Designing for "Deep Interactions"

Position paper #3 for IDSE 102 – Design, Society and the Public Sector, by Jonathan Lewis & Diana Griffin.

Experiences are important. They teach us what is right and what is wrong. They shape our beliefs and our preferences; they make us who we are and who we will become. Experiences can lead to growth or destruction. This premise should spark little contention, but we begin here because we believe that its implications are significant when played out in full. Consider the theory of John Dewey, in which experience is defined as the interplay between internal and objective conditions in a given situation. Experiences exist in continuity, building upon each other, leading always to growth, change or reinforcement, whether positive or negative. Because experiences have such pervasive effects, it is vital that we—in the collective and individual sense—examine the questions, “What are we experiencing?” and “How are we affecting what others are experiencing?”

So, what are we experiencing? To answer that question, we must look at the interaction between external and internal conditions that make up experiences. While internal conditions are unique to every individual, external conditions are, on a broad level, shared by all within a common culture. In our culture, where some digital device or technology is always within arms reach, most experiences are in some way influenced by digital technology. What effect does this have? In his speech to the German Informatics Society given in 1990, Neil Postman argues that technology has brought a bombardment of information of such relentlessness that ultimately we have become indifferent towards everything. He asserts that with millions upon millions of sources of information available to us, our foundational understanding of what should cause surprise, fear, sadness, excitement or joy is warped. He calls upon his audience to care less about information and more about things that matter, stating:

“There is no denying that the most prominent uses of computers have to do with information…The computer is an answer to the questions, how can I get more information, faster, and in a more usable form? But now I should like to put some other questions to you that seem to me more reasonable… If you and your spouse are unhappy together, and end your marriage in divorce, will it happen because of a lack of information? If your children misbehave and bring shame to your family, does it happen because of a lack of information? If someone in your family has a mental breakdown, will it happen because of a lack of information?”

In the two decades since Postman posed those questions, the pervasiveness of digital technology expanded, and designers and technologists came to recognize the reality of the information overload Postman described. To help navigate this ever-widening sea of information, many designers are turning to experience or interaction design as new approaches, hailed for their ability to humanize technology. By focusing on the human experience to create things that are: learnable, memorable, efficient, satisfying, poetic, beautiful, and usable, these emerging disciplines are expected to help us solve the problem of managing the constant flow of information around us. Now, we find that things created to facilitate this human-technology dialogue—in other words, interactions—are now everywhere. In short, ‘interaction’ is the new ‘information’. Consider your everyday experience of technological interactions, or take ours as an example: as we write this paper, one of us has 38 internet browser tabs and 14 computer programs currently open, while the other is conducting a one-minute experiment to see how many browser tabs can be opened on a 13-inch laptop; the result is over one hundred. Each of those tabs and programs offers a multiplicity of different interactions, and those are only on one device. We could also look at smartphones for another example; there are over 6000 applications in the productivity category of Apple’s App store—most of them created to help us manage the overwhelming number of interactions in our day-to-day lives.

Today, rather than “informing ourselves to death” (the title of Neil Postman’s 1990 speech), we are now interacting to death. Taking the above quote from Postman and substituting the word ‘interaction’ for ‘information’ yields equally valid questions:

“… If you and your spouse are unhappy together, and end your marriage in divorce, will it happen because of a lack of interaction? If your children misbehave and bring shame to your family, does it happen because of a lack of interaction? If someone in your family has a mental breakdown, will it happen because of a lack of interaction?”

You may see these questions and think, “Yes.” But rather than a lack of any interaction, such interpersonal breakdowns are usually due to a lack of a specific kind of interaction, and may be exasperated by the ubiquitous presence of other, negative kinds of interaction. If interactions are the molecules of experience, and our experiences are as often as not mediated by technology (at least in the culture within which we are writing), we must ask, what kinds of interactions are we facilitating when we create new technologies, and how do we facilitate interactions that don’t lead to breakdowns? What kinds of interactions lead to a life focused on the things that matter?

In an effort to create products, services, and systems that cultivate the right kind of interaction, the field of interaction design has turned to ethnographic methods to gain an understanding—or a “thick description,” as Clifford Geertz terms it—of users’ needs. Ethnographic methods originated in fields such as anthropology and have been modified by designers and “design thinkers,” as Jocelyn Wyatt names the interdisciplinary participants in the resulting collaborative design process. Such processes are developed to empower users by intimately involving them in creating solutions to the problems that affect them. The assumption is that if the people who will be affected by the design are involved in the creative process, they will direct the designer to create the appropriate kind of interaction for their situation.

These methods are not without flaws, though. One problem we see with this approach to design is that it still operates within the same value structure that created the problems it attempts to solve—in our culture, the value structure that believes that helping us manage the flotsam of interactions we find in a sea of information is the most helpful solution. We are not arguing against the use of ethnographic methods in design; these methods are invaluable for bridging the gap of understanding between the designers and the people affected by their designs. However, well-implemented ethnographic methods may just as easily have led to the creation of one of the 6,000 productivity applications available for your iPhone as to the creation of a truly meaningful and necessary design solution.

To create the right kinds of interactions, designers must have a strong understanding of the kind of interaction they are striving for and this understanding must transcend and sometimes trump information gathered using ethnographic methods. In a recently published article, Bruce Nussbaum claimed that, “ethnography is too shallow for what we now need. We need to go much deeper into the historic context and wider into the lateral connections of people in society.” We posit that such a depth of understanding leads to the kind of interactions designer should strive to facilitate—what we call deep interactions.

This concept of a deep interaction is grounded in the recognition that humans are finite beings whose cognitive, emotional, and physical faculties can only be directed towards a limited number of things. The framework for deep interactions is most clearly understood when viewed against what we consider to be shallow interactions. The following are comparative statements chosen to help assist in understanding the nature of a deep interaction:

  • Doing fewer things better. Whereas shallow interactions focus on enabling people to do more things (managing their multiple to-do lists, for example), only so more interactions can take place.
  • Enabling reactive emotionss. Whereas shallow interactions lead to a numbing of emotional reactions, making it difficult for individuals to experience surprise, joy, fear and sadness.
  • Focusing on local. Whereas shallow interactions focus on making infinite global connections, deep interactions focus on knowing and caring about individuals and the environment around you.
  • Encouraging mindfulness. Whereas shallow interactions lead to tasks being performed mindlessly, deep interactions lead to mindfulness of what you are doing.
  • Prioritizing thoroughness. Whereas shallow interactions make speed a priority, deep interactions make thoroughness a priority.

To illustrate how interactions can be viewed with an understanding of deep interactions, we will compare two of Google’s mobile platforms: Google Orange, an SMS application popular in Africa and the Middle East, and Google App for the iPhone.

Google for iPhone
Owners of Google’s iPhone application can access most of the features of Google’s online offerings at close to broadband speed. These include but are not limited to search, Gmail, reader, news, documents, calendars, and maps.

  • Doing fewer things better vs. more things easier
    – No: Gmail allows for multiple email accounts to be added at the same time, and gives notifications when a new email is received, enabling people to manage more and more accounts and relationships. Additionally, calendars allow for the scheduling of a day down to the minute.
    – Yes: Documents allow for the creation of one artifact that can be worked on collaboratively eliminating the need for time spent creating many versions of something.
  • Enabling Reactive Emotions vs. Numbing of Emotions
    – No: Google reader and google news contribute to the information/interaction overload that causes people to be jaded about all that is going on in the world to the point where nothing is surprising and nothing leads to action.
    – Yes: Users have the option to limit what they read through lists and filters.
  • Focusing on Local vs. Global
    – No: GChat treats users that are 3,000 miles away the same as users who are 3 feet away.
    – Yes: Maps allow individuals to navigate their local environment.
  • Encouraging Mindfulness vs. Mindlessness
    – Mindless: Google has a picture search that allows users to take a picture of something and search for it online, running the risk allowing individuals to gain most of their knowledge through visual picture searches.
    – Mindful: Google allows users to turn notifications off allowing them to be in the present.
  • Prioritizing Thoroughness over Speed
    – Thoroughness: Google searches are incredibly thorough.
    – Speed: Google prioritizes things for you in their searches.

Google Orange
Google Orange is a partnership between Google and the French telecom company Orange. It allows SMS phone subscribers in parts of Africa and the Middle East to access Google Services. One of the main features is conducting Google Chat conversations using text messages. Users will be given a certain amount of free text messages per month as an incentive to using this service.

  • Doing fewer things better vs. more things easier:
    – More: More text messages could lead to more individuals and relationships that need attending.
    – Fewer: SMS access to Gmail could allow for better communication in jobs previously unavailable to people without internet access.
  • Enabling Reactive Emotions vs. Numbing of Emotions
    – Numbing: Google news and Gmail could cause users to become jaded about current events.
    – Normal: Users have the option to limit what they read through lists and filters.
  • Focusing on Local vs. Global
    – Global: Google Chat treats users that are 3,000 miles away the same as users who are 3 feet away.
    – Local: Text messages allow for users 1 mile away to easily connect with each other if transportation is not available.
  • Encouraging Mindfulness vs. Mindlessness
    – Mindless: SMS enabled chat often takes a significant amount of time causing users to perpetually have their face buried in their phones.
    – Mindful: Google allows users to turn notifications off allowing individuals to be in the present.
  • Prioritizing Thoroughness over Speed
    – Thoroughness: Google searches are incredibly thorough.
    – Speed: Google prioritizes things for you in their searches.

These two examples illustrate the point that whether a product, service or system will lead to a deep interaction is oftentimes ambiguous. Yet the answer to this question is vital to the world that we continue to create through the experiences that we influence with our technologies. It must be our goal as designers to create things that lead to deep interactions, ultimately leading to positive life- and culture-shaping experiences.


Dewey, John. “In Need of a Theory of Education.” Education and Experience. 1938.

Postman, Neil. “Informing Ourselves to Death.” Speech to the German Informatics
Society. Stuttgart. October 11th, 1990.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. 1978.

Wyatt, Jocelyn and Tim Brown. “Design Thinking for Social Innovation.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2010.

Nussbaum, Bruce. “Want to Know More About Bruce Nussbaum’s Creative Capitalism? Read On.” Fast Co. Design. October 12, 2011.

Technological Multiplicity and the Obscene

(the ‘scene’; Wagner’s Ring Cycle)


Growing advancements, amplification, and social integration with technology have supported increasingly ill-defined and obscure power structures. This departure from clearly defined boundaries and codes of ethics require designers to engage with their subjects by reversing traditional designer-client relationships, taking on the role of the student, and inhabiting their subjects’ cultural frame of reference.

Legitimacy and Clarity of Power:

The growing acceptance and integration of technology has moved power into the hands of more people. This lack of a centralized and unified power in favor of more disseminated forms brings into question the legitimacy of power in general.

Zigmut Bauman argues the transition of power is being made from the ‘scene’ to the ‘obscene’ by the movement towards a less clearly defined and legitimate power. Bauman describes the ‘scene of power’ as as space for the performance and reification of social codes “…where mystery plays and morality tales are repeatedly staged… rehearsing for public consumption the unshakable and eternal truths of the human condition.” Furthermore, the increasing reliance and integration of technology furthers what Jean Baudrillard describes as the ‘obscene’, or ‘loss of scene’, whereby the multiplicity of information lacks the traditional hierarchy of importance. “Obscenity begins precisely when there is no more spectacle, no more scene, when all becomes transparence and immediate visibility, when everything is exposed to the harsh and inexorable light of information and communication” (Baudrillard, 130).

Power struggles tend to be waged as legitimacy wars. In a globalized world where information is hyper-apparent and yet difficult to parse, we are constantly questioning power-relations. Niel Postman delves into the history of power relations, illustrating the clear regard for authority in the Middle Ages. During this period, people “…believed in the authority of their religion, no matter what.” This ‘scene’ of power was clearly defined by the church and the monarchy. While there were certainly many mysteries to life in the Middle Ages, there was consensus in rigid obedience, and never was the structure of power in question. “Having power means that the other side is being forced into obedience. If that force is legitimate, it does not feel like coercion, obedience can be safely expected, and resistance is an exception” (Bauman, 284). Boundaries in this paradigm are clear, and suffering was to be expected and accepted. Postman argues that today we instead believe in the authority of scientific progress. Within this paradigm, the very notion of unquestioning acceptance goes against the fundamentals of the scientific method.

“…the world in which we live is very nearly incomprehensible to most of us.”

This transition towards the obscene can be illustrated through the invention of the microscope. Where once our understandings of boundaries were mitigated by the boundaries of what is visible to the naked eye, the microscope allowed us to peer into the worlds inside worlds, leaving us wondering if we are all not gods of some kind. This advancement in technology marks a significant physical separation that we have undergone by adding an infinite set of invisible layers between our understanding of ourselves. When we made the move away from the singular power structure of the church and an isolated cultural worldview, through advancements such as the microscope or the printing press, we lost a unified moral framework from which we could determine consensus around what was good and evil. “In a world without spiritual or intellectual order, nothing is unbelievable; nothing is predictable, and therefore, nothing comes as a particular surprise” (Postman).

Amplification of Technology – At What Cost?

An element of this dissolving singularity, Postman would argue, is the progression towards infinite expansion rather than for cohesion. Technological proliferation may produce a more efficient culture, but likely not a happier culture as individuals become increasingly socially isolated. Boyd confesses having a hunch that the “…stream of social information gives people a fake sense of intimacy.” Furthermore, Evans states that the proliferation and dependence on technology “further de-contextualizes human experience by emphasizing information over understanding”. This power allows us the freedom, but at the risk of losing the strength of physical interpersonal relationships, memory, and nuanced social cues. Postman points out that technological advancement is “always a Faustian bargain: Technolgy giveth and technology taketh away, and not always in equal measure”. As designers and entrepreneurs, we must take on a more dynamic and dialectic response to negotiating the technological boundaries that are in constant flux.

Democracy Must be Dynamic and Dialectic.

Democracy must take on a dynamic and dialectic mode of representation if it hopes to maintain the perception of legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The Supreme Court is mandated to interpret the Constitution relevant to modern context. If the people are to believe that their elected officials have their vested interests in mind, they must have trust that there is a certain public armature that is willing to support their interests. More importantly, the perception must be that this power is flowing primarily in one direction; from the people towards the representatives. However, our perception of this flow of power is increasingly in constant upheaval, teetering on the edge of legitimacy, and therefore very often constituting the ‘obscene’. For privacy to function in this a democracy the representative, or armature of the people must be dynamic in understanding a multiplicity of ways in which people now interact socially and technologically. Dourish suggests that “privacy regulation is a dynamic, dialectic, negotiated affair. Technology itself does not directly support or interfere with personal privacy; rather it destabilizes the delicate and complex web of regulatory practices.” What results should be a balancing act, not a set of rules that are to be applied across the board. We must engage in the dynamic process according to our modern context; “when there is a definitive; there’s always an exception to the definitive that makes sense” (Dourish)

What This Means for the Role of the Designer?

As designers and policy-makers we must contextually understand these changing boundaries from multiple perspectives, and in an ever-changing way. “‘Ours are times of transition’ means: the old structures are falling apart or dismantled, while no alternative structures of equal institutional hold are about to be put in their place. It is as if the moulds in which human relationships had been poured to acquire shape have now been thrown, themselves, into a melting pot” (Bauman, 284). Without these traditional moulds, the patterns and boundaries of relationships “become as suspicious as they are uncertain and vulnerable, “open to becoming “endlessly disaggregated, remixed and redistributed” like nodes.

Postmodern psychology has proposed that there is no ego, that we’re made up of a multiplicity of elements. In fact, “This fluid multiplicity of personality is what gives us our flexibility and resilience” (Evans). The more boundaries we uncover, the more ‘Rococo’, obscene, or ill-defined our integration with technology becomes, the more we must rely on both the micro and the macro perspectives. Because our awareness has expanded to include many divergent cultures and value systems at once, we must keep an eye on a peripheral view by considering sustainability, the true value of resources, and the meaning of scale in everything we design. However, for maximal beneficial social impact, we must first consider the context in which we are working at the most local level. This flies in the face of traditional modes of thought around “creative genius” and “visionary thinking”. While there will always be acceptance of autocratic design as part of the traditional methods of top-down economic business models, these types of methods will never engage in supporting or empowering financially, geographically, or socially outlying communities. Despite thinking the recent perception that access to choice leads to better quality of life, this is essentially the myth of democracy; that ‘free markets’ and more options do anything but strengthen the passive role of the consumer. Evans states that “we are given the illusion of liberty, but that is simply the freedom to choose between brands of mass-produced products.” While the freedom to participate in choices within the dominant globalized value system is not necessarily a bad thing, it’s dangerous to presume that it’s an empowering act. As designers we can do a better job of understanding the unique cultural frameworks of clients, reversing the traditional model of student-teacher towards a student-co-creator relationship.


The ‘obscene’; Waaaaaaat?


by Cheyenne and Ben  :-)


Wireframing DinnerShare!

Our recent endeavors have been to prototype our first iterations of a mobile app for our business ideas, and run three people through the wireframes. These poor individuals were then tasked with rating their experience based on ease of use. I probably confused the heck out of a few people, but here’s what resulted from the third and final user test…

And here are my wireframes!


Quick & Dirty Business Model, Pitching and Prototyping

The Task, Part 1: Looking at the findings from our initial stage of research, pinpoint a problem area and develop a business idea that solves it. Ben and I had visited and observed local CSA farmers at work for our research, and one problem that had come up was the difficulty of recruiting new CSA members, due to the barriers people perceive around cooking with CSA produce – not knowing how to cook and otherwise use up all those vegetables every week.

My Solution: Community Cooks, a CSA-based cooking school in which the weekly classes are focused around the produce in that week’s CSA box. People signing up for a CSA could add on cooking classes with their subscription (either a full session to match the length of their subscription or a short session for the first month of their subscription), and people interested in trying a CSA could also try out the cooking classes by paying a drop-in price. The instructors would be recruited from the more-experienced cooks among the CSA membership, and would be paid per class taught. Check it out in more detail in the PDFs below:

Community Cooks pitch (PDF)

Community Cooks business model canvas (PDF)

The Task, Part 2: In class last week, we had a surprise trip to the farmer’s market to test our our pitches on real people. We went around the market in pairs and threes, approaching people and asking them to judge our pitches. Over the course of the morning we got a lot of practice with on-the-spot presentation skills, and learned mighty quickly to cut to the chase and be clear and concise and on-topic (although that is still easier said than done). Watch one of my pitches below:

The Task, Part 3: Our follow-up homework this week was to adapt/develop our business idea into a mobile app, create a digital prototype, and test it on at least 3 people. After a lot of rough sketches on paper, talking it through, and scribbling some more, I settled on an adaptation of the original Community Cooks idea to fit the context of a mobile app. Instead of cooking lessons, the app facilitates finding and sharing recipes based on local food. It has a focus on products and produce from local farms, which the farmers can update when things are harvested. When it came to digitizing the prototype and getting into the more formal testing style, I had a chance to refine the features based on each person’s feedback and reactions to the app. See a video of the latest test, and check out the full PDF prototype below:

Community Cooks app prototype (PDF)

Some thoughts on the process thus far:

1) Ideas are fun. Business ideas are hard. It’s one thing to come up with the grain of an idea as a potential solution to a problem, it’s another thing to flesh it out into a business idea, and it is a whole ‘nother thing to actually consider it in terms of viability and think about things like costs and revenue, distribution, and resources. My eyes actually glazed over a bit just typing that sentence. These are not things I’ve every really turned my mind to before, and it has been ridiculously intimidating and challenging trying to get my head around even approaching this kind of thinking. At the beginning of this quarter I posted about how I was setting out to embrace the idea of entrepreneurship, but embracing the actual gritty, grimy details of it is going to be the real challenge for me.

2) Ideas are fun. Talking about ideas is hard. Short and sweet still doesn’t come easily for me, and will take a lot of practice, rethinking, and revising, over and over and over.

3) Ideas are fun. Sketching ideas is fun, too. Stopping myself from going too high-fidelity, too fast (like, the second I touch a computer) is hard. I think I missed a lot of opportunity for feedback on the barebones idea of my app because people looked at the design-y rendering and got caught up in the details of layout and wording instead of considering the worth and usability of the actual functions themselves.

Onwards and upwards from here, I suppose.

Prototyping Everyday Chef

This week’s assignment was to create a prototype of a mobile application for our business/service that we developed two weeks ago. We created this prototype using rough sketchs called wireframes that would illustrate the basic features and functionality of each screen.

For those not following this blog religiously, last week we were given the task of coming up with a business idea based on research we had conducted thus far at farmer’s markets and other food related sites. We then competed against one another  in a business pitch battle where we talked about our ideas with random people at the Farmer’s Market and had them select the business they would put their money on. I lost.

To quickly summarize my business idea, I would like to create a platform that allows people to sell and share food with their friends and neighbors. Users will create profiles that identify what they can cook, and then post meals or foods they would like to share or sell to individuals in their network. This network can either be anyone living nearby  or just friends. People that are hungry and don’t want to cook can use this platform to see what food/meals are available and buy or share them.

In my preliminary prototype sketches, I started mapping out what a user profile screens would look like. I quickly realized the first thing I had to do was create a series of login screens that would get users set up in within the network. This proved to be harder than I initially thought.

To test the prototype I asked three random people to walk though my sketches then grade me on the following questions, “How easy was it to use?” “How intuitive was it to use?” “How informed to you feel about the purpose of the app” and “What would you change?”

The two key takeaways were: easy and intuitive are pretty much the same thing and less is more. During the login sequence, the feedback I was consistently given was to pair down the information required of the user and leave the majority of personal preferences to be set once a user had already created their profile.

Below is a video of my final user test.

For a PDF of all prototype screens click here: Everyday Chef Prototpye



Fresh Finds prototyping

Last week we took a first swing at pitching a business, this week was a lesson in prototyping that idea through the medium of a mobile application. It was an attempt to communicate key flows through low fidelity wireframe sketches. After four iterations of the app, I discovered that I was far from done. But for now, here is my progress:

A video walkthrough, guest starring Jason Weimer with Lindy Krakowiak behind the camera.

The digital prototype walkthrough in powerpoint. Fresh Finds digital prototype

Fun with Guerrilla User Testing

This week I searched all over Austin for people to test the user interface of my smartphone app, Leafy Compass. I had them navigate through sketches of the app to perform the following functions: search for local fruit, input their shopping list, and take a photo of a local fruit. Then I had them state the number of problems they encountered with the app. I interviewed seven different people and adjusted the sketches according to the feedback I received. Here is a video of the final test (with the technical issues that my laptop experienced edited out):

The user testing went fairly smoothly but there is lots of room for improvement. In my next user tests I would make the following changes:

  • I would stop leading the subject and not give them any confirmation before they have made a decision
  • I would create a more specific set of criteria for them to review my app than “how many issues did you have?”
  • I should triple-check my laptop for potential technical issues

Fresh Find. Coming to an iPhone near you?

The challenge? Create a business plan and pitch it – in a week. After spending the last month researching and visiting Austin farms and farmer markets, I started with high aspirations of solving big problems for local agricultural. As I vetted those lofty ideas, from solar field installations to organizing and training a coalition of volunteers, I found it necessary to reduce my idea to a smaller scale. My first business creation avoided being ‘bigger, better, and faster’, and focused on being simple.

Fresh Find is a mobile application that uses an interactive map (think Google maps) and pulls information from a national database to generate local results for farm markets, farm stands, U-pick farms, orchards, vineyards, and ranches in relation to your current location. Besides providing turn-by-turn directions and contact information for your chosen market, it lists seasonal produce offered. This application allows people to easily locate markets with less driving time, whether at home or while traveling, while also reducing food miles traveled. It encourages consumption of nutritionally viable foods and fosters less waste than generated by CSA boxes. Most importantly, it is a passive marketing service for small farms.

I was prepared to pitch my business using PowerPoint, which is presented in this link: Fresh Find. I was surprised though to walk into class to find we would be pitching to random strangers at the local farm market. I quickly forgot the fine print from the notes section in my PowerPoint during my first delivery, but recalled and relied on the concepts I generated from my business model canvas. I found the Business Model Generation’s app for iPad not just a tool to have fun with electronic post-it notes, but a wonderful resource and financial reality check.

Business Pitches at the Farmer's Market

This week’s assignment for our studio class was to come up with a business model based on research we have done thus far. To test our ideas we went to the Farmer’s Market and had a business pitch competition.

6 students, 9 pitches, one winner.

Congratulations to a Ms. Jamie Karakowiak, next time you’re going down!

PowerPoint presentation of my idea is below.


Pitching an Alternative Busines Model

We’ve spent the last week coming up with our first swing at social entrepreneurship; a business!

Dinner Share

Slow Food for Fast People!
People love to cook and they love to share meals.
This concept builds online identities and reputations through the real world connections we make around food.

Here’s my Business Model Canvas which charts the key areas of the Dinner Share business model.

And here’s my Power Point Presentation.