown’s TED talk
and/or article in Harvard Business Review.

On role of prototyping

One frequently expressed notion in the book is that of how much early (and frequent) prototyping is instrumental to design success (“fail early to succeed sooner” is a famous phrase by David Kelley). Tim Brown also argues that “time to the first prototype” can be seen as one of the measures of how innovative organization is. Furthermore, fast prototyping (over and over) allows for continuous feedback and improvement and at the same time saves the company from the trap of commitment since “the greater the investment in an idea, the more committed one becomes to it” (p.90)

Few thoughts on prototyping (also dubbed as “thinking with your hands”):

• “The faster we make out ideas tangible, the sooner we will be able to evaluate them, refine them, and zero in on the best solution” (p.89).
  “Successful prototype is not one that works flawlessly; it is the one that teaches us something – about our objectives, our process, about ourselves” (p.105)
• “There are many approaches to prototyping, but they share a single paradoxical feature: They slow us down to speed us up” (p.105)
• “Prototyping should start early in the life of a project, and we expect them to be numerous, quickly executed, and pretty ugly” (p.106)

On innovation

In terms of a recipe for innovation, sure, Time Brow agrees there’s none. However, he argues innovation as continuum can be understood as a system of 3 spaces: inspiration, ideation and implementation, whereas any project can loop back through these spaces more than once as team refines ideas and examines new directions. One of the best tools in yielding great results across the 3 spaces of innovation is, again, prototyping:

• at inspiration (the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solution) prototyping has the capacity to inspire new ideas
• at ideation (generating, developing, testing ideas) it serves a perfect check tool to ensure incorporation of emotional and functional elements necessary to meet the demands of the market
• at implementation (going from project room to market) they are superb in communicating an idea with sufficient clarity

To make sure the developed solution is realistic, the author introduces three constraints to be kept in mind during the process of development: desirability (people factor), viability (business/organization) and feasibility (technology). To paraphrase, at any given time during the project, team should make sure the solution addresses user needs, is viable business wise and is technologically feasible.

On user research

In terms of most often mentioned concepts (we haven’t counted, that’s just the feel) “design thinking” is somewhat losing to “human centered”. Now, to create anything human centered the team must first find out what humans want/need. Reading the book one gets the feel that IDEO never outsources this strategically important task of user research, and that the company favors qualitative rather than quantitative methods.

What we particularly liked as methods for getting user insights are “unfocus groups” and extreme users. Bringing in people who fall on the extremes of certain product/service use (children and chefs for kitchen tools story on the p.44, for example) significantly enriches insights and inspiration. And same refers to unfocus groups, where instead of inviting “average” people, unique individuals (consumers and experts) participate together. For example, to gain insights on new concepts for women’s shoes, IDEO “invited:

• a color consultant
• a spiritual guide who led barefoot initiates across hot coals
• a young mother who was curiously passionate about her thigh-high leather boots
• a female limo driver whose full livery was accented by a pair of outrageously sexy stiletto heels” (p.61)

Few others thoughts on user research:

• “the basic problem is that people are so ingenious at adapting to inconvenient situation that they are often not even aware that they are doing so” (p.41)
• “observation: watching what people don’t do, listening to to what they don’t say” (p.43)
• And our favorite one, not Tim Brown’s, but quoting Tom Ford on user research: “If I asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said “a faster horse” (p.40)

On company (work) culture

Now we know few things about IDEO approach to innovating, but who are those people in the teams and how do they make innovations happen? Speaking of people Brown emphasizes the need for T-shaped personalities (reference to concept coined by McKinsey) successfully performing in teams since “all of us are smarter than any of us” (p.26).

The author takes care to distinguish between MULTIDISCIPLINARY and INTERDISCIPLINARY teams, whereas in the former “each individual becomes an advocate for his her own technical specialty and the project becomes a protracted negotiation among them, likely resulting in a gray compromise”, while in the latter “there is a collective ownership of ideas and everybody takes responsibility for them” (p.27).

In terms of work environment, the following thoughts were (we thought) interesting (all from p.32):

• “A culture that believes that it is better to ask forgiveness afterward rather than permission before, that rewards people for success but gives them permission to fail, has removed one of the main obstacles to the formation of new ideas”
• “Relaxing the rules is not about letting people be silly so much as letting them be whole people”
• “Physical and psychological spaces of an organization work in tandem to define the effectiveness of the people within it”

On innovation portfolio

The book presents “Ways to grow matrix” developed by IDEO (p.161) which combines innovation types with grow paths a company can take. Few pages explaining each quadrant lead to a logical conclusion: “though it might be tempting to focus on incremental projects in which business forecasts are easy to make, this shortsighted approach leaves companies vulnerable to the unforeseeable events of the type that Nassim Nicholas Taleb dubbed “The Black Swan” (p.165). A word of advise? “A company’s best defense is to diversify its portfolio by investing across all four quadrants of the innovation matrix”.

On problems we create

In the second part of the book Tim Brown dwells on big things: bringing innovation culture to organizations, role of design thinking in solving truly global problems and role of designers in all of this. And if we (designers) can’t now think of much in solving global warming, as designer, at least be aware of what we do since “in our enthusiasm for solving the problem in front of us, we fail to see the problems that we create” (p.194)

“… so of course we accepted”

Ah, and for the final quote, we very much liked the following story expressing company culture:
“When Hewlett-Packard asked IDEO to study microfinance in East Africa, our human factors experts did not know what they were getting into. We did not have much experience with Africa, and it would be generous to say that we are experts in microfinance. So of course we accepted the assignment” (p.205)

Generally, Change by Design is an easy common sense read, and best absorbed with a cup of coffee in an open terrace on a breezy spring morning. And since spring is coming…

Ever heard a phrase “Something that is not moving is hard to perceive”? Thought of animated banners? No, these are highlights from an article on universal human principles in design by Paul Hekkert (one of the authors of the must-read Product Experience book).

In his article Paul argues that designers – like all people – are mostly focusing on what is changing (compared to before) or what is different (e.g. between people). There is a noticeable inclination to look at trends in peoples’ values and behaviour (such as “people are increasingly concerned with health issues”) and to emphasize cultural differences between people (like “Germans tap beer differently than the Dutch”). And no surprise to that. Human visual system has evolved to perceive things that are in motion and is very sensitive to contrast, while things that are not moving or commonalities between objects are much harder to perceive. “Similarity is the shadow of difference” Paul Hekkert quotes M.Ridley.

When thinking of design research, interviews and observations for mapping peoples’ everyday experiences come into mind. These efforts bring insights into some people’s daily routines, in a particular cultural and social context, at some point in time. “Because everybody likes to hear they are different from “us”, anthropologists dwell on the differences” author quotes D.E. Brown. However, to understand people in a more profound and fundamental way, one should understand human nature manifesting itself in universal principles; principles all people, in all cultures, through all ages have in common.

Thus, questioning the profoundness of differences, Paul refers to a memory game developed by Sara Emami. Middle Eastern and Dutch cultures should be very different, right? But look at the striking similarities between imagery from Duch and Middle East cultures – in this memory game usually two identical cards are used, however to exhibit cross-cultural similarities instead of identical cards Sara Emami in each pair chose one image from Duch and one from Middle Eest cultures. And the game is still playable:

Developing argument for human universals, the author presents a random list of some universal traits for people of all cultures:

• look for adventure, diversity and kicks,
• are more likely to help attractive people and less likely to ask good-looking people for help ,
• have etiquette and moral sentiments,
• use figurative language such as metaphors,
• get bored over time,
• infer the mental states and intentions of others,
• need authority,
• impose meaning on the world,
• tend to overestimate the objectivity of their thought,
• rarely know the causes of their own behaviour,
• engage in magic, poetry, and pretend play,
• are prone to learn and explain the unknown,
• are able to recognize pictorial representations without previous training

These constants and commonalities in peoples’ behaviour, thinking and feeling can be powerful drivers for product development and need to be understood first before designers start to look at and design for cultural and individual differences.

And in order to understand why particular evolved psychological mechanisms have come into being, we need to go back to our ancestors, the hunter-gatherers. The functional architecture of the mind is formed as a result of problems our ancestors had to solve under the conditions of their environment, not by the kind of problems modern humans are dealing with today.

Faced with adaptive problems – to survive, to protect themselves, cooperating with others, looking for food, finding shelter, avoiding predators, protecting children, etc. – the hunter-gatherers have acquired specialised mechanisms to solve these problems through a process of adaptation or natural selection. These mechanisms vary from specific sensory systems and neural programs for language acquisition, to traits for emotional communication, stranger anxiety, kin recognition, incest avoidance, mate preference, , sibling rivalry, etc.

However, if the (natural, economical, political, societal, environmental) circumstances are different or change, so will the way these principles are manifested, leading to variants at a group level (society/culture) and maybe even at an individual level (see figure below).

But what does all of this have to do with user experience? Time for an example. Author and his colleagues found that people aesthetically prefer objects of maximum novelty or originality while maintaining an optimal level of familiarity or typicality. In other words, people like new-look of products as long as they are otherwise in an acceptable range or novelty and this is a universal trend. This is so called MAYA (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable) principle:

“The evolutionary logic behind this universal principle is that exposing oneself to the new both, enhances fitness and facilitates learning, but on the other hand, staying close to the familiar also has survival value, by decreasing the risk of jumping into life-threatening adventure. Striking optimal balance between novelty and familiarity does seem to be the most effective strategy from a hunter-gatherer point of view. Yet, what is novel to one may be very familiar to someone on the other side of the mountain (and vice versa). One’s subjective assessment of stimulus novelty or familiarity depends on context (e.g. frequency of appearance) and background (e.g. previous experiences) variables. Thus, people differ to large extents on what objects they see as novel or typical for a particular product category. As a result, predictable differences in aesthetic preference arise at a group (culture, expertise, etc.) or individual level.”

The question remains how much this MAYA principle applies to other aspects of user experience beyond aesthetics… In our research assignments at Idea Code we tend to run into people who seem to be somewhat “imprinted” with images of products they happened to use first and no matter how incremental the novelty is, it most often tends to get a negative feedback from users…

For a discussion of universality of emotional response and full selection of links, here is the link to the original article.

What makes a product good or beautiful? How does user experience change over time? These are some of the most often asked questions by UX researchers trying to measure user experience.

To answer these questions authors of User experience over time article carry out a research on how people form evaluative judgements during their first encounters with a product and then after 4 weeks of using it. They claim that the way we experience and evaluate products changes over time.

How this was tested

To create a framework capable of addressing user experience over time authors refer to Beauty and Goodness – the two distinct overall evaluative judgements of quality for interactive products as proposed by Hassenzahl (one of the authors). To measure how product experience changes over time and what influences such changes, authors develop a questionnaire listing three distinct quality aspects of interactive products: pragmatics, stimulation, and identification.

While Beauty and Goodness, being high level summary judgements, were measured as single items, each of the quality aspects consists of seven bi-polar pairs (semantic differential scales) of attributes:

The product chosen for this study was an Interactive TV set-top box with particular focus on uWand – new class of ‘remote touch’ technology from Philips. 10 individuals used this product at home for 4 weeks and were asked to fill in a questionnaire during the 1st week of use and at the end of the 4th week.

Results

Results of this test showed that relationships between attributes of quality aspects actually changed over time.

During the first encounters stimulation (original, creative, new, innovative) rather than identification (classy) was a determinant of Beauty, while pragmatic (practical, direct, manageable, predictable, clear) quality attributes influenced judgements of product Goodness. However, after four weeks, stimulation lost its strong impact on Beauty judgements, while Goodness became more related to identification (professional, inclusive, valuable, integrating, brings me closer to people) and stimulation (creative, courageous, original) rather than pragmatic qualities.

What conclusions can be drawn from these results? Well, for one this research proved that selected user experience aspects actually change over time. However, unfortunately the sample size is too small to make any conclusive decisions regarding whether the right aspects (and their attributes) where chosen for study and how exactly these aspects change over time. To a large extent these are drawbacks generally inherent to research methods based on semantic differential scales.

So we merely use this post as an introduction into user experience measurement frameworks and will follow up with more alternative approaches showing variety of applicable and useful methods.

No secret, that we are a basketball nation. So we are very excited and proud, about EuroBasket 2011 taking place in Lithuania. This infographics with EuroBasket 2011 group structure and game schedules is our contribution to the even preparations. Any corrections or improvement suggestions are very welcome.

Do you sometimes get a feeling that you are overpaying for gas? Or possibly all the time? In Lithuania, which is a country of our home office, we get this feeling a lot. So the following infographics was inspired by a routine visit to a gas station sometime around New Year. After a brief brainstorming, our team spent half a day for web/database search and number crunching and another half a day for graphic design. Following is our result. When we looked at the numbers, we thought “No wonder this infographics originated in Lithuania”…

Do you think human-computer interaction (HCI) is a complex topic? Then how about human-robot interaction (HRI)? Computer is just a machine, or at least looks like one and acts like one. However robot does not look just like any machine – anthropoid robots are designed to resemble humans and mimic their behavior. For example a research group at Carnegie Mellon University is designing robotic products and services to be adaptable to people’s changing behavior over repeated interactions. But how would people react once faced with a need to interact with such creatures?

This original article is dealing with enriched Service Blueprint (SB). SB is a tool for service design which we will cover in the nearest future, however this time we focus on implications of repeated service encounters. Our initial idea was to simply present you the model, but then it appeared that the same model has many parallels to human-computer interaction as well. So the case descriptions under each model sections outline some ideas about parallels and differences between HCI and HRI.

Project background

Snackbot - a mobile autonomous robot

In spite of the fact that in developed countries people eat snacks at least once a day, very few efforts are made to assist and improve such snacking practices. Thus, CMU “Project on People and Robots” researchers are developing a cute robot – called Snackbot – which (who?) delivers snacks to people. Snackbot is a mobile robot, about the size of a very small human, that rolls around on wheels to deliver snacks to students, faculty, and office workers at Carnegie Mellon University. While snack ordering is done via website specifying desired snacks, delivery location and time, when delivering snacks Snackbot interacts with people in a social way, uses natural human language, sound and head/body movements.

Challenge

As the team admits, the challenge in designing the adaptive robotic service is finding answers to questions on how to:

• make service flexible (adaptable) to changes of human behavior over time
• incorporate change of human behavior into service provision
• maintain user’s interest in service over time

The task is especially complicated, given that humans will have direct contact with robot, not a human being. Based on research on service design, adoption of technology products, and user experience design the authors come up with the idea of enriching Service Blueprint with a Line of Adaptivity . Line of Adaptivity successful integrates 4 time related factors which allow overcoming the design challenges. The four factors are: orientation, incorporation, streamlining, and personalization. Orientation and incorporation refer to changes in people, while streamlining and personalization relate to changes in the components of service.

Orientation

At the initial stage of service encounter authors claim sense-making to be of utmost importance in understanding how the service works. It encompasses understanding functional aspects of service, evaluation of their utility and desirability, and formation of initial attitudes towards the service. The more novel the offering (or technology), the greater sense-making activities take place.

Incorporation

At this stage users begin to integrate service into their daily activities, building trust and emotional attachment. Sense-making becomes peripheral, taking place only when aspects of service do not fit into previous experience.

There are three so-called cultural models helping to understand how people respond to services: relational, oppositional and utilitarian. If service uses only one setup, depending on the prevailing model used, different customers would have either pleasant or dissonant experience with the same service.

• Relational model is applied by people who desire and value emotional ties with a service provider.
• Oppositional model is applied by people who perceive themselves as vulnerable, weak players in the consumer-provider relationship and easily take an aggressive stance toward the service provider.
• Utilitarian model is applied by people who rationally weight service benefits against costs.

Streamlining

Once user’s routines and preferences are learned, some of the touch-points may become unnecessary. Thus, to ensure positive user experience, step (procedure) elimination should be supported (idea similar to shortcuts in software).

Personalization

Services can be personalized to better fit the needs of users, once their patterns of service purchase and use are learned.

How about conclusions? Well, in relation to the Line of Adaptivity concept we find it easily applicable and very useful to human-computer interaction field. Also while reading this and other HRI research articles, we, ourselves primarily being software user experience experts, cannot stop wandering why IT field is not as concerned with automated adaptability of services provided through Internet portals/software interfaces as robotics field.

More readings

Original article: Min Kyung Lee, Jodi Forlizzi. Designing Adaptive Robotic Services (PDF)

More about Snackbot design: The Snackbot: Documenting the design of a Robot for Long-term Human-Robot Interaction (PDF)

Context

This report was prepared as part of the World Usability Day activities with the purpose of contributing best practice examples to the international sustainable design community. It is layed out in a format of a passenger’s story – a person who is taking bus from a busy Sinchon area in North of Han river in Seoul to go to the City Hall (intersection of two subway lines) and returns to Sinchon via subway.

Finding the right bus

Seoul, which hosts almost half of the country’s 48 mln. population, being the best representative of Korea, is known to strive for efficiency in everything. Efficiency in transportation starts from homework – before hitting the street, I usually go to Seoul public transportation system guide and check what bus should I take.

Seoul public transportation system guide

Upon inputing Departure and Destination points, system shows the best choice first and sorts the options in accordance to the time it takes from A to B. Thus, if I take bus #603, I’ll spend 14 minutes on the road while bus #472 will bring me to the destination in 16 minutes (on average, depending on traffic). If I enlarge the map, it also shows what buses stop in bus stops, main buildings around the area, subway lines and exits. As a matter of fact, this website is of gold value to those who speak zero Korean since all the information in the bus stops is in Korean. The next task after identifying the route is to find the bus stop.

Departure and Destination points on map

Finding the bus stop

Seoul, World Design Capital of 2010 is also poked for being capital of visual noise since day and night Seoul lives in the battle of signboards and ads. Therefore finding a bus stop is not as easy as it may seem. Intuitively one looks for some familiar sign to mark the bus stop, but these signs disappear in Seoul’s visual noise. Thus, the easiest way to find a bus stop is…. to see where the buses stop. And it’s very easy since in Seoul’s main streets buses buzz continuously.

Bus stop signboard (no booth)

Even when booth is present, bus stop becomes visible only when bright buses arrive

Recognition of bus number is easy – number is written on all 4 sides of the bus. However, highlights of the route posted on front and right side of the bus are in Korean, thus, again, of zero value to non-Korean speakers.

Recognition of bus number is easy (I)

Recognition of bus number is easy (II)

Bus route maps

There are three types of bus route maps: the ones posted on bus stop signboards, the general rout map and detailed stop map inside the bus.

Route map in bus stop. Shows direction from current stop, and only the major stops along the route. Intersections with subway are highlighted in blue. Some English

Route map in the bus - the most concise one, with all the stops included and intersections with subway marked in subway line color. No English

Route map in bus. General map type visualisation, shows only main stops. Some English

Getting off the bus

While taking bus, names of the upcoming and the next bus stop are announced in Korean, while only the upcoming bus stop is mentioned in English. Therefore, hearing impaired non-Korean customers might find it difficult to get off at the right stop, especially since there are no info plafoons with station names in buses, neither bus stop names can be well seen on bus stop booths. It might seem that stressing possible inconveniences for non-Korean customers is very much an outsider’s view, however, I emphasize it in the light of Seoul’s efforts to become the truly global metropolis.

Bus driver should be informed of intention to get off at the upcoming bus stop by pressing the “stop bell”. Else, if none is waiting at the bus stop driver might either pass it without stopping (efficiency) or, if there are any potential customers, open only the front door for incoming passengers (rear door is for getting off).

Finding the best route underground

As in the case of bus route search, there is a handy website for calculating the most efficient route underground. Upon marking the departure and destination stops system calculates the fastest way to reach the destination and also shows which car to choose for the optimal transfer (in case transfer is necessary). The screenshot is included just for information purposes since for travel from City Hall to Sinchon, one needs to take subway line #2 (green) without transfer.

Travel from City Hall to Sinchon

Finding the underground

While looking for subway entrances one faces the same problem as when locating bus stops – signboards tend to disappear in the visual noise. Similar as with bus stops, subway entrances can be either covered with roof or uncovered. Thus, marking system is also different.

One of the entrances to subway with roof.

Entrance #8 to City Hall subway. Two more entrances (with roofs) to the same subway stop over the street. Due to colors used they are hardly visible. Green color communicates this is entrance to the green subway line.

Finding the way under the ground

City Hall is an intersection of two subway lines (line #1 blue and line #2 green) and has 12 exits/entrances. Various navigation aids are available to help customers find the way in such a vivid and complicated artery.

All subway stations are marked with a line corresponding to the color of the line that runs in this stop. Map shows vicinities of the subway stop in the diameter of 1km, key landmarks depending on exit number and direction to the exit.

Various visual aids available for helping customer to find the way to the right line

Choosing the right platform is made easy my noting the major stops along the route to each direction

Name of the current stop occupies major space while previous and next stops are included below. Information on transfer route to line #1 is on blue background

While on the train, upcoming stop is announced on electronic boards (in Korean and English), however, in majority of trains the announcements are verbal (in both langauges). In addition to this customer at any stop is exposed to a horizontal line at the eye level colored corresponding to color of line that passes this stop. Sequence of stops depicted in a linear fashion, with emphasis on the current stop. For better visibility signboards are attached to the walls in front of car doors

Line route map with marked intersections with other lines above one door (usually around 3 maps like this in one car)

Route map of all Seoul subway above the opposite door (also around 3 maps like this in one car)

Upon passing the toll gates, customer faces a web of exits, however, finding the way to the needed number is successfully aided by extensive signage in both Korean and English

Conclusion

Easy to notice that Seoul is a city where life under the ground (taking subway) is way easier for a foreigner than life on the ground (taking buses). One might argue that buses are more of a means of local transportation while tourists tend to use either subway or taxi for getting from A to B. However, if taking buses was easier for non-Korean speakers, buses benefiting from exclusive lane with far more extensive network of stops than subway are very convenient way of transportation. As for the subway, even though it might at times seem to be overcrowded with signs, the signs are informative and helpful to find the way, however, it takes some time to understand them and remember what to look for.

In support of the World Usability Day 2009, we dedicate November 12 to researching ease and convenience of using Seoul public transportation. This event is carried out with the purpose of contributing useful examples of sustainable design in public transportation to the international community.

Why Seoul?

Designated as the World Design Capital 2010 by the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design, Seoul demonstrates that the city is not only concerned with industrial growth. In the nomination acceptance speech Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon stated, that design will be a driving force in developing Seoul’s economy. Seoul National Capital Area, including a population of over 20 million people, is already the second largest metropolitan area in the world, making transportation efficiency a hot issue.

According to Wikipedia, Seoul subway lines stretch for more than 250 kilometers and carry over 8 million people daily, making it one of the busiest transportation systems in the world (surpassed only by the Tokyo Subway and Moscow Metro). As South Korea in general, and Seoul in particular, is known for strive towards efficiency in everything, we are intending to collect interesting and useful examples of sustainable design in Seoul public transportation.

Thus, we will spend November 12 traveling around the city researching its public transportation and will communicate our findings to the international community during a few days following November 12.

Would like to contribute?

If you would like to share your own experience of Seoul public transportation, please kindly email us your comments (and photos if available) to info[AT]ideacode [DOT] eu. We will be happy to consider all opinions and reflect them in our findings report.

In support of the World Usability Day 2009, we dedicate November 11 to researching ease and convenience of using Tokyo public transportation, thus calling our event Tokyo Public Transportation Usability Research Day. This event is carried out with the purpose of contributing useful examples of sustainable design in public transportation to the international community.

Why Tokyo?

This year listed as Nr. 3 Most Livable City by the Monocle magazine, Tokyo is also described as world’s most livable megalopolis by the same magazine. Its efficient public transport system is named as one of the reasons. Such praise is even more impressive if one considers that Tokyo metropolitan area has around 35mln population. Among many means of public transportation, Tokyo central area is served by a circle-shaped Yamanote Line (29 stations), which carries about 3.5 M passengers daily, thus supporting  Japanese life style of being on-time everywhere and every time.

Intrigued by all the positive feedback about Tokyo transportation system, during November 11 we will start at Waseda University and spend the day traveling around Tokyo to collect interesting and useful examples of sustainable design in public transportation. We will communicate our findings to the international community during a few days following November 11.

Would like to contribute?

If you would like to share your own experience of Tokyo public transportation, please kindly email us your comments (and photos if available) to info[AT]ideacode [DOT] eu. We will be happy to consider all opinions and reflect them in our findings report.