Hey everyone, we've just approached the hours. I'd like to show you what UX research we've been up to recently. So earlier this week, we concluded some testing on the merge request page. We decided to work on the merge request page following a comment on Hacker News, which mentioned that GitLab feels extremely crowded and has a general lack of polish and Annabelle in the front-end team pointed out that the merge request page felt particularly overcrowded. So the length of a merge request description varies from one merge request to another. There's very little consistency. So subsequently this causes the merge request widget and the discussion commits pipelines and changes tabs to move around on the page. And it's a very frustrating experience like scrolling up and down trying to locate these elements. So Dimitri started working on the design to improve the merge request page and there were four main changes we wanted to test with users. So they were displaying the contents of the merge request widget inside of a tab. So the widget would no longer exist on the page. Making this tab open by default when somebody views a merge request. So just to remind everyone, the discussion tab is currently open by default at the moment. The branch name was redesigned and given a different visual style. So with the assumption that it would be easier to locate. And finally, longer descriptions were now truncated. So users could still expand and reveal this description if they wanted to. But it meant the tabs would always be in a fixed location regardless of the length of the merge request description. So as we wanted to know whether the changes we were proposing to make were an improvement to the existing experience, we also needed to take a baseline measurement of the existing experience. So that just means we wanted to be able to basically quantify how much of an improvement that we've made and equally so if the changes weren't an improvement, we wanted to know how far away we were from achieving a better experience. So this requires two prototypes. So one of the proposed new design and one of our existing merge request page. Now, you might be wondering why we mocked up a prototype of the existing experience. It seems quite a strange thing to do, but it's important that when users are comparing two designs that the testing environments feel the same. So there's a possibility that we could skew users opinions by showing them the existing experience live on GitLab. So because that would obviously feel more complete and whole to a user than a prototype would. So Dmitri built two prototypes for testing prototype pay, which was the current merge request page and prototype B, which contain the proposed changes. We tested with the 11 users to split with six GitLab users who are familiar with merge requests and CI and five non-GitLab users, but who are familiar with merge requests in a competitor's tool, such as GitHub or Bitbucket. And we designed tasks that deliberately moved users around the merge request page and which forced them to scroll and to try and locate the tabs and so on. Now, we couldn't ask users to complete the same set of tasks on both prototypes because obviously after interacting with one prototype, they start becoming used to where they might find things on the page. And that increases the likelihood of them completing tasks on the second prototype much quicker and that skews the data we're collecting. So what we actually did was give them one of the prototypes to complete the task on first, and then we show them the second prototype and then just let them freely explore it and ask them things like what they thought the differences were and which they preferred. For each task recorded, whether they were able to successfully complete it. And we also track quantitative metrics such as how long it took them to complete the task and how easy it was to find what they were looking for. So we let them rate each task out of five. And from there, we were able to work out an average satisfaction score and time for each of the prototypes. Now, there's a very famous saying in UX research and that is you need to watch what users do, not just what they say. So the majority of our users told us they preferred prototype B, which was the design that had the post changes to the existing page. However, sometimes users actions and the quantitative data we captured didn't actually support that. So as I mentioned earlier, we had four changes that we wanted to test. So we had to design the research in a way that if prototype B didn't do well in testing, we could understand why. So was it one change or was it a combination of two or three of the changes? So I'll quickly run through the results for each of the changes. The branch name tested really well. It had a higher success rate and satisfaction score. And users were also much faster to locate the branch details on prototype B. So they were over twice as quick as prototype A. So that tells us that the branch name could be safely implemented. The description expansions, there was a bit of a split in user opinion. And generally, this seemed related to the type of workflow a user had. So users who work at pace, opening and closing merge requests within a few days wanted the description to be truncated. And that's because they have a good idea about what the merge request was about. And they didn't typically need to reread the description. And users who reviewed merge requests, which span maybe weeks or even months, especially those in a research field, wanted the full merge request description visible at all times, as they would often refer to it when revisiting the merge requests. So manually, like having to expand the description every time they revisit that merge request is really obstructed to their workflow. So in summary, we have a difference in opinion depending upon a user's workflow. So we might want to think a bit more carefully about what we could do about this before we go ahead and implement this change. The merge request status tab open as default didn't work well at all. Before we showed users either of the prototypes, we actually asked them what information they would look for first when reviewing a merge request. And the top answer was diffs, as users want to understand what changes have been made to the merge requests. I also compared how many users stated items that could be found within the merge status tab compared to the discussion tab. And the discussion tab was more popular since users wanted to know what comments, if any, have been made by their colleagues, whilst they've not been looking at the merge request. In addition to this, we also saw users who are used to GitLab's existing experience accidentally visit the merge status tab when trying to view discussions which caused some frustration. And we also witnessed users change to the discussion tab and then fail to switch back to the merge status tab. So they subsequently failed later tasks in the testing. And it was almost as if they'd forgot about the new tabs' existence as their view by now having the discussion tab open mimics the existing experience. So the users who did, and it was only one or two users that did prefer the merge status tab open as default, were typically working solo. So they were working on like hobby projects or they were in a very small team. And therefore they didn't actually utilize the discussion tab. There was one user in particular who said, my team all works in the same office and we work very closely together. So we don't tend to have discussions because we can just turn and tap each other on the shoulder. So hence their preference for the merge status tab to be default instead. So in summary, there were some users that were just so used to the existing order of the tabs that they weren't able to switch their mental mode during the testing. So we know that if we rolled out this change that it would take users a while to get used to it and it could cause some frustration to users who typically view the discussion tab immediately. Now, the merge status tab itself, well, despite users preferring prototype B, I personally feel it needs a bit more work. And now this is truly my personal opinion. Derita is on vacation at the moment, so we've not had a chance to catch up. So I was just speaking on my own behalf here. I'm really pleased that we did test the new tab as I feel it's given us a lot of insight that perhaps we wouldn't have got from the just testing the existing experience, but to quickly summarize why I feel the tab needs more work. The first thing is that it took users twice as long to locate the merge CTA on prototype B, and both the success and satisfaction rates were slightly lower than prototype A as well. And we saw a lot of users and this is probably just over half of all users looking for the merge CTA near the comment box within the discussion tab. And the reason for this is because it's where it's located on GitHub. So users are bringing a common mental pattern from a competitor tool into our own tool. Now, I don't believe we should copy everything our competitors do, but when many users instinctively follow a path to find something, it does raise the question of whether we should have a similar implementation. And secondly, no users look for the issue number within the widget or the new merge status tab during testing. They found it actually in the description. Yet multiple users said it was really important to them that the issue number was visible at all times and easy to find. So obviously based on what we witnessed during testing, that's going to depend on how well someone has written and structured their merge request description. If users instinct is not to look within the widget or the new merge status tab, there's still a risk that the issue number could become lost. So should the issue number reside outside of the widget or tab as its own element on the page? The iconography using the merge status tab didn't make any sense to users. They prefer to actually click into the merge status or the pipelines tab to try and get a better understanding of what was going on. Therefore, do we need these icons? And finally, while users were quicker on prototype B to spot the status of the merge request, they were more likely to provide a more detailed status answer. So like referencing things like unresolved discussions or the pipeline status on prototype A. And is this because the information was available to them immediately? In some cases, users had already changed tabs by this test. Therefore, they would need to make an additional click back into the merge status tab to provide a more comprehensive answer. So the next step is to answer all these questions as a team. The likelihood is we will iterate on the design and put it back in front of users to test. We also discovered additional problems with the merge request page, which are actually unrelated to the changes that we were testing. I'm not going to discuss them today because there's far too many, but if you would like to read what they are, they are listed within issue 21 of the UX Research Project. So we also need to decide as a team how we'll address those problems as well. So what else is going on at the moment? Well, the navigation has gone live. I know Sarah mentioned it yesterday on the team call. We have an issue that is capturing feedback, and we've asked users to answer a few questions when they're providing us with feedback. It's very easy for people to look at something and say they don't like it. We want them to be more self-aware than that, and at least attempts to understand why they don't like something and then share that with us. That gives us more constructive feedback to work with. And tomorrow, next week, I'm actually speaking with more users. So I mentioned in my last update that I was going to look into notifications and dashboards. After reading through issues for these topics, I realised that some of the questions in the issues were actually broader in scope and related to user workflows. So notifications and dashboards will still be my primary focus as the research, but I've also asked users to share what their workflow is with me. So what does a typical day look like for them and how does it fit into their workflow? Speaking to a broad range of users, we've got some C&E customers. We've got developers, system admins, product owners, and we've got a mixture of small and large teams as well. So I'm really looking forward to kind of understanding the differences and the similarities and hopefully you can share those with you in my next update. Does anyone have any questions? I can just see Annabelle's question. Have you considered a prototype with both the merge status and the description are included in the discussion tab? I think it's been talked about before, but that is not what we kind of tested. But yeah, possibly that could be a good idea based on the results that we've got. We've made two sets of users very happy. Was there a correlation between prototype preference and being an existing GitLab user from Chris? No. It was kind of a mix. The interesting thing that I did find was that there was two non-users at GitLab who looked up both prototypes and went, I don't really see any differences between them. So it kind of shows that I suppose they were quite subtle differences to non-users, and therefore they didn't really have a preference. I think again, like I mentioned, it really depended on the kind of team that they were working in and what their kind of workflow was as to whether they preferred a certain prototype more. And this is why I think the research that is upcoming tomorrow and next week is really important because it'll give a bit more evidence to the kind of research that we've been doing where we've kind of got bits where we know it's different, but we can go a bit more in depth with it. Have we done tests and whether people care about real time? Well, someone actually did mention real time during the testing. They wanted the widget to be real time. But other than that, they haven't really had much update on that. But I think that will come in the next round of testing because we're going to be asking about notifications. So we'll be asking people like whether they used to do and also just generally, whether they like, for example, get my emails to tell them about events that are happening or whether they prefer to work through to-dos and how they kind of manage them, but also the kind of other tools that they perhaps integrated would get lab and mean. For example, chat clients like Slack, do they get notifications for them? Are they real time notifications or do they find it distracting? So we'll kind of get a better sense of that in the next wave of testing and that's something I can definitely get some answers on. Anybody else? When users talk about the merge request page being crowded, do we know which workflow they tend to use and which areas of the page matter most? We know bits from this kind of wave of testing. Some users during the testing, by all means go and listen to the videos, will give you an idea of how they actually use that page within a team setting and the kind of test they perform versus perhaps what their teammates perform on that page. I think, again, it's kind of, it needs more research into, I feel like we do a lot of workflow of things in isolation. So the merge request page is still a singular page, I suppose. Whereas what I'm hoping in the next wave of research, it will be literally everything from the start of some Wednesday to the end of some Wednesday rather than just something in isolation. So I don't know if that answers the question really, but I think that's it. So thank you very much, everyone. Enjoy the rest of your day.


Hi everyone, Shawn with jaspyscasebreaks.com here doing 2013-2014 Panini Timeless Treasures basketball two box break, two random teams each, number five, looking for Yanis Rookies. So 2013-2014 Timeless Treasures two box break, random team edition 15 spots, everyone gets two random teams MBA and some details about the boxes, two autographs from one mem card, one common, one insert per box. These are our last two boxes from this case. Here is the list of customers from Michael Picora down to Michael Schwartz with Last Spot Mojo and the teams from the Hawks down to the Wizards. Since every spot gets you two teams, we need to double up this list. So there's Michael Schwartz, Last Spot Mojo times one and two. So Diceworld randomized both lists and pair them up a one-on-one snake eyes two times. So one, two, from Nathan down to Robert and two times on the teams, one and two. From Washington down to the Clippers, there you go. So you can see two times on the teams, two times on the customers, two times on the dice. So let's make this large enough for everybody to see.  So there is the teams, the results. Trade window is open. We'll give it about a minute on the trades, a minute and a half. Trade window is open. Okay, if there's no talks of trades, then we'll give another 15 seconds or so. Okay, trade window going once, twice. Three times, trade window closed. And here are those last two boxes we talked about. You can see they're all striped on there to show that they're all from the same case. It's not like we really have too many 13-14 boxes just laying around. Cool if we did that. There is the final list. Yeah, there was a lot of moving parts through this year, you know, at the time.  You know, the injuries and stuff, play a role in that stuff and just, you know, fighting to get the guy back. Eight left, Rex says? I did. I did, I did. Three. And then zero. We were playing basketball, the last 12 games of the season. I know tonight wasn't the way that we wanted it to go, but I did. You got Karim Abdul-Jabbar for the Lakers. 1986, 1987 Lakers. That is Aaron Schokie, non-number. You got Ray Allen to 299 for the Miami Heat, Scott Blackwell. Grant Hill Phoenix Suns Relic that is Robert Flores oh yeah and we got Shane Larkin nice three-color patch there 29 out of 49 for the Dallas Mavericks Robert Flores I want to say Shane Larkin is is relation to Barry correct did he go to Louisville I want to say he was in the NCAA tournament with a team that's red and we got Eddie Johnson validating marks 80 out of 99 also for the Phoenix Suns and Robert Flores oh no I was happy I was happy guys why would that make me sad love you some great circumstances of everything and box number two we got Dennis Rodman in the 88 89 Pistons bad boys that is Michael Piquara Tristan Thompson the 299 for the Cavaliers Michael Schwartz and Kobe Bryant Relic for the Lakers Aaron Schokey and our auto first auto is Tony Mitchell rookie for the Detroit Pistons and Michael Piquara and our final auto the break is Earl Clark validating marks for the Cavaliers 23 out of 99 Cleveland Cavaliers is Michael Schwartz our Yanis hunting came up a little bit short but there you go guys thank you very much that was 2013 2014 Penini timeless treasures basketball two box break random team number five from jaspyscasebreaks.com I'm Sean jaspys case breaks calm thanks for hanging out we'll see you next time


What's up everybody, I'm the Mangus, you are awesome and welcome to my first ever predecessor Top 5 Plays. I pulled 5 clips from various streams for this one. If you enjoyed the gameplay, I'll have their Twitch channels linked below so you can go drop them a follow. If you have your own play that you'd like to see featured, please use the provided submission form. The quality is only 720 due to pulling these from Twitch, so I do apologize for that but the plays are still awesome. I'll post a poll in my channel so you guys can vote for which play you liked best. At number 5 we have the Colorado in a situation I think we've all been in.  He pops a squat, he takes the shot and it's good! And that was a bit of a nose-cope there, he goes nuts, his dogs go nuts, nice lead on that shot. Number 4 we have Mud playing Gideon, she's rotating over for this teamfight, there's a low health severog, she's going to try and come in and see what she can do, teleports over the top, channels the black hole, they're taking a serious amount of damage, isn't it going to be enough? No, but the fade away jump shot, the cosmic rip, seals the deal for a double kill, very nicely done. Number 3 is Smashley playing Sparrow, eliminates that Chimera, now she's looking to see if she can pick up any more kills, the enemy sparrow is going to try and walk right beside her, huge mistake, severog pops her up, boom, smashes her like a clay pigeon, that's supposed to be a sparrow but she was a pigeon. The best part about it is she yells pull just before she takes the shot. At number 2 is Evan Almighty playing severog, severog is trying to rotate over but she gets subjugated and now she's getting batted around all over the place, severog's just swinging away with that hammer, takes her down, big teamfight in the fangtooth pit, severog throws down another subjugate, lands on two people, does some serious damage too, takes out the Narbash, now he's going to focus on Gideon, the big old hammer takes him out, Mardak you gotta get out of there buddy, this severog is a beast but he doesn't, he dies, another subjugate lands on Chimera, Chimera is a big trouble here, definitely not making it out, the soul siphon lands for a severog pentakill.


This is Chris Pipe. My friend's coming, Banksy. I'm back again guys. Today we're talking Freedom Online. That's right guys. The website we've created that is dedicated to Promoting freedom partners and freedom partner content. That's it. That's its only job And it's going great. In fact, we just broke the 15,000 view barrier And if you keep in mind that the website's only been up like 14 days, that's pretty good numbers Not only that guys, those 15,000 views are all freedom partners. That's it That's the only people that get on the website So we've gotten our partners a lot of views. With that in mind, we are taking it to the next level. Up until now We've sort of been working out a strategy and up until recently We've been kind of focusing on just promoting the various different content and videos that have been submitted to us from freedom partners and putting them in the various Categories and things like that and trying to get some views. It's been working great But we're going to be adding to that strategy. Now on top of that We're going to be asking freedom partners and it's purely voluntary. It's up to you But we're going to be asking for specific content And if you're a video maker that does that covers these topics or wants to cover these topics Guess what? We got a space for you on the website. So here we go guys. Like I said, it is voluntary It's purely optional But what we're trying to do and I'll give you an insight as the strategy here is we're trying to create a Big big website that's going to kind of compete with the big guys like IGN and the game spots of the world those types of websites and Basically rather than relying on editor content and you know professional content and ad buys We're instead going to work with our freedom partners and use your content And you guys can use our website and we'll try and grow and work together like a family like George always says So preamble aside here is some of the content We're looking for this week do note that we will give it some priority status because we want to get this up So here we go topic one. All right guys the first topic is bloodborne We talked about it a few days ago and it's still in the news and it's still a big deal guys We've posted I think 15 or 20 freedom partners and we've got long let's play versions We've got like nine episodes or 11 episodes in one of them and it's going really really good But we want to get some specific things and I know a lot of you guys bought this game And a lot of you guys probably want to talk about it So what we're looking for are two things although if you have other ideas, of course send them in send me a link email me Whatever, but the first two things that we're looking for is a beginner's guide So for those of you guys that have played your way through it and you've worked out the kinks And you probably died a million times, but you know If you were starting out again, you'd be like hey, I would have done this differently or here's what I think you should know Well, we want that guy and if there's multiple people that want to write that guy guess what we'll come by them That's cool. But here's the thing we want the beginners guide if you do that You're willing to write the guide and you've got videos to accompany it get in contact with me We want that we will feature it on the website. The second thing we're looking for our boss kills There are a number of bosses in bloodborne and we want guides tips how to's on all the different bosses Not only do we want the videos of it Which is what we all kind of do here But we want an accompanying article or how to or step-by-step kind of thing to go with it So if these are things that you are doing or you have done or you are interested in doing Please email me in the link below. All right guys. Let's get on the topic number two. All right guys topic number two is halo five Yeah, guys two big trailers launched today or yesterday. I can't remember and we got a tentative I think it's tentative although it might be set in stone, but an October 27th release date for halo five hell Yes, that's got a lot of halo fans Going nuts the game is not gold But we've got a pretty good idea when it's coming great. We need content I don't know what it's going to be if it's a preview if it's a trailer analysis Maybe you guys are thinking you could walk. There's two different trailers.  We'll call him that we got the yeah We've got you know, maybe you want to do a comparison between the two videos, right? There's two trailers Compare the two. I don't know what you do But I do know that if you add commentary to Trailers for example that it does fall under fair use and you can go ahead and do that So for all you halo fans, we are accepting halo five content surprise me Let me know what you got in mind if you want to do an article you want to do some videos Email me. We're looking for that stuff. All right topic number three All right guys the third topic is pillars of eternity pillars of eternity is out. It is getting amazing Reviews, it's nine nine point ones. It's I think it's averaging over 90 on Metacritic and we are looking for things. We need reviews. We need we need tutorials We need game guides if you do this type of stuff for pillars of eternity And I'm even considering doing it because I was hard-core into the boulders gate RPG style infinity engine What's up retro ten years ago? But hell yeah, if you're covering this game, we need some content Please send us a link send us a video write some articles We want to feature that on the front page of freedom online So if you're covering it do it guys these are some of the things we're looking for today I'll have more for you tomorrow. We're gonna be got a whole bunch of other things I want to get but let's get this out of the way guys Please please send me the link send me an email submit through the freedom online submission form and let's do this This is your boy Bixie check it out be back soon


Well, thank you, Allie, for the invitation to come and speak to you all here today. I will try to get through this. I've never spoken for 10 minutes, as short as 10 minutes in my life, so let me move right ahead. Research data management, obviously something I think everyone here at BIDS is very familiar with. It's a very large and complex task. I think you as researchers find it, you know, that there's increasing numbers of new requirements that are coming at you, so not only do you have to do your actual primary research activities, but there are a host of new requirements that are coming from funders, from publishers, from our academic institutions, and from the evolving norms of scholarly best practice. All have to do with various types of, really almost administrative types of activities aside from your primary research. What makes this even more difficult, I think, is that these whole host of new activities should not be seen as sort of single point in time things. Instead, they very properly have to be considered across the entire life cycle of research data management. And that is something that falls under our purview at the CDL and the UC Creation Center. For those who may not really be familiar with us, the California Digital Library is a centralized service unit. Administratively, it is attached to the office of the system-wide president, President Napolitano. And although we still have library in our name, we consider our stakeholder community to be the entire UC community, not just the libraries, although, of course, we have very, very strong relationships with the library. At the CDL, the UC Creation Center unit I'm affiliated with, as well as my colleague, Stephanie Sims. This is the unit that deals with solutions surrounding the long-term viability and utility of managed digital assets of all sorts, certainly including research data. As such, we are currently deploying a set of suite of services that span the full research life cycle. We don't quite deal with each of those aid areas quite yet, but as you'll see, we actually have services associated with the majority of these activities that I'll go through very, very quickly, much too quickly, I'm afraid. To begin with, we think sort of the foundational activity in all of this is comprehensive planning. And we think this is really of paramount importance because it is always better to be proactive rather than reactive with respect to the management of any type of intellectual asset. And we also think that it is much better that important decisions are made explicitly and deliberately rather than tacitly or in an ad hoc fashion. To that end, we have a service called the DMP tool, the data management planning tool, that is basically an online wizard that will allow you to construct a comprehensive data management plan. And in particular, it is configured with templates for, I think, 29 public and private funding agencies, all of whom have slightly different requirements with regard to what a data management plan should be. Beyond that sort of upfront planning, another foundational data management activity is collection, that is moving a particular digital asset into a managed environment. We think this is very important because while it is certainly possible that collected content may still be susceptible to some future risk or failure, it is almost a certainty that it would be susceptible to that risk if it is never collected at all. So the most important thing is to be able to transfer your data into an appropriate environment. In order for that to happen, it's really important that the mechanism for that transfer is as easy as possible, as flexible as possible, that there be as open eligibility as possible, and that as many of the messy technical details involved in that can be sort of hidden from view. Our platform for doing this is called Dash, and although it gives the appearance of being a full-fledged repository in itself, it actually isn't. It is really just a set of user-facing interfaces that have been optimized for use by individual scholars and researchers, such as yourselves. Currently, it is sitting on top of our merit curation repository. I'll be talking about that in a moment, but we actually have work underway that will make the Dash platform applicable to any standards-compliant repository. Once things are collected, it is very important that they get associated with scientifically meaningful description or metadata, as well as some form of a persistent identifier that can unambiguously identify a dataset and can be used for its retrieval. Dash provides both of these functions for scientific description. We allow the opportunity to supply description in terms of the data site metadata schema, which is a fairly general schema for describing scientific assets of all sorts, both in terms of textural description as well as geospatial description for a large body of materials for which that's appropriate. Dash also will automatically assign a DOI identifier to all datasets that are transferred through it. The DOI is sort of the gold standard for identifiers for purposes of long-term identification and retrieval. There are lots of options now available for preservation or what might be termed the long-term hosting of digital materials, but in making a selection, we think it is really important that you understand that that preservation requires both a technical as well as an organizational answer, and that you select your organization very carefully. We think it is very important that we are able to give you tools that will allow you to maintain control over your research outputs and not just hand them over to other possibly commercial interests or other types of organizations that don't necessarily share our same mission with regard to long-term stewardship and open data principles. So as mentioned, our main curation repository, which provides functions for both preservation and access of digital materials of all sorts, is called Merit. It's been in operation now for about eight or nine years, I suppose. We have about closing in on about 40 terabytes of materials, which sounds large, but it's actually still fairly modest. However, if you look at the growth curves, they're ominously exponential. So Merit is the repository that actually sits underneath the Dash platform, and it also functions as a member node on the NSF-funded Data One data grid network for additional replication of the materials. For purposes of discovery, you can actually use Merit as its own built-in native mechanisms for doing that, but we think it is actually simpler to use the Dash interfaces, which again have been optimized for individual use. It offers a very comprehensive set of faceted search and browse. You can do both textual search as well as geospatial search if the descriptive metadata includes those types of data elements. Now, once data is retrieved and reused, it becomes very important for data owners to try to get some sense of what impact their data is actually having. And with that in mind, we're collaborating with the Data One network as well as PLOS, the Public Library of Science, on a research project called Making Data Count, which is trying to develop what we're calling a data level metrics platform. Essentially, we want to be able to quantify the use and impact of data in a way that's very similar to what we've always traditionally done with the scholarly literature. Oops, I think I missed some there. All of this is a big job. It's a hard-work job, and it's something that we don't try to do by ourselves. In fact, we always try to look for partners. We're always open to interesting collaborations, and we certainly have a very long-standing relationship here on the Berkeley campus with both the Berkeley Library as well as with Central IT, particularly in its research IT initiatives, such as the Venue Joint RDM program that I know is going to be rolling out some new services of their own, I believe next Monday, I think it is. We were also been involved with the Research Data Alliance organization from its inception. We've been an original partner on the NSF-funded Data One project, both in its initial five-year phase as well as its current five-year phase. We were a founding member of the Data Site Consortium, which is a provider of DOIs for data sets. That was a real whirlwind tour. I will just leave you with a few key thoughts. One is, again, to emphasize this notion that research data management is only going to be efficient and effective if it is understood in the context of a larger scholarly life cycle. We think it is important for you in thinking about these things to look on all of your research outputs and certainly your research data as composing a very important part of your intellectual legacy. Hopefully, that will become an enduring legacy, which means you need to look for a set of comprehensive solutions. Luckily, there are some, which we've given you a real glimpse at here. There are certainly many others. As well as solutions, there are also many partners, which, again, I think is a large part of what BIDs was created to do to enable these types of partnerships. We at the CDO and the UC Creation Center certainly stand ready to work with you in partnership for these data management activities. Thank you.