Now you see it… Augmented Reality in Learning

The Isle of Wight is beautiful, few spots more so than the house we rented in Cowes this weekend: panoramic views over the harbour, the sea breaking on the beach outside, a roaring fire in the evening and plenty of sofas and armchairs for everyone to collapse in with a good book.

Augmented Reality

The Solent doesn’t provide wilderness views: it provides interesting ones. Across to the West, Keyhaven and fortifications that have guarded the channel of centuries. In front, Fawley refinery, with stark black chimneys and occult steelwork punctuating the skyline: low down, the old hangers of the flying boats: further along, Southampton docks, then off to Portsmouth to the East. Proud cities with a proud naval heritage, visible to this day in the hundreds of ships, large and small that dot the seas.

Vast cruise liners, cargo ships, oil tankers and bulk carriers. Swarming around them, the tugs, harbour master and Pilot ships. Sailing vessels in from the ocean, small sailing ships racing and the odd gin palace chugging by.

Ship Finder

A veritable chaos of vessels. Which is why an App comes in handy. Something simple like ‘SD Free‘ provides an immediate layer of interpretation: fire it up and hit the ‘AR‘ button and the screen fills with a live view from your camera viewfinder. Hold it up, as if to take a picture of a passing vessel, and it overlays the image with data: the name of the ship, where it came from, what it’s carrying, where it’s come from, where it’s heading to. Scan the camera around the harbour and different signs float into view, hovering above their charges, providing contextual data that updates dynamically.

You can switch to a top down view, seeing vessels and buoys plotted out on a map, each boat icon clickable, providing yet more data.

Ship Finder - Top View

Done with this? Activate StarWalk and turn the camera to the sky: now you see the real stars but with constellations mapped over them: on the Google Glass, it’s an actual overlay that you can watch right through. And as my glance settles on an individual planet, the headset springs into life and starts telling me what i am looking at.

Once i’m done, i can ask Glass to take me back to the ferry, and it will, projecting my route onto my glasses, in front of my eyes, and narrating the directions in my ear.

Augmented reality is not a thing of the future: it’s here today.

Early applications are entertaining and informative: visit the Lego store in Manhattan and you can pick up any box and stand in front of a screen: tip the box flat and the model will literally build on the screen, anchored to the box, in three dimensions. If it’s a train set, the train will chug into life and puff around the track. Or a model will unfold and open out: as you rotate the box, the model moves with it.

These applications add layers of interpretation, layers of data and meaning onto the reality we see with our bare eyes. The implications for learning are clear: imagine you are mending a valve in a refinery: bring out your binder of instructions, open the relevant page and an exploded model of the valve appears, in 3D, over the top. Rotate the binder slowly and watch the model open out: maybe add a layer of interpretation, perhaps a senior engineer giving you tips of what to watch out for, “don’t over tighten the nut at the front“.

We start to move learning out of the abstract and directly into application.

Developing these applications is not cheap, but neither is it rocket science: the ship App is already free, funded by adverts. Similar apps operate where you can look at planes at the airport and see where they are heading, where they have come from.

The future of learning lies in geolocation, contextualisation, interpretation and application: providing what we need to know, in meaningful ways, relevant to our instance, and ready to apply. Layers of augmentation are likely to be part of this, and not in fifty years time: within a short space from now. Google Glass mark one may be retired, but rest assured that it was just the start. Smartphones already have the hardware and computational power to deliver, and indeed are delivering in the spaces of entertainment and information. Application in more serious spaces is close by.

After my last month in Amsterdam, LinkedIn started to ask me if i wanted to relocate my ‘home’ address there, Facebook started to send out Dutch adverts. They do this not to be helpful, but because there is commercial value in geolocating and contextualising what they feed out to me: if it’s relevant for retail, then it’s relevant for us in learning.

The geolocation and contextualisation of learning, moving beyond just providing ‘data‘ to providing context and application, that’s within our reach if we are bold enough to play.

Posted in Learning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Apple Watch: Day Zero

Today would have been the day i took possession of my Apple Watch, had i remembered to order one. Or had Apple spontaneously decided to send me one. Neither of which happened. None of this would have mattered, except as i stood in the queue at the cafe earlier, the guy in front was waving his wrist around saying “well, i didn’t really want one, but it’s my birthday and i figured i needed a new watch, and they just had some in stock“. So i got a latte and he got my watch.

Apple Watch

C’est la vie. In case i hadn’t mentioned it, wearable technology will change every aspect of everything. And we are just at the start.

Telephones democratised communication and bought about the evolution of knowledge: linking us to information in the moment. Today i Shazamed a track in the cafe: instant access to a world of knowledge, supporting me in the moment.

Except they’re not telephones anymore: in the course of the last twenty four hours i’ve Hungout, Skyped, Jive’d and Emailed, i’ve Messengered, Facebooked, Twittered and Linked to my In. I’ve even Facetimed and may have Texted.

At one point, someone tried to phone me, but i ignored it as i didn’t know the number.

The telephone is the conduit to the conversation, but the telephone is not the conversation itself. And anyway, it’s a smartphone these days.

We are starting to see the fragmentation of technology: my Jawbone talks to my Phone, utilising some of it’s processing, graphic and web accessibility. My Google Glass utilises the phone too, and even the hire car i had last month linked to my phone to access my music. Interconnected systems, lightweight in their communication.

Learning Technology Map 2015

My map of Learning Technology in 2015

We are just at the start of this. Soon it will be more than my bluetooth headphones and the chip in my shoe that talk to each other.

But technology does not just facilitate the ways we communicate: it changes it.

There’s a lot of interest around the ways we convey meaning through touch: technology emerging that let’s you stroke a glove on your own hand and someone half a world away will feel it. Or the shirt that will hug you in response to your partner hugging themselves. Or technology allowing signed language on your hand to be transmitted to a deaf and blind companion a hundred miles away on college campus: technology breaking down barriers of time and senses.

We are just at the start of this.

Then the geolocation and contextualisation of knowledge: technology that senses what you are doing and provides support, suggestion and knowledge based on what it senses you need. Or the people you are near. Or the conversations going on in your office, unheard, except within the community.

Technology will transform all of this.

So we need to play, we need to learn. Today, technology takes us places without any master plan, without any route map. Some technologies succeed and thrive, others fair: the point is, we have to try. We have to find what they let us do better, what they let us do differently, what they let us do that is new.

And then we share it.

Posted in Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

A Culture That Feels Right?

I delivered a workshop today at the head office of a global business: a young and dynamic company that’s growing fast. As is often the case, growth means opening new offices and, in their case, colonising extra floors of existing ones.

Doors on culture

I arrived at HQ and found a door. “This is the service entrance“, crackled the intercom, “Go round to the front“. So round i went.

The front entrance was grand: wide doors leading into a lobby, past an artfully nude sculpture and up escalators, witnessing the panoramic ceiling unveiled before me on the six floor high hall.

No, not here“, proclaimed the security guard at the desk blocking my way, “Round further“. So round I went.

At the end of this near circumnavigation, the third time paid for all. A smaller entrance with a friendly welcome. The reason for the long trek? A desire for an entrance that matched the company values: usable, pragmatic, good enough and serviceable. Not a lofty, Art Deco and grandiose statement of power. The company wanted an entrance that reflected its personality and culture. Grounded.

I like this reflective nature of many Social Age businesses: wanting to succeed, but aware that their work is not complete, that they are on a journey. Like the Facebook office i visited where the stairwell, sunk through the middle of four levels, had unfinished sides where the stairs pierced the floor: concrete and steel lay visible, a reminder of work part done. A company in progress.

Because culture is not granted from on high: it’s co-created in the moment by these and a million other decisions. It’s the ways we act, the conversations we have, the emails we send, the messages we project, the ways we dress, the way we respond to how others dress, it’s the website and the brochure. The culture is an artefact, not predictive. It’s as fickle as getting ideas above our station.

So it’s in these big decisions as well as the myriad small ones that I see the signs of a company aware of its present and cognisant of its future. And that’s a great foundation to build off.

Posted in Culture | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Six Tenets of Social Leadership

Social Leadership is a style fit for the Social Age: it’s about building social authority, reputation based leadership that is consensual by the community. It’s complimentary to formal leadership but vital at a time when formal authority delivers a diminished return. Here are six tenets that any social leader will adhere to:

Six tenets of Social Leadership

Be curious: question everything. Just because ‘this is how we have always done it‘, don’t assume that’s how you should continue to do it. Solve for today, remain curious as to tomorrow. Curiosity, a willingness to question and the permission to challenge (and be challenged) is key.

Try, Learn, Try: new technology, new ways of working, new ways of sharing, new approaches, new techniques, new mindsets. Try, learn, fail, learn. Agility is about always being willing to stretch, and to support others as they find their stretch. Agility requires effort, but the reward is clear. What was the last thing you learnt?

Share: when you succeed, when you fail, as you try. Work out loud. Bring your experience to your communities and make them stronger. Be part of the ‘sense making‘ process. Sharing is a differentiating behaviour in the Social Age: share widely, but share wisely. Interpret what you share to be relevant to the audience. Contribute to the signal, not the noise.

Be humble: learning is about humility. You know an answer, but not all the answers. Behave without expectation of reciprocity. Add value to the community, because the community will pay it back when you need it. Invest when you can.

Tell stories: craft your experience into stories that transmit wisdom. Short stories, long stories, stories in the moment or longer and more reflective pieces. Explore co-creation. Writing stories together is a great way to learn. Experiment with stance, tone of voice and genre. Learn from the stories other people share.

Be fair and protect: fairness is about doing what’s right, not what a system or set of rules tells you to do. Fairness often sits within an open space. It can be hard to find. Continue to search. Search for inequality and make it right. If you don’t know how to make it right, strive. Because the battle for fairness is our own battle, and the duty to protect is yours. Not in a system, not in a process, not in a reporting button. It sits with every individual.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

The New Utility: A Story about Brand in the Social Age

Agility can be about perspective, about being brave enough to climb up high and get a better view. Being brave enough to shout from your viewpoint that the world has changed. Being brave enough to lead an organisation and community through that change. Because, in the Social Age, everything has changed, but many organisations have failed to notice, and those that remain in the dark for two long will be swept aside.

The Story of Brand

We’ve seen the emergence of value led brands, brands that make stuff, for sure, but which are represented by more than simple transaction: they are represented by something more. By community, by stories, by membership and ownership, by an emotional sense of connection.

A sense of connection you probably don’t feel with your bank or healthcare provide.

Younger, more agile, more innovative organisations, ones who truly grasp the scale of change, recognise that the value they have with their consumers is more a matter of negotiation than broadcast.

Just providing a product of service is no longer enough: instead, we need to add the new utility. Community, relevance, authenticity and responsiveness. On our terms, as consumers.

In the Social Age, the value of a brand is co-created with the community and, largely, the value is held by the community. It’s no longer broadcast and owned by the organisation. It’s no longer about pushing brand onto people, but instead it’s about adding value to people in meaningful ways.

As technology hauled us into the Social Age, organisations were wont to think that their salvation lay in technology: they invested in infrastructure and hardware, systems that let them sell, that let them deliver, that let them trade. Which was all well and good, but the challenge with infrastructure is that it dates, and, when push comes to shove, it only adds one type of value: transactional.

Infrastructure may get the goods out on time, may provide the service, but it doesn’t provide the loyalty or love. That comes through the stories, through the meaning that the organisation provides to the individual.

Storytelling styles

Take Graze, a UK based supplier of snacks. Each week, if you are a subscriber, you get a box through the post. Inside it are separate, carefully packaged and playfully named, packets of snacks. Nut mixes, dried fruit, flapjacks. It’s not utilitarian: it’s experience. It’s choreographed. You can buy mixed nuts more cheaply and in greater quantities at the supermarket, but you can’t get the experience or utility at the supermarket. At christmas, they didn’t send a leaflet trying to sell a credit card: they included a popup Santa Claus and snowman. If the nature of the relationship is transactional, you can transact. If it’s relationship, what you have to do is nurture the relationship.

Look at what Metro bank are doing, also in the UK. They deliberately position themselves as counter to normal banking culture: they open their branches late and at weekends, expressing incredulity that other banks don’t do the same. They are open about their desire to change the market, indeed, they even have a book about it. Sure, it’s a business: it’s an evil bank trying to make money, but they are doing it in relationship terms, and at least demonstrating a clear desire to engage in a more relationship based way. Will they succeed? I suspect it comes down to how they engage over time: if the experience feels fundamentally different over time, then yes. If it feels fundamentally like all the other banks over time, then no.

Take my own bank: when i was in America, i accidentally went into my overdraft and they charged me a fee. When i discussed it with them, i said that maybe they could have phoned me, texted me or emailed me about it. Not just fined me and waited for me to discover it by chance. As i pointed out, when they want to sell me something, they are more than happy to craft an email, post me a leaflet or phone me up. So why not do that when something goes wrong? Transactional is fine, but i don’t love them for it.

By contrast, last Christmas i had a flat tire and went to a chain garage to have it fixed. The guy quickly resolved the problem, but wouldn’t take any money for it. He explained that it was just a small thing, a faulty valve, and not worth charging for. I’d have been happy to pay, but instead, he was investing in a different output; a relationship. I always recommend them and go back there now.

This isn’t about being just nice though: it’s about how we compete and win in the Social Age. It’s about the mindset of your organisation and how agile it is. Broadcast modes of communication, transactional methods of engagement, these are all fine if you want to retain control. They are low risk, in terms of message drift, but high risk in terms of agility.

4 aspects of the agile organisation

If you accept that the value of your brand is held within the community, then you need to engage with your communities, both internally and externally, with authenticity and humility.

When eCommerce rolled out, the conversation was about how to get online and sell. Now that the space is established, the conversation has moved on, but many organisations are still focussed on their platform, instead of focussed on the utility and brand. Successful organisations are crafting a community based on true value: they are agile with the technology, pragmatic about systems, but highly engaged in brand.

At the heart of the message is this: brand is no longer owned by the organisation. It’s substantially owned by the community. Organisations that engage with their community in authentic ways are more likely to forge a relationship based on the new utility: not just transactions, but relationship based and persistent over time.

And agile organisations will understand this: they will see that viewing change as a process will only lead down dead ends. Viewing it as a lifestyle will yield rewards. Agile in technology, agile in mindset, engaged in community and willing to listen.

Posted in Brand | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The blowing of boundaries

That should have read “blurring“, but today I’m dictating the blog to my iPad for the first time. That means you’re likely to see more errors than usual. But maybe not that many. Because the technology is progressing fast, it’s better than ever… but notPerfect.

The blurring of boundaries

Why am I dictating it? Because I’m interested in how traditional boundaries are changing. Take the media. We used to talk about “magazines“, “television“, “cartoons“, “books “. We used to define media largely by the channel through which The story came. But in the social age stories flow across channels, they tend to be co-created over time. There was a time when we differentiated by channel because the technology required to broadcast through that channel was expensive and exclusive. To own a printing press or a TV studio was a big thing. But today the technology is democratised, it’s everywhere, it’s easy, and that’s changing the ways we create, the ways we communicate, the ways we are effective.

Take the ways we interface with technology: used to be through the keyboard, but today it’s by voice or by touch. That may feel like a small change, but it’s huge. Look at the ecosystem of technology. We used to have desktop computers and a television. Today we have laptops, iPads, Apple TV, smart watches and Google Glass, and that’s just for starters. Ecosystem of technology is more diverse, the ecosystem of media is more diverse, the ways we create are more diverse, the ownership is more democratised, the creativity is liberated, the way the stories evolve.

But this change is just mechanistic, it’s not just in the mechanical interface with technology, it changes the creative process. The ways I think when I talk to the iPad are different from those when I type. The speed is different, the responsiveness is different, right now it feels awkward. I suspect my sentence length is shorter and I’m sure the readability is Paula. Correct that to “poorer“.

All Change

All of this change adds up to more than the sum of its parts. Yesterday I talked about how we used to craft stories and then sure, but today we start with and then finish the creation. It’s a fundamental change. I had dinner with two friends with their PhD is. They have them on the bookshelf, bound and complete. Stories aren’t like that today: we create and evolve our knowledge over time, keeping it contemporary, keeping it relevant.

Notice less mistakes in that last sentence? Ok, i admit, i plugged the keyboard back in. Why? Not because the process was difficult, it’s just that now i’ve relocated to a cafe, and i’m embarrassed to talk to myself. Even when technology enables, social habits and conventions take time to catch up. I still feel awkward in my Google Glasses, but it gets easier all the time.

This is often the path: technology opens up new ways of working, some of which fit our desire for utility, others fail to drive change. Some succeed, some fail. It’s an evolutionary, iterative approach, culture that lurches forward in fits and starts.

It’s been a while since ‘writing‘ involved a pen and paper, but now it doesn’t even need a keyboard. Terry Pratchett continued to ‘write‘ by dictation long after he lost the ability to type. So we started calling it ‘writing‘ after the physical activity, but continue to call it ‘writing‘ long after the mode of production has changed. We called things ‘magazines‘ when they were physical, but now we call them ‘magazine sites‘ when they are digital. Writing, today, is more a way of thinking than a mechanical action.

Tradition and Change

Change always involves consequence: i spoke to someone who works in corporate Comms a few months ago, at a senior level. She was pragmatic in mentioning that her job will be gone in two years: evolved, no doubt, to something new. Which is where agility comes in, both for organisations and individuals. Are you able to evolve into the new, to shape it?

As boundaries blur, opportunities abound, but only for those whose mindset is agile. Cling onto the mechanism of production as differentiator and you end up with beautiful copperplate handwriting in an age of dictation: a beautiful niche skill, but largely redundant.

Many ideas have changed in the Social Age: the idea of what it means to own a car is eroded by the multitudinous options for renting streetside cars by the minute or the mile. In Amsterdam i can use an electric car, by the hour, for short haul, or rent cars or vans by the mile. The idea of ‘work‘ has changed as i hop between creative spaces and share my ideas widely. The old world is being subsumed by change, but the ways and boundaries are not always clear. Sometimes we just have to test things out, to try, to play.

Posted in Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Difference of Digital: are all Conversations Equal?

Some things feel right, some feel wrong, and some are just different. That’s what’s at the heart of my thinking today.

The Difference of Digital

I remember the first time i went on camera: painfully awkward, the sound of my own voice was weird, unknown. A poor quality experience. But now? Effortless, normal, easy. What was different and unusual became commonplace, largely through the democratisation and spread of the technology. That first camera i stood in front of was a broadcast model probably costing $15,000. Today, it’s a fraction of that. The pervasive nature of technology normalises that which was once out of reach.

Many of my friends are musicians, and most regularly record their own music, often producing CDs, digital formats and even vinyl. What once was the preserve of expensive studios and record labels is now commonplace.

But here’s the thing: the technology is not the thing!

I engaged in a discussion recently around leadership in the military: is there a difference in orders when given digitally? Will we behave differently if giving orders through these channels? Will we respond differently?

If someone looks you in the eye, gives a difficult order, shakes you by the hand, puts a hand on your shoulder, wishes you luck with a tear in their eye and shows you the door, you know you may have a one way ticket. But what gives that impression? What is the root of the gravitas? And can it exist in the digital space?

And if it does exist digitally, is the conversation easier? Is a leader who commands remotely more likely to be reckless? Are they better for their dispassionate situation? Can we quantify this?

Would we lead differently in person than digitally? Will we take different risks, treat people differently?

That’s at the heart of my reflection today: what is the difference of digital?

I’m going to explore two aspects; firstly, how does the nature of the channel affect the communication and, secondly, do we behave differently in those different channels?

The Difference of Digital - Face to Face

Let’s start with the difference: the Social Age is characterised by communities, largely online and facilitated by technology. I’ve written widely about how we engage in those communities, the roles we take, the purposes that they serve and the types of social authority that we wield when we connect there. But what do we lose as we move online, what is left grounded in the physical world?

The ‘physical context‘ is about the air we breathe, the sights, temperature, smells, sounds, the weather, the building, the lack of seats and quality of coffee: it’s about shared experience and being in the same boat. It’s one of the most significant elements of communication, because if we don’t share the same reality, then we project: we assume, we make stuff up. Clearly the digital channels preserve or degrade differentially: with audio, we can just hear, but with Skype or Hangouts, we can often see. But we still lack most of the environmental context if we are not there.

Part of it can just be the sense of separation: the length of the journey is important, it’s part of the sense of place.

Being with someone in person provides multiple overlays of meaning: the tone of their voice, the stance they take, the ways they mirror our body language and tone. We communicate through many channels, not just words.

The lilting quality of our voice is not incidental to communication: it’s central, adding layers of urgency, empathy, sympathy, challenge, support, questioning and meaning.

The facets of music that we use in communication

The facets of music that we use in communication

We are also able to respond faster in person to misunderstanding (which is often perpetuated and propagated online): we can frame and re-contextualise conversations at speed, without the written record that exists online. You say something and the person you are talking to looks quizzical, you immediately respond to that. If they look agitated, leaning forward, hands on the table, you know they are itching to respond.

So there are multitudinous ways in which face to face communication in the same room differs from that which is moderated or facilitated by technology. In many ways, the technology degrades the quality of the channel, but let’s not jump to conclusions: there are benefits from going digital too.

Face to face, we are limited in the number and quality of connections we can maintain: as we go virtual, removing the constraints of geography and distance, we can maintain more, stronger, social ties. We can maintain a wider and stronger community, less constrained even by things like language.

So whilst we lose something in terms of layers of context, we may gain something in terms of diversity of opinion and reach, and the ability to maintain direct communication more of the time.

Because the way we create meaning has changed: the ways we construct our stories.

The Difference of Digital - Creating Meaning

In the old world, we packaged them up, whole, and shipped them off. Today, though, they are more responsive. Look at any News website: they don’t write and article, publish it and leave it. Maybe with one revision for the later edition. No: the news is co-created, iterated, commented on as the story unfolds and the community collaborates and contributes. The story is co-written over time, usually through technology.

So what can we say for sure: we lose something when we move to digital, but we gain something as well, which probably contributes to the evolved ways we create meaning, the ways we find our stories.

We have lost something of the shared experience, something of the colour and context, but we have gained something in terms of the agility to co-create a story over time. We are no longer tied to one story, written and shared, but rather exist in a more responsive space, where the meaning is emergent over time, in response to unfolding understanding and earned knowledge.

So, in answer to the first question, “how does the nature of the channel affect communication“, the answer is, in many ways, some good, some bad, but quantifiably different.

But what of the second question: do we behave differently as a result?

Because the communication is decontextualised, does it liberate us or separate us from obligation? You’ll have seen the words ‘trust‘ and ‘identity‘ in the previous diagram. In physical spaces, we have a fair idea of identity: at least, if we know a person, we can judge if it’s them sat in front of us. Online, we can never be sure. And trust? Trust is earned over time, but perhaps it differs when we lost the handshake and ability to look someone in the eye?

How do we behave differently?

Think about the context, the decision process and the experience of consequence.

The Difference of Digital: context, decision making and consequence

Because the context may be distant, we are less emotionally connected, we lack that richness of communication: but to counter that, we may have a broader perspective. Whilst we don’t share the everyday reality of that individual, we may have a broader view, which may also be beneficial.

The decision process may also be abstracted from reality: we are not in the same trench. But that may not be a bad thing either: we may have better reflective space and be better supported (through our community and access to resources). But the decontextualised nature may be a risk. When we don’t know, we tend to frame and project our assumption.

Consequence though is harder to judge: feedback may be less synchronous than when we are together, it may be more transactional, more quantified, less emotive, more abstract.

On the plus side, videos and audio can spread messages a long way, but it’s still one level of abstraction, lacking the immediacy of being there. It’s a balance of stretch and scale versus lived experience. Messages travel further, but may be less immediate.

I guess the main thing i take away from this is the need to be mindful of the differences, because differences there are.

The channels convey different things: some better, some worse, but definitely different, and that difference has an impact. The ways we think, make decisions and experience consequence are also different, so that must be factored in too.

Is it better?

Is it worse?

Do we know yet? These are open questions: different, certainly. Better? In some ways. Worse? In some ways.

At the very least, we must factor the difference into our thinking, our training, our learning: we cannot assume that the assumptions, skills and behaviours that let us thrive face to face will translate to those that will let us thrive in the Social Age. I tackle part of this under the Social Capital part of Social Leadership.

So we need to be mindful of the difference and actively develop our understanding and capability. Some things feel easier as we go digital, some things seem harder. But our responsibility is to learn from the experience and change as a result.

That way we can actively choose where we run each conversation, in the knowledge that our choice is by design, not accident. That we are optimising our communication and being mindful in our actions.

Posted in Communication | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments