In this episode, we hear from Dana Rock, Director of Experience at Pickle Jar Communications.
Our experience is the sum total of all the bits. It’s made up of our interactions and touchpoints, but also our
- feelings, and
- our memories.
These things might sound kinda squishy and abstract.
But, as Dana will explain, it’s these squishy-sounding bits that are key to designing the ‘right’ experience for your customers. And it’s these bits which we can easily forget, particularly when we are focused on delivering within our specialist areas.
In this two-part episode, we will explore four experience design principles, informed by scientific research, which you can use to rethink your approach and connect the bits together.
- Make it make sense
- Make it emotional
#OMNIXCONF IS BACK
Join us ONLINE.
Super-early bird pricing is available from now until February 28.
Dana is passionate about enabling others to create compelling and inclusive content and experiences. A professionally trained and experienced content design, Dana draws on research across behavioural economics, neuroscience, and linguistics to inform their approach.
They are a former Director of Marketing and Communications with a strong track record in developing award-winning campaigns, nurturing high-performing content teams, and delivering omnichannel strategies to meet business goals.
FUN FACT: Dana is one of the best elite kayakers in the UK. Having previously paddled the Grand Canyon and kayaked over a 20ft waterfall all on top of having a name that utterly kicks butt.
ment needs and developing practical roadmaps to achieve their KM vision.
Full session transcript
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED TRANSCRIPT
Noz Urbina 06:41
Hi, everybody. This is Noz Urbina, your host, I am here with data rock. They are director of experience design at pickle jar communications organizations that that we collaborated with a few times that omnichannel X. Data is passionate about enabling others to create compelling and exclusive content and experiences, professionally trained and experienced Content Designer. Data draws on research across behavioral economics, neuroscience and linguistics to inform their approach. So very much in line with a lot of the work we’ve been doing very excited to have them on the podcast. They are a former director of marketing communications with a strong tracker record in developing award winning campaigns, nurturing high performing content teams, and delivering omni channel strategies to MIT meet business goals. And a bit of a fun fact person color data is one of the best elite kayakers in the whole of the UK, having previously paddled the Grand Canyon, and kayak over a 20 foot waterfall, all on top of having a name that utterly kicks butt. So I couldn’t be happier to have data here to talk to us today. What we’re gonna be talking about today is putting the bits together experience design, for specialists, we’re going to be talking about something which is a little bit outside the usual UX, and design camp, we’re gonna go into something more holistic, I love this kind of thing. Having a being a big fan of neuroscience neurolinguistics cognitive science, and how our processing information as a holistic organic being should impact how we think about the design process. So we’re gonna be talking about what is the overall experience we create for our customers. Our experience is the sum total of all the bits we’ve actually said this a couple times on, on the podcast, you know, I am real, really bugs me when we talk about experience as if it’s something that a device has like this, this product as a good or a bad user experience. When things don’t have experiences. That’s what makes them make some things. People have experiences. And so our experience when we are a user, or customer is the sum total of all of our, all of our touch points, all of our interactions with sending sent brand product, or all of the above. So it’s made up of our interactions and our touch points, but also our expectations, feelings and our memories that we go into that experience with and come out of it with. So it might kind of sound kind of squishy and abstract. But as Donna will explain, it’s the squishy sounding bits that are the key to designing the right experience for your customers. And it’s these bits, which we can easily forget, particularly when we’re focused on delivering within the our specialist areas. So here, as we often talk about at omnichannel x, we’re not going to zoom in we’re going to zoom out, think talk big picture. This is a two part episode, where we’re going to explore for experience design principles, all informed by scientific research, which you can use to rethink your approach and connect the bits together. So our our four principles are going to be making things make sense making an emotional We’ll make it memorable, or intentionally forgettable and making it personal. So that’s enough kind of setup for me. I want to say hi to Danna, and say thank them for joining us on the podcast.
Dana Rock 10:14
Hi, thank you so much for having me. Thanks for great intro as well.
Noz Urbina 10:18
My pleasure. I’m excited about this. This is like right up my alley. Super, super pumped. So our first principle is, make it make sense. I want it to you to talk about a little bit in your own words, how what that principle is, and how it fits into this bigger picture that you’re gonna tell us about today?
Dana Rock 10:40
Yeah, so make it make sense is the kind of the, the start of the the kind of opening bar of what we need to do as as designers really for our for the things that create those experiences to work. So does it make sense to our users, or customers or audiences? And sometimes this is about, you know, is it about accessibility and readability and just people understanding, you know, what the steps of the journey are, where they need to go what they need to do next. And you know, the bits that we might describe as Oh, it feels intuitive that the bits that actually makes so much sense to us, because they use design patterns that our users are familiar with, that it makes sense. And I think it’s, it’s an important point. And actually, it’s generally quite familiar ground, you know, for people listening to this podcast are probably quite familiar with this. But I think it’s a good basis for kind of exploring some of the other principles really. Just to start with, and I want to pick up on what you said, in the intro there of you know, we don’t things don’t have experiences, people have experiences, but you know, understanding what those experiences are, like, enables us to, you know, infer well informs how we designed the things that create those experiences. And I think in terms of that, the experience of what we know from, you know, neuroscientists, about how the brain has evolved not to give us an accurate depiction of the world, but to enable us to survive. So you know, there’s, there’s people like NSF, who’s written a great book being you, which explores this. And you know, that that kind of shows how, you know, the brain is a you describes it’s controlled hallucination, but we kind of predicting, our brain is constantly predicting what’s likely to happen, what’s going on in the world around us. And so that’s where we kind of can sometimes make mistakes, but broadly, we’re quite good at predicting we’ve and it’s evolved to survive. So, you know, a classic example would be if you see something that, you know, you’re walking along late at night, perhaps in the park and you see something that looks like a snake, you might jump now, it’s a twig 99.9% of the time, particularly like who I’m talking from the UK, I think I’ve seen a snake once in my life in this country. But we might jump if we see something, you know, a kind of ominous shadow, that’s actually, you know, a bit or something like that. And that’s helpful because it aids our survival, but it’s not accurate description. And I think understanding how our brains are trying to make sense of things by predicting things. I mean, some people listening to this might know about, like reading psychology, for example, the way that we kind of, I skip over and we scan read, which we only stop, if we find something that sentence we go home, Wait, that doesn’t make sense. You know, congratulations, you haven’t got the job. But if you know is an email from a recruiter would be would would, would make us kind of skip back and make sure we’ve read all the words properly. So I think it’s about understanding how that brain works, when and how our brains work fundamentally, as these predictive machines that allows us to understand how can we help people understanding what their brains are likely to be predicted allows us to create what we might describe as those more intuitive designs.
Noz Urbina 13:54
So reaching for the mute button there, I love that there’s a ton in there. We had an ill as our opening keynote of our of our last OmnichannelX Conference, which as many of listeners may know, is has, you know, for the foreseeable future is our last conference as we’ve switched the podcast and webinar format, but we were so happy to have Anil open up our our last event and I had a cognitive science scientist talking to a bunch of content design and systems and people because these concepts of sensemaking Wayfinding, and a huge one, which you alluded to, which is compression, in the fact that our making sense of the world is compression. It is the active and systematic discarding of tons of detail, tons of the little stuff, tons of reality, in order to give us a more efficient machine for keeping us alive as you put it And so it’s very interesting for me because I’ve been talking about compression as a cognitive principle in the sense that there are users there, what they see will be the things that they that jump out at them, which may not be the things that jump out at us. So and this is always bridging the divide between designer and audience, what we see as obvious what we see as self evident, what we see as important may not match the mental process of, of the different users that we’re creating for. And specifically, I saw an interview with the CEO of chat GPT, I can’t remember his name off the top of my head. But it’s an easy Google. And he actually used the phrase prediction in the way that they do it with artificial intelligence, his prediction is compression, or compression is prediction, I don’t know which way he put it around. But basically, if we can, if we can compress down and understand these mental models understand what were what isn’t the happening in the users mind, then we can predict and we can help them be able to predict so that they anticipate, and they understand the experiences. Do you have a sum? What are your kind of tips? Where do Where do you see this? Where do we go wrong? What What should we be doing better as designers?
Dana Rock 16:26
I think there’s probably two directions that we could go in. So one would be talking about copywriting and because writing, you know, is, is so fundamental, really to how we’re communicating in the things that we’re creating. But the other bit, I think, would be that also the visual design and talk about the visual design of apps. So I mean, reading reading psychology, we’ve mentioned this already about how much of that is to do with prediction with our eyes kind of skipping kind of merrily over the words and only stopping where we get stuck. And so understanding that understanding, you know, people will be familiar with things like the F pattern of how we kind of scan reading, if we’re reading if we’re left to right readers that looks like an F and, and in other dimensions for people who read in different directions in the in the, in that language. And understanding that we might think okay, well, let’s front load. So one thing which I won’t get into, because this will be the rest of the podcast of me going on a rant? Not as but something like FAQs, I’m really anti FAQs because FAQs are you know, so
Noz Urbina 17:27
for those of you just listening to the podcast, I was pumping both my fists in the air having been a longtime proponent of killing the FAQ dead?
Dana Rock 17:35
Yeah, so I mean, so I’ve worked the education sector in my in my in my work and like applying to university, particularly international students. It’s quite a complex process, actually. And international students, sometimes English isn’t their first language. So let’s make things really hard by putting the information at a really low webpage of FAQs. And it’s difficult to navigate because there’s not they’re not always necessarily kind of in the right order. But also even the structure of the the FAQ. And often this is something that’s in a show hide as well. Right? What could
Noz Urbina 18:07
be the right order anyway? Like, yeah, the right order for me is the the question I have at the top, there’s no way that anyone is ever going to know what that is. Yeah, it just it’s a nonsensical concept of having a big bucket of stuff in
Dana Rock 18:22
a bucket of stuff. Yeah.
Noz Urbina 18:25
Your website slash content and then gets to tell them to go for it go for it. It’s in there somewhere.
Dana Rock 18:30
Yeah. And the bit that I find annoying, and actually quite easy to fix, is what I would call a front loading of a sentence. So if you say, you know, what are the deadlines for applying that? What are the words that my eyes got to read through? And knowing that we read an F pattern? I’m starting with a what are the how do I? When can I? Where is the? All those words are just wasted? Like just give me a deadline? Apply Now? Visa application, like go go straight for the key words that you know, we’re looking for the information of like, when’s the deadline? How do I apply for my visa, but I’m looking for visa, right? And those sorts of things
Noz Urbina 19:13
are interesting, because that’s exactly contrary to the trends. I know clients who specifically say no, no, no, no, no, we want all our stuff in the within that question form. I have some other I have some partners that I work closely with who despise it. But it’s interesting. Have you had to have that discussion? And how do you resolve that because
Dana Rock 19:38
we’ve opened a can of worms. Podcast. First one’s just taught FAQ. Yeah, it is a conversation. I have quite a lot. And I would say generally, you know, if it was an arm wrestle, I tend to win on the FAQ balance because I think where people come from when they doing the long question is when they’re thinking about it. search terms. Right. But but I’ve not seen any research that shows that actually the specific individual, it has to be, you know, what are the deadlines for application, people will equally go application deadlines? So, you know, I think there’s a question about how search works. But, you know, my view as well is don’t optimize for search, optimize for the human because ultimately, search is trying to optimize for the human. So you know, don’t go for the proxy, go for the thing that you’re both trying to achieve. In your aim,
Noz Urbina 20:29
my customers have been telling me well, that it sounds friendlier. That’s why we love we like we want to give it that friendly tone for the humans not dated, I don’t think they have.
Dana Rock 20:40
And I hear your, you know, your, your, it’s friendlier. And I counter with it’s friendly, to save your users time and make their lives easier and reduce cognitive load. So, you know, I would say to be clear as to be kind.
Awesome. All right. I love that well, differently. So that was
Dana Rock 20:59
so that was FAQs. And maybe we need to pause on that. Because otherwise, we’re still here in two hours. But the other place I would go in terms of this making it make sense is something you mentioned there about what we were talking about kind of what’s intuitive. And it’s thinking about what I would describe as the kind of grammar of everyday life, I don’t know if there’s a better expression for it, but where we have design patterns, which we have come to find intuitive. So you know, I could start a sentence. Once upon a time, you know, you kind of expecting what’s going to come next. And equally, if you think of things like, you know, where do we expect things to be on a page, right? If we’re looking at a webpage, if I’m on an app, you know, there’s a little icon that looks like a search. And it’s often in the same place in different apps, or you know, whether you swipe left or swipe right, like, it’s not like some dating apps, we’ve decided to all swipe left. And you know, the other ones to reject us to swipe right, like we’re being consistent. And that is that kind of grammar of everyday life where we’ve created these social norms around the design elements that we use. And I think understanding those norms as they have evolved, as you know, we’ve been creating apps. And, you know, digital design, understanding what works. But I think also understanding that some users still aren’t familiar with those things. So I’m familiar with, like, I could download, let’s say, a travel booking app. And I’d be pretty familiar with it because they already use a number of travel-familiar apps. So if it’s kind of well designed, then I can see where I, you know, my previous bookings, my tickets, my search bar, my favourites, my profile, login, whatever. And I can see those elements, they probably look quite consistent with this stuff that I’ve already had experience of. But we do still need to think about those users who don’t have those experiences because it’s not intuitive unless you already have that prior experience. This is like a kid learning to speak. You know, and of course, you know, I mean, I just look at people like my, my five-year-old niece who tries to scroll through the TV, I’m sure anyone who’s interacted with your kids these days, knows, has sort of seen that and laughed. But of course, that’s as natural, as you know, saying the alphabet or some kind of kid’s rhyme. It’s just part of the grammar of everyday life, that they’re picking up through the experiences and interactions that they have.
Noz Urbina 23:14
I’ll give an example on the other end of the spectrum, which was my mother. It was in her 80s. But is by her own definitions, problematically addicted to her iPhone. And so she Yeah, she has her iPhone or tablet, she has her laptop, she travels as well, three. But she’s still in her 80s. And so we’re talking once I said, click on the Wi-Fi icon. And she goes, would you mean the picture of the fan?
Dana Rock 23:47
Noz Urbina 23:48
And I’m like, what? And then I looked again, I was like, Oh, I guess that that that dot with a little curvy lines doesn’t mean anything to her. And it looks like a fan. So it’s, it’s this language, you don’t realize that you know, and as designers, as we get more special this is for me, this is the battle at omnichannel axes from the beginning is pulling us out of our wood becomes a vicious cycle of getting so good and knowing our stuff so deeply that we start to forget how to talk to other people if you’ve ever tried to talk to a physicist or some of these, like so many extreme ends of, of education, and my brother has has has seven degrees and he became impossible to talk to around the fifth.
Dana Rock 24:43
That’s not an education. That’s a triangle, right?
Noz Urbina 24:47
Yes. And so. So he has yes got seven degrees as he went, he got his PhD and he’s just getting warmed up. Yeah. So it became kind of possible to talk to you after his PhD. And it’s there’s always people like that you’d it so you know so much that you start to lose your ability to empathize outside your Knowledge Circle and this that’s kind of what we’re all about here.
Okay, so you talked about FAQs as an example. And copywriting more generally. Did you have something more on that?
Dana Rock 25:20
Yeah, well, I would say that these things to pick up on what you’ve said, I, you know, the grammar of everyday life covers both copywriting Well, kind of, you know, wanting to front load sentences to make things easy to read people to scanning, thinking about what’s intuitive in our design patterns, because people are familiar with, you know, the design of where a search bar might be, or what call to action button looks like and those sorts of things. And I love that example of the fan for Wi Fi. Because if we think of, you know, we used to, obviously, in English using 26 letters of the alphabet, but actually, you can think of these things like the Wi Fi icon, or, you know, the kind of sign gendered signs on toilets or the disability sign on a toilet cubicle. icon. Yeah, all of those things, exactly. The waffle, you know, the, and think of those things as like, logo select a part of his logo, syllabic language. So you know, so in languages where one icon means a whole word, that’s what we’re getting in some of this stuff. And I mean, it’s probably not time for this podcast, but there’s a whole thing to say there about emojis, and you know, where they how they changed the English language, actually. But I think the key thing is to to make things make sense, we want to understand the grammar of our users, both in terms of the language they use, but also their understanding of other visual elements that can inform the designs that we create, help understand what they know what’s in their frame of reference, and how we can design things that feel intuitive or help them along for you know, less experienced users who might need an extra helping hand to get them through.
Noz Urbina 26:59
Yeah, the last bit, I think is really important is that that were designed for our users can often become a little bit too monolithic, in the sense that if we, if we have any kind of diversity, or inclusivity in our app, then we have to think a little bit about not our eye, not our favorite users, not our ideal users. But the actual potential users of our system, our app. Awesome. Okay, great. So that’s a, I think it’s a good basis for exploring principles are coming back in we are at making making it make sense, making emotional making memorable, making it personal. So I think we’re going to cover making it makes sense and making it memorable. Your part one, and sorry, when I say making makes sense, I’m making an emotional in part one, and we’ll end we’re going to leave the other two for part two. So that takes us up to making it emotional, this is one of my favorites, because emotions are talking about emotions in business, which is, you know, what we’re talking about is that we’re usually in some sort of business entity or, or, or even if it’s a nonprofit, it’s a it’s an organization with budgets, etc. We’re all very serious, and, and so on. Leaving startup culture aside, really talking to the emotional side of design is hard, it’s hard to get that discussion hard to have it in a serious way. It I think that it’s incredibly important, because when emotions are low, that’s a prioritization rubric. You know, when when people are down when people are upset when they’re frustrated, that’s those are the hotspots that we need to target in our audience journeys. And when they are, when they’re positive, when they’re on a high, that’s our opportunity for calls to action, that’s when we can hit them for a share. Now, that’s where you can just hit them for give us a testimonial or subscribe or share. You know, sign up upgrade crossgrade Did you maybe you’d also like so tracking emotions across time is really, really, really important. So I’m interested in your take when you say it’s one of the fundamental principles.
Dana Rock 29:13
Yeah, you know, plus one on everything that you’ve just said there, first of all, and I worry that emotions get a bit of a bad rap that we think of, you know, thinking as rational and an emotion is just this kind of fuzzy stuff that we can ignore and push to one side. But, you know, emotions are the common currency of our experience. And everything that we experience in life from eating a cheesecake to you know, engaging with an app, looking something online can be translated into kind of positive, negative feelings that we experience, and how we feel has a really important impact on what we think what we do and what you remember. And that’s why I think it’s really important for us to understand how the things that we designed create those experiences by understanding you know, how people are feeling and how people perhaps want to feel or should feel for, you know, the reasons that you’ve just listed And my evidence for this is I mean, first of all, to just share a piece of a piece of research that looks at the the idea of emotional priming. So, you know, there’s bits of research that basically got two groups of people. And they watched one of two movies. And then they watched an advert which was an advert for a museum and saw lots of people busily kind of visiting the museum. And they were then asked kind of how likely are you? How much do you want to visit the museum having watched the advert, and their response, varied depending on what film they’d watch. So half the group watched the shining, which is the horror film, and it’s pretty awful horror film, isn’t it myself, and the other one watch before sunset, which is a romantic comedy. And they had quite different reactions. And actually, it was the people who watched the horror film, you know, the shining, who were more positive about visiting the art, or the the museum afterwards. And the researchers kind of explore this a little bit. And it comes to an idea of kind of a modular theory of mind so that we’ve got different kind of, they’re not quite modules in a kind of clean, neat, kind of divisible sense, but kind of different modes of operation that can exist in our minds that are linked to some of our kind of basic evolutionary need, where they can be kind of provoked into directing, you know, our emotions direct how we would respond to something. So if you watch a romantic comedy, it kind of prompts a kind of kin seeking, I think is the kind of the term but kind of a bit of feeling a bit lovey dovey makes you want to kind of hide away, you know, more intimate environment be a bit more private, away from the hustle and bustle of people. Whereas fear provoked, you know, really strong fear response, watching something like the shining, actually seeing people is the safety of crowds, it kind of helps to protect you so. So that protective element is what essentially suggests that we’re watching the the, the horror film, the fact that the muse, the advert for the museum had lots of people in people feeling fearful, they’re seeing the crowds as a safe haven, whereas those that inclined towards the kind of akin seeking intimate environment don’t want to be in that space. Now. I think this is a kind of interesting example. Because we don’t always have introspection into what drives our decision making what drives our behavior.
Noz Urbina 32:26
I was just gonna say, This sounds that sounds at a very deep, primal level, because I’m sure there’s a lot of people will go no, no, when I’m scared. I don’t want to be around anybody. But I think that when if you go deep enough into the psyche, like if you’re truly you know, real fear, then that’s your preferences are not part of it anymore. Your your conscious choice, that your mammal instinct kicks in, and says, I’m safer in the in the pack that I am by myself. Yeah, even, even intellectually, you might see it the other way.
Dana Rock 32:57
Yeah, but I’ve, uh, but even what we think that we have conscious choice and conscious decision making, we’ve probably all had moments in our lives that we could point to where we’ve been hungry, cold and tired. And we’ve just, you know, we’ve just cracked you’ve just shouted at somebody, you know, we’ve kicked something, you know, we’ve shattered a driver or something like that. And it is instant, and it is emotional part of ourselves. And I think rather than just ignore that, and go, Oh, you know, acting out understanding that, that our emotions do drive our behaviors, and we have a kind of a cultural social narrative that we’re very rational beings. But actually, I mean, there’s, you know, all of Daniel Kahneman research really points at how irrational we are. And
Noz Urbina 33:43
Kahneman Dan Ariely. Dan Ariely is one of my favorites. I’m sorry, I don’t have a list off the top my head, but I’d like to jump in just quickly and put, I just want to put a bullet in that once and for all, I will have to look it up and put it in the show notes. But there’s specifically research on people who have had the particular type of damage to their brains, where they can no longer feel emotion. And for me, that’s, that’s those people are the end of this debate. Because what happens if you can’t feel emotions? Do you become Mr. Spock, and become a hyper rational being who only thinks in logic? No, what actually happens to those people is they can no longer function at all. Because when you sit down as Aristotle, or Plato or Mr. Spock, to reason about something, you need emotion to tell you what to reason about. What am I going to try it? What problem am I going to try to solve today? What’s a good problem to solve? What’s the how do I know when I’ve reached the answer? If I have no feeling if I have no feeling of elation, or joy or sense of contentment when I’ve come to a conclusion, is that conclusion any better than the other conclusion? I just I just had two minutes ago. emotion is the only thing that allows us to be rational. It is the reward system, like if you had an artificial intelligence and you trained it and said, Here are pictures, just look at them, it wouldn’t get any smarter, you have to tell it, this is good. This is bad. And without that reward system of emotions, irrationality, rationality sorry, completely, is nonsensical, and so on. So I want to, I want to just kind of slam dunk that one, because once once I heard that that research exists, and that they have the data, this whole debate just becomes, I think we just need to spread the word that that’s a dead issue. It’s so it’s just utter nonsense, that these two things are somehow polar. It’s a bizarre relic of a patriarchal model. That that just kind of poisons our discussions about design our discussions about empathy.
Dana Rock 35:54
Yeah, I think that’s a great point to raise the the research that shows that you take away emotion, you don’t get super, you know, Mr. Mr. Spock, to user example. But you get indecision, and lack of ability to make decisive decisions. And I would point towards the fact that, you know, we’ve got this continuous kind of raw sensory data that actually everything we experience is singular and unique in a way. And it’s the common currency of feeling that is everything that we’ve ever experienced of positive negative, which actually allows us to build connections between those unique experiences to get a sense, get a feeling of, Oh, this feels like a good idea, or this feels like a bad idea. And actually pull together those disparate experiences into something that informs and predicts and allows us to behave in a way that’s, that’s advantageous, essentially. So yeah, emotions, absolutely have a bad rack. And I think we really do need to get quite serious about understanding of designing for customers feelings, you know, thinking about that design process? How do they feel? How do they want to feel? And how does that affect with the content that they’re engaging with? And how do you want to respond to that, as a designer, if you’ve got insight into that?
Noz Urbina 37:06
So same question, if there was, if we, if we had like the, if you had the elevator pitch 3060 seconds? What would be the top things that come to your mind as recommendations? Where are you seeing ways that this could be improved in in teams? How do we get better at this?
Dana Rock 37:26
Can we get better at this? I think so. Yeah, I think the first thing is is, is understand your customers emotion. So something like you’ve got your user journey map, you’ve got your top tasks, great, but that’s not enough, you need to understand what the frequently encountered emotions are, or what the understanding the context of people’s interactions. So a really good example, I think, is a good example A because it was done well and be because it is very emotional experience, I’d point to co op funeral care. So they’ve got some content principles that really speak to emotion now, content, that Co Op funeral care is, is a chain of of care home, or sorry, funeral homes in the UK. And, you know, they’re creating content to help people who are, you know, brief, they’ve just lost somebody who potentially was they loved and was really important to them. It’s a hugely emotional time. And they’ve really thought about that. And I’ve come up with these these kind of content principles that have formed, how they create their content. So they kind of acknowledged, you say, the people that we’re talking to are likely going through a huge process of grief, and we can’t console them, we can’t stop that grief. So they’re kind of making a decision about how to respond. They say, instead, the most helpful thing we can do is just to be really clear and really concise, like don’t have flowery wording, don’t say, you know, passed away as a kind of a euphemistic term, just say the word death, like make it as clear and easy to understand as possible. Because there’s so much, you know, I guess, stress and emotion in the person who is engaging with their content, that actually, something that is quite clear and practical is the kind and empathetic thing to do when you’re trying to create content for somebody who is experiencing grief. I think that’s a really nice example. Because they’ve really, they’ve thought about how other people feel. But there’s also thought about how do we respond? How do we respond to this motion? And how does it inform the way that we create content and you can see it, if you go to their website, you can, you know, it’s actually content principles are available on the internet. So you can you can Google them and find them. And you can look at their webpages and yeah, they’re doing it. They’re doing what they said they’re saying they’re going to do in terms of creating clear content.