More on Design

Re: More on Design

Clint Searl

I think your comments go far in expressing the meaning of design. I'd only add that design for the individual craftsman also includes personal skills and tooling available to achieve/limit one's vision. Design encompasses a creation from idea to its final use.

Also, the desk in the picture is a sure step in the direction of aesthetic exploration and appeal. The stretcher and leg treatment and the banding(?) are fitting and attractive.

Magazines, books, and the internet discussions and examples of furniture throughout history offer and infinite resource to become more knowledgeable and acquainted with the aesthetics of furniture design. I got in the habit of clipping and copying pictures of stuff that I found interesting; I now have a library of over 5000 pictures to search for ideas.

Re: More on Design

Ellis Walentine

The creative part of design I struggle with. How thick should the leg, dividers and top be? What esthetic elements will be added to the ordinary desk?

At some point your eye is going to have to know what it likes. This will be based on your influences and the pieces you find yourself gravitating to (like the case pieces you've built, and that lovely little writing desk for your daughter). Clint mentions keeping a scrapbook of clippings of stuff that catches your eye for one reason or another -- an idea book. To use one of Krenov's favorite terms, I think here is where curiosity comes in. Be curious about what you like (and don't like); dissect and evaluate things you see; be a student of what's around you. Decide what you like about those things and bring these awarenesses to bear on the design at hand. These decisions are hard to teach because there are no hard rules or conventions to go by. And don't forget the customer.

The look of the piece should be pleasing to the customer first and foremost, and it should also complement the surroundings where it will live. That doesn't mean it has to imitate the design idioms of the other furniture in the room or house, but at least it shouldn't visually clash with them (assuming that's not part of the design problem:). Here's where binomial decisions come in, like light/dark, plain/ornate, elegant/rustic, heavy/delicate etc. If you can pose these dichotomies to yourself, you can probably come up with fine answers that will guide you to your final plans. And don't expect them to ever be definitive answers. They are your answers, in this moment, the sum total of your best efforts today.

From my point of view, I can't stress enough the value of sketching, quickly and as artistically as possible. It's a skill that will improve over time and will be invaluable to you. When designing a piece, I suggest starting with "thumbnail" drawings, tiny sketches informed by the decisions you've already made, put to paper quickly, marching across your page or notebook or the back of the nearest envelope. The point is to draw what's in your mind's eye, without serious judgment. Keep at it; sometimes you need to immerse yourself for some threshold length of time, hours maybe, before the mechanics of drawing fade and creative thoughts seem to just stream from your pencil. Some of these little sketches you will reflexively reject, others will show promise and encourage further refinements at the thumbnail level, all the while feeding back information to your eye. Here's where your experience and personal taste come to the party. I noticed the lede [ed speak] drawing in the Kirby article was just exactly this -- a collage of quick studies of possible support structures and forms for a chest on stand. No measured drawings here, just simple sketches, drawn freehand and in perspective if you can, to help you make the broadest decisions first. Sketch as if you're seeing it from eye level and from the front side and back if necessary. Then it's a process of narrowing and refining the design, which at some point will also take into account the feasibility of your design v. your tools and skills, and its cost to build, which should be in the back of your mind throughout the process. This said, my theory was usually to design the ideal solution first and then back off to an affordable version.That way, I could ramp up to the more expensive version if possible. Many times, the customer ended up being sold on the fancier version. This could happen even if you are your own customer.

Once you've narrowed things down enough, you can make larger and more studious sketches that begin to show actual details of construction and proportions. Then do even more detailed close-up drawings of specific details that you want to incorporate. When you're happy with everything, go ahead and make working drawings (if you need them). Some people can get by with just story poles or rough sketches, but working drawings are a sort of formality that leaves as little to chance as possible, and are absolutely required in contract work. Another thing that Kirby always recommends is to get the hardware first, because you don't want any surprises partway through the build.

There aren’t books and classes to help with this part.

Well there are, but I couldn't tell you where -- architecture and design curriculums somewhere probably. Just airing this stuff out here should get you pointed in a good direction. You've brought up this topic again and again, and we're all into it with you.

Popular now days is to substitute fancy wood for design creativity. It’s an inadequate substitute, but fools some. Alternatively, we copy something someone else creatively designed. Or we live with ordinary, AKA Shaker.

Copying is the coin of the realm. Very few designs don't owe a debt of gratitude to something that has gone before. Just make it include your own personal interpretation, and think of what's best for the customer.

Ellis

Re: More on Design

John in NM

The creative part of design I struggle with. How thick should the leg, dividers and top be? What esthetic elements will be added to the ordinary desk?

There are no easy answers to those questions, because the answers depend on the other aspects of a piece. The legs for example need to be skinnier on smaller pieces. The height of a piece has more effect on the leg width than does the overall width of the piece, but both influence the proper size of the leg. Out here the temptation is always to make legs out of 8/4 rather than glue them up, since 10/4 is often a bit hard to find. That works in some cases, but in others (like a 5' tall Greene & Greene bookcase we made a lot at the old shop in Tucson) it will just plain be too skinny.

Just have to try it. Takes years of this to get to know what it is you like, and lots of looking at stuff you made that isn't quite it yet. That is the hard part, looking at something you wish you'd done better but you can't go back and do over.

As to the desk that is your example - I like it. I noticed and liked the cockbead before the legs. The legs I'd need to look at more with other views. I like that kind of detail best when it compliments a subtle taper in the leg above, or even a slight inward tilt that would look odd were it not for the splay at the bottom. I doubt the piece would work as well in a darker wood, it needs to be that light.

There aren’t books and classes to help with this part.

Don't know about books, but there are classes. They don't help. I took one once as a freshman in architecture and it taught me that so much of design is the fashion of the day and so little of it can be explained and codified that you need to just develop an eye for it through practice. I promptly changed majors, I'm more comfortable sticking to subjects that can be explained and codified if I need to please anyone but myself.

Re: More on Design

Sgian Dubh

"Another thing that Kirby always recommends is to get the hardware first, because you don't want any surprises partway through the build."

It's interesting you mention that, Ellis. I was taught decades ago when I trained, and not by Ian Kirby who I'd never heard of at the time, the mantra 'Design from the handles back'. Essentially that's saying to design from what's seen first as the viewer approaches the piece ... which is simpler with a cabinet of some sort with its back placed against a wall, but trickier with a chair that might be approached from multiple angles. Still, I've always found the mantra helpful.

I fully agree with your suggestion to draw ... and draw, and draw, whilst analysing and critiquing forms that catch the eye, ideally sourced and drawn from many or all the fields of 'product design', e.g., buildings, furniture, toasters, lamps, etc, as well as natural forms from almost anywhere, e.g., weather features, geology, plants, animals, etc. I've suggested the same 'drawing' practice to many, both here and elsewhere more than once, and drawing gets easier with practice. Even wonky sketches help develop the ability to work towards a design solution, and I've produced a lot of wonky sketches over time, ha ha.

Sketchup, Fusion 360, Rhino3D, AutoDesk Inventor, 3ds Max, all high powered 3D modelling software that are for many the 'go to' tools for design work nowadays are really of little or no use in the earlier design phases of, for example, defining the design challenge (the brief) analysing the problems, testing potential aesthetic and technical solutions, and so on, and this is where sketching, doodling, form a part of the process. The software I mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph are really no more than a means to formalise the proposed solution to the design problem. Basically, they all produce the equivalent of the old fashioned orthographic presentation created on a drawing board, a T square, pencils, and other drafting tools. Slainte.

Re: More on Design

frank morgan

I would suggest the aesthetic really comes first and is shaped and constrained by the reality of "engineering" and "function". Yes, its a desk, but don't you want a beautiful desk? A desk with features that enhances the "desk experience", that will be treasured not only because it was built by you, but looks wonderful and compliments the use of said desk.

If you want just a desk, then the aesthetic as you suggest does come last...very last.

Mentoring design

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Perhaps a useful way to gain experience in "aesthetic design" would be through mentoring if it was available. On the rare occasions when I have been able to get Susan to work with me on a piece of furniture design the result has been substantially better(she lives 750 miles away and visits infrequently). On one occasion I paid an artist to refine some curves in a design and that worked well. When building our last house I hired an architect to work on some design problems. He could think and sketch in 1/4" to the foot scale and spew out ideas at a rate that dwarfed my rate of drawing them on a drawing board for evaluation. He loved the creative part of house design and hated drafting. We were a good match and in 3 short sessions all design problems were solved attractively.

If only there was a furniture "architect" that could be hired in the same way.

However, it has been my experience that people that have a talent for aesthetic furniture design are not willing to share this talent with those that are not. I don't know if a class of design consulting would be successful. Students would bring a need to class and get mentoring. Might be worth considering by someone in a custom furniture shop short of work. There are certainly plenty of folks in this position teaching the making part of producing furniture at the Adams and other schools.

You make a good point

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

If I had the artistic creativity to start where you suggest, I would. For 25 years we have needed a kitchen desk. A creative desk has not come to mind. At some point I proceed as best I can or do without.

Re: More on Design

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

For me design further divides into three steps of design ... The third phase of design is to design the aesthetics of the piece.

Bill, design does not start with rules. It begins with ideas. These may gain inspiration from shapes, objects, a memory, a pattern in the rug .. many things.

The idea eventually develops into something specific. This is aided either by rough sketches, visualisation, or both.

Only now do you apply engineering rules, such as the height, etc. Can you make it work without losing the design?

I can relate to the theory that a design for a chest starts with the pulls. Not literally, but that the pulls may be the inspiration for what follows. It could just as easily be a curve which becomes incorporated into the top. I am building a hall table for a friend, re-using the wood of the old table, and the design is taken from the concept how I want the drawer to look and function. Having come up with this concept, it needed to be engineered to work, and this needed to be sympathetic to the design as a whole.

I have built quite a number of pieces on this forum. They always begin by tossing out a bunch of design ideas, and then settling on one. Only then are the mechanics worked out.

I am just an amateur, so I wonder how the pros design and build one-off pieces. I suspect that it is not that different.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Mentor

David Weaver

I don't often bother George for advice, and George doesn't love making furniture (actually, i think his word for it is "boring"), but he has a supreme classical design sense and his look at something is like what my early career look was.

It's filled with experience and things that I may notice after hours, he sees instantly, spatially - at once and can offer advice about what looks better and why. And it's not just a loose opinion - it always works.

I've noticed some things that I didn't think were great in some items that George was paid to do and every single time (using sense that he taught me), I've found out that there was a mandate to put the elements in whatever he was making. It's uncanny.

it feels too late to me to learn to draw well. It's probably not, but it would be harder to learn now than it would've when I was young, but George sees and draws compound curves like a human template.

Furniture can go so many ways now (that are considered tasteful by someone) that I can't imagine that it would be as easy to find someone in the furniture arena who could really tell you what's up about the overall pieces of furniture as well as individual elements. And if they could, whether they'd be willing to just offer up advice for free the way george will.

I've learned to spot subtle things. Like Gibson's les paul is wonderful looking. It's not the most functional design, but it's tasteful and lovely. When I finally read about its origin, it turned out that the design was pored over by professional designers and the guitar sent out to professional players so that the production guitar would be playable AND have a wonderful look at the same time.

Out of curiosity, I inspected fender's early designs, and though the guitars are plain and intended to be utility machines compared to expensive guitars, the design sense on them is good (they've become timeless and familiar now). So I dug to find out what Leo Fender did, and sure enough, he paid for professional design - his expertise was in the automotive industry and he had some relatively revolutionary ideas at the time - painting guitars like cars (filling the wood like you would body work and then painting) and then making the show wood parts match in color. It went over well, but the core shape of the guitar doesn't violate any of the basic design items that george called me out early on.

There were many other later guitars that haven't fared so well (Hamer, etc) that were quickly designed to meet the constraints of early CNCs. They violate certain rules (like a curve is a curve, and a straight line is a straight line - elements shouldn't have to puzzle about which one they are), and though much of the market probably doesn't know why they don't find them attractive, they don't.

Gibson's follow-up designs to try to make something marketable don't seem to have gotten the same attention, and lots of the original guitars' design elements have been flattened out to make manufacturing cheaper.

i can't think of anything that fender has made after their first efforts that has stuck around at all, either.

Re: Order? (log)

Henry (Raleigh NC)

I love your design questions Bill - your q and the responses to this thread have already been thought provoking.

Design and learning new techniques are the aspects of ww-ing that keep me engaged and challenged; I doubt I would ever make a second piece ‘just like that’. If only I had the skills and experience you exhibit so clearly doing case work, I'd have a few more pieces under my belt. But in fact I am not as productive as you are, IN PART because I am fairly often trying something new (lots of other reasons too).

This is a long post – includes a few examples, as well as what I realize is my evolving process of design.

I'd challenge your order of function, engineering, aesthetics.

I start with aesthetics.

My 'process' starts with sketches, as described earlier by Ellis and Richard (and others): a bunch of sketches that might explore aspect ratios, or thicker legs, or tapers, or changes in the base or support structure, or new door/drawer layouts. I do consider how I would construct/assemble these as I draw, so I do have difficulty with the really 'creative'/wild/unusual/art pieces (but then I am doubt that you necessarily are desiring to go to art pieces either, because where would the socks go? ). I am really mostly concerned about aesthetics FIRST - the overall look and style.

I often go from a sketch showing overall form and structure to deciding on critical dimensions - as determined by function (table height, or fit into the space), or other constraints (available materials, etc). Many other design decisions are made or re-made on the fly.

So far no one has mentioned mock ups, but this has proven to be an essential aspect for me. Generally these are full sized pieces, but with construction lumber base/legs and cardboard tops (or re-purposed old paneling), with a lot of screws holding it together. Placed in the desired space, a mock-up has been a great confirmation that the piece is sized correctly (or not) and that the general aesthetic works (or needs modifications). Granted a mock-up is easier to use when the final placement is less than 100’ from the shop, rather than across the country. Vision is important here – as a crude table base with a 1/8” old paneling top is not a great check on aesthetics (because I wanted a 2” thick top); thankfully my wife can envision to a great extent, and trusts my judgement (in this arena at least). Using that specific mock-up we changed the table base of a bar height table to incorporate stretchers that worked as foot rests (while seated, not standing).

For me mock-ups work great for

1. sizing pieces – is this table large enough or small enough? – and placing a piece of cardboard or paneling at the right height and living with it (using it?) for a few days tells you quickly whether the size or shape will work.

2. Scale and proportion – overall, but especially leg size and thickness; also stretchers.

3. Placement (i.e. stretchers height)

Back to design on the fly - an example of this for me is the splay and taper of a leg. I can’t bother making precise sketches or CAD drawings for that level of detail. I can decide with real sized pieces in the shop. For me, often working with reclaimed materials, the constraints of material size and condition can influence such design choices.

Engineering is my final choice, although it has not been ignored up to this point. Looking at a sketch I typically have a joinery plan. Knowing that M&T is my go to, rather than dovetails (I have mostly made tables, not case pieces), I can examine the overall sketch and decide precisely how pieces will be joined. With loose tenon joinery, I can cut pieces to desired lengths (or longer) and layout real pieces to decide on actual part dimensions (eyeballing; i.e. rip that down to 5/4 thickness and change the taper to a ¾ square base rather than a 1” square. Make a test piece and a decision; an improvement? Yes? Let’s go with that).

Note that there is a definite trade-off in my approach. Because I don’t have ‘everything’ decided ahead of time, shop time is not always ‘productive’ in the sense of making stuff; some sessions involve considering and pondering design. This may not appeal to some, but to me that is the fun part of making custom furniture. When I construct for others, there is far less on-the-fly designing.

I want to add that for me available material also has design influences. 2 examples:

1. I have made a bar height kitchen table that has a single piece table top (24” wide x about 70” long).

Some design choices were made at the lumber yard when I found a stack of 4/4 of padauk boards that were 24-30” wide, with lengths of 7-15’ (best of all their winter sale had no premium prices for wider boards! Still I have never paid that much for a single board, about $10/BF). I picked out one was the right width (27” +) and length (80”?) that would allow me to glue up the thickness of the edge to make a 2” thick top (in appearance at least) using the extra width and length.

I realize that Bill’s choice is not to choose exotic lumber (or veneer?), but my design choice was in fact to do so; I wanted a somewhat showy and unique table top. I found a piece that was the look of what I wanted (without being to specify exactly what I was looking for), and being able to buy this one piece of paduak beat the heck out of trying to learn veneering for this piece.

I’m not opposed to learning skills; in fact I often choose projects that incorporate some element or technique that I have not done previously.

2. The maple headboard and mahogany framed bed that I recently posted here on WC is a second example.

I knew the overall design parameters: a frame and panel headboard with a curved top. I had the mahogany (reclaimed door pieces) and wanted a contrasting panel for the headboard. Once I found the 14” wide mineral stained maple board, I knew it would become the visual focal point of the bed. I chose the size and curvature of the headboard to work with the lines in the maple.

So maybe your struggle with aesthetics is because you leave it to last. You (Bill) are an clearly an experienced and productive woodworker – but I am guessing that your desire for shop efficiency and productive processes does in fact get in the way of the ‘design and aesthetics’ process. To me at least, once I accepted that inefficiency into my making process, I was able to be more creative. This is NOT a formula, but does describe my experience.

One final thought – with a parallel to finishing. Early on many woodworkers think they are almost done once the piece has been constructed. Those of us with more build experience generally acknowledge that finishing is simply ‘the third half’ of the process. I think design is the same thing – I often spend as much time and consideration in the design phase (not creating the build plan or cut list, the proportion and aesthetic choices), as actual construction. In part this is because I like this; it is not one long sit-down session, for me designs happen over days/months/ or years. Once I acknowledge and accept that this can be a long process, it is easier to live in that process for the time needed.

Henry

Not in my case

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

"Bill, design does not start with rules. It begins with ideas."

First, I did not make any claim where design starts. And I certainly intended to convey that "rules" guided or even constrained the design process, wherever it began.

When you need a place to store your socks, this fact starts the process. I'll call this situation customer driven design, with a more or less specific product the end result. If you want to enter something in a woodworking contest with no constraints, the process may start a different place and the elements of design I proposed given different emphasis.

In the case at hand, a desk was needed and the desk had requirements to meet the need, enumerated in the original post. Maybe the drawers would be more aesthetically pleasing if they were 6" wider, but the drawer width in not an independent variable available for design. It is fixed by the requirement of a 17" wide chair and the space between the door and the frig.

Did you not just build a coffee table where you were given requirements that fixed almost all the functional and aesthetic design variables, leaving mainly challenging engineering variables to be designed by you?

Re: More on Design

Clint Searl

A piece of furniture may originate with its intended use, a reference example, a piece of wood itself, a commission, or some other reason. In my case, regardless of the starting point, personal aesthetics has been the overriding consideration. Throughout the creative process, the design is dynamic, responding to any changes needed to reach a satisfactory end. Some projects took several iterations to bring home.

Clarification on order

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Some of you confused the order of describing design steps with advocating an order to proceed in design. I could have been more clear on how design proceeds.

I have begun pieces entirely with function like the desk. There are so many "musts" that there were few aesthetic opportunities. The one I did have, the side panel, was a result of a flawed notion that this construction would be more easy than a conventional panel. This side is against the frig and not even seen.



I have begun projects with aesthetics, this tray for example. (The disappointing dead color of this mahogany has greatly improved since this PIC was taken.) Those that are artists and work wood as an art medium would likely begin this way.

I have even begun projects with engineering.



I attended a demonstration where Will Neptune showed how to make a domed lid. I was so smitten by its clever engineering that I had to make something that employed this engineering. Aesthetics came next and function last.

In reality all these facets of design interact where ever one begins. Because I typically am building in response to a need I usually begin with function. Obviously, your results may differ.

Hardware first rule

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

"Another thing that Kirby always recommends is to get the hardware first, because you don't want any surprises partway through the build."

I find this a curious recommendation because for me the hardware is always the last step. I rarely order hardware until the piece is finished. I wonder if this recommendation has become over interpreted. Actually, I don't know what "surprise" he wants to avoid.

Suppose I decided to build an 18th century chest on chest. The hardware details would follow and could be decided at any time. Or I might have some 18th century reproduction brass plate and bail hardware and this hardware would only look good on an 18th century piece. The hardware would set the design.

Years ago I began with hardware for a Chester County piece and in the end put a modern ring pull with a diamond back plate on it.

This decision left me with some very expensive 18th century reproduction hardware which found a home on a recent piece.

My artist consultant gave me praise for the hardware choice so it is not out of place on a modern piece. (Actually this piece was designed- function, aesthetics, engineering...see discussion below.)

Re: Hardware first rule

Ellis Walentine

I'm pretty sure this advice was in reference to functional (v. decorative) hardware, particularly hinges, where the location of the knuckle or some other factor might be critical to the construction of the piece itself. Of course, it could apply to decorative things like drawer pulls as well. The basic advice is don't assume that the hardware you're anticipating using is actually available, or that something you saw in a catalog will work.

Ellis

Re: Hardware first rule

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Ah, good point. I have gotten squeezed on butt hinge size availability. Used to be anything you could imagine, but not any more.

Re: Hardware first rule

Sgian Dubh

"I find this a curious recommendation because for me the hardware is always the last step."

'Get the hardware first', and 'design from the handles back' are really no more than aids to help someone to keep in mind that developing a design solution in the end generally requires thinking the whole thing through.

As you rightly point out there are design challenges that have a primary requirement of fulfilling a practical function. An example from my own portfolio resulted in a drinks cabinet. This meant making sure all the bottles of spirits, beers, mixers, ice, etc, plus glasses, water jugs, drink serving paraphernalia, and so on had a place to go, as well as providing a serving area. In addition, the cabinet had to fit in a specific place within the room under a window. Finally, aesthetically the piece had to 'blend' with the existing furnishings.

The design cycle in this case started with 'designing from the inside out' so to speak. Enough space had to be found within the length, depth and height available in the allotted room/wall space to house the essentials This required a fair amount of juggling of potential solutions, e.g., drawers(?), doors(?), fall flap or flip-up flap(?), tambour(?), etc.

As you can probably guess quite a bit of time was spent juggling potential shapes and forms, and various aesthetic elements until a solution was found that met all the criteria. The guide of 'designing from the handles back', informed material choices, overall form and, yes, selecting the pulls.

I think the point is that a furniture design exercise generally requires finding a balance between form and function. Sometimes the function is the initial driver, and at others it's the form, and in most cases there's a need to satisfy both drivers.

As to 'getting the hardware first', it's a useful guide, perhaps moreso if you're designing and making contemporary furniture. It's quite common for suppliers such as Häfele to drop hardware from their catalogue or to change its spec, so what you thought was available when a piece was designed or even made is no longer available, or if it is available, it's somewhat different to what you expected, and requires modifying the design or manufacture - best to know in advance that all the hardware you plan to use is available.

I've had some experience of this where I used a particular pull on a set of drawers. A year or so later I got a call out to look at a broken pull on one of the cabinet's drawers: the solution of ordering and replacing the faulty pull seemed simple. It wasn't, because the product had been dropped and no longer available, so the repair involved a bit of bodging of the original broken pull and a client that was understanding because it was the client that had caused the damage, ha, ha. Slainte.

Anatomy of a design

Clint Searl

The idea for this sideboard was a picture of an early piece in a book about Stickley, before he settled on the more purely rectilinear style. The construction was almost self evident, so practically all the design decisions in its making were aesthetic:

*Stay close to the overall proportions, keeping the pegged through tenons and the curves in the side and shelf front. Include a third drawer.

*Make it from air dried walnut rather than QSO

*Decide on the final dimensions and lay out the geometry, including patterns for the side and shelf curves. Change the drawers from full inset to beveled proud inset.

*Choose a single board for the top with prominent knots, holes, and a large crack included as features. Leave it obviously hand planed.

*Add a board spanning the back that had a large half-open knot hole for interest and to add visual volume to the piece.

*Carve simple moulding in the front of the shelf and base of the drawer box.

*Stain it in a dilute red mahogany to enhance the natural raw dark walnut. Finish with a reduced tung oil poly mix, rubbed out with steel wool and wax for a soft low gloss effect.

*Use small brass door knockers instead of reproduction pulls on the drawers.

I have used this approach on most of my projects, and it has kept things interesting and satisfying.

Re: Hardware first rule

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Your description of that build sounded like designing a house. Good point on the fleeting lifetime of contemporary hardware availability.

Re: Hardware first rule

Sgian Dubh

I wouldn't say it was that complicated, Bill. Yes, quite a lot to think about marrying competing functional design needs with the aesthetic requirements, but not a furniture design brief that's especially unusual, and I'd say designing a house sets the task of meeting the brief effectively at a significantly higher level. Slainte.