0:00:00.709,0:00:02.235 Type is something we consume 0:00:02.235,0:00:04.157 in enormous quantities. 0:00:04.157,0:00:05.239 In much of the world, 0:00:05.239,0:00:07.107 it's completely inescapable. 0:00:07.107,0:00:10.130 But few consumers are concerned to know 0:00:10.130,0:00:12.462 where a particular typeface came from 0:00:12.462,0:00:15.226 or when or who designed it, 0:00:15.226,0:00:18.579 if, indeed, there was any human agency involved 0:00:18.579,0:00:21.376 in its creation, if it didn't just sort of materialize 0:00:21.376,0:00:25.088 out of the software ether. 0:00:25.088,0:00:28.613 But I do have to be concerned with those things. 0:00:28.613,0:00:30.130 It's my job. 0:00:30.130,0:00:32.340 I'm one of the tiny handful of people 0:00:32.340,0:00:34.454 who gets badly bent out of shape 0:00:34.454,0:00:37.048 by the bad spacing of the T and the E 0:00:37.048,0:00:38.948 that you see there. 0:00:38.948,0:00:40.390 I've got to take that slide off. 0:00:40.390,0:00:42.461 I can't stand it. Nor can Chris. 0:00:42.461,0:00:44.122 There. Good. 0:00:44.122,0:00:45.890 So my talk is about the connection 0:00:45.890,0:00:49.290 between technology and design of type. 0:00:49.290,0:00:51.953 The technology has changed 0:00:51.953,0:00:54.825 a number of times since I started work: 0:00:54.825,0:00:59.486 photo, digital, desktop, screen, web. 0:00:59.486,0:01:01.224 I've had to survive those changes and try 0:01:01.224,0:01:03.928 to understand their implications for what I do 0:01:03.928,0:01:05.319 for design. 0:01:05.319,0:01:10.489 This slide is about the effect of tools on form. 0:01:10.489,0:01:13.390 The two letters, the two K's, 0:01:13.390,0:01:16.715 the one on your left, my right, is modern, 0:01:16.715,0:01:18.126 made on a computer. 0:01:18.126,0:01:20.168 All straight lines are dead straight. 0:01:20.168,0:01:22.978 The curves have that kind of[br]mathematical smoothness 0:01:22.978,0:01:26.724 that the Bézier formula imposes. 0:01:26.724,0:01:29.221 On the right, ancient Gothic, 0:01:29.221,0:01:33.280 cut in the resistant material of steel by hand. 0:01:33.280,0:01:35.405 None of the straight lines are actually straight. 0:01:35.405,0:01:37.570 The curves are kind of subtle. 0:01:37.570,0:01:42.284 It has that spark of life from the human hand 0:01:42.284,0:01:44.198 that the machine or the program 0:01:44.198,0:01:46.131 can never capture. 0:01:46.131,0:01:48.110 What a contrast. 0:01:48.110,0:01:50.689 Well, I tell a lie. 0:01:50.689,0:01:53.677 A lie at TED. I'm really sorry. 0:01:53.677,0:01:55.798 Both of these were made on a computer, 0:01:55.798,0:01:57.724 same software, same Bézier curves, 0:01:57.724,0:01:59.416 same font format. 0:01:59.416,0:02:01.950 The one on your left 0:02:01.950,0:02:04.204 was made by Zuzana Licko at Emigre, 0:02:04.204,0:02:05.639 and I did the other one. 0:02:05.639,0:02:08.995 The tool is the same, yet the letters are different. 0:02:08.995,0:02:10.518 The letters are different 0:02:10.518,0:02:11.724 because the designers are different. 0:02:11.724,0:02:14.985 That's all. Zuzana wanted hers to look like that. 0:02:14.985,0:02:18.106 I wanted mine to look like that. End of story. 0:02:18.106,0:02:20.310 Type is very adaptable. 0:02:20.310,0:02:23.631 Unlike a fine art, such as sculpture or architecture, 0:02:23.631,0:02:27.030 type hides its methods. 0:02:27.030,0:02:29.827 I think of myself as an industrial designer. 0:02:29.827,0:02:31.393 The thing I design is manufactured, 0:02:31.393,0:02:33.269 and it has a function: 0:02:33.269,0:02:35.107 to be read, to convey meaning. 0:02:35.107,0:02:36.753 But there is a bit more to it than that. 0:02:36.753,0:02:38.601 There's the sort of aesthetic element. 0:02:38.601,0:02:41.317 What makes these two letters different 0:02:41.317,0:02:44.349 from different interpretations by different designers? 0:02:44.349,0:02:46.362 What gives the work of some designers 0:02:46.362,0:02:49.273 sort of characteristic personal style, 0:02:49.273,0:02:51.810 as you might find in the work of a fashion designer, 0:02:51.810,0:02:54.885 an automobile designer, whatever? 0:02:54.885,0:02:56.660 There have been some cases, I admit, 0:02:56.660,0:02:57.810 where I as a designer 0:02:57.810,0:03:00.899 did feel the influence of technology. 0:03:00.899,0:03:03.959 This is from the mid-'60s, 0:03:03.959,0:03:06.194 the change from metal type to photo, 0:03:06.194,0:03:07.896 hot to cold. 0:03:07.896,0:03:09.093 This brought some benefits 0:03:09.093,0:03:12.439 but also one particular drawback: 0:03:12.439,0:03:15.112 a spacing system that only provided 0:03:15.112,0:03:19.095 18 discrete units for letters 0:03:19.095,0:03:21.558 to be accommodated on. 0:03:21.558,0:03:23.534 I was asked at this time to design 0:03:23.534,0:03:26.272 a series of condensed sans serif types 0:03:26.272,0:03:29.435 with as many different variants as possible 0:03:29.435,0:03:33.282 within this 18-unit box. 0:03:33.282,0:03:34.921 Quickly looking at the arithmetic, 0:03:34.921,0:03:38.230 I realized I could only actually make three 0:03:38.230,0:03:41.617 of related design. Here you see them. 0:03:41.617,0:03:44.208 In Helvetica Compressed, Extra Compressed, 0:03:44.208,0:03:48.019 and Ultra Compressed, this rigid 18-unit system 0:03:48.019,0:03:49.592 really boxed me in. 0:03:49.592,0:03:51.425 It kind of determined the proportions 0:03:51.425,0:03:53.714 of the design. 0:03:53.714,0:03:57.744 Here are the typefaces, at least the lower cases. 0:03:57.744,0:04:00.436 So do you look at these and say, 0:04:00.436,0:04:03.575 "Poor Matthew, he had to submit to a problem, 0:04:03.575,0:04:07.382 and by God it shows in the results." 0:04:07.382,0:04:08.689 I hope not. 0:04:08.689,0:04:10.930 If I were doing this same job today, 0:04:10.930,0:04:13.756 instead of having 18 spacing units, 0:04:13.756,0:04:16.840 I would have 1,000. 0:04:16.840,0:04:19.293 Clearly I could make more variants, 0:04:19.293,0:04:23.989 but would these three members[br]of the family be better? 0:04:23.989,0:04:25.841 It's hard to say without actually doing it, 0:04:25.841,0:04:27.548 but they would not be better in the proportion 0:04:27.548,0:04:30.637 of 1,000 to 18, I can tell you that. 0:04:30.637,0:04:32.575 My instinct tells you that any improvement 0:04:32.575,0:04:35.653 would be rather slight, because they were designed 0:04:35.653,0:04:38.574 as functions of the system they were designed to fit, 0:04:38.574,0:04:40.983 and as I said, type is very adaptable. 0:04:40.983,0:04:43.770 It does hide its methods. 0:04:43.770,0:04:46.452 All industrial designers work within constraints. 0:04:46.452,0:04:48.944 This is not fine art. 0:04:48.944,0:04:50.822 The question is, does a constraint 0:04:50.822,0:04:53.489 force a compromise? 0:04:53.489,0:04:55.000 By accepting a constraint, 0:04:55.000,0:04:57.449 are you working to a lower standard? 0:04:57.449,0:04:59.411 I don't believe so, and I've always been encouraged 0:04:59.411,0:05:01.535 by something that Charles Eames said. 0:05:01.535,0:05:03.080 He said he was conscious of working 0:05:03.080,0:05:04.118 within constraints, 0:05:04.118,0:05:07.344 but not of making compromises. 0:05:07.344,0:05:09.905 The distinction between a constraint 0:05:09.905,0:05:12.280 and a compromise is obviously very subtle, 0:05:12.280,0:05:17.951 but it's very central to my attitude to work. 0:05:17.951,0:05:20.842 Remember this reading experience? 0:05:20.842,0:05:22.267 The phone book. I'll hold the slide 0:05:22.267,0:05:26.802 so you can enjoy the nostalgia. 0:05:26.802,0:05:29.548 This is from the mid-'70s early trials 0:05:29.548,0:05:32.177 of Bell Centennial typeface I designed 0:05:32.177,0:05:33.951 for the U.S. phone books, 0:05:33.951,0:05:37.270 and it was my first experience of digital type, 0:05:37.270,0:05:41.440 and quite a baptism. 0:05:41.440,0:05:43.039 Designed for the phone books, as I said, 0:05:43.039,0:05:46.407 to be printed at tiny size on newsprint 0:05:46.407,0:05:48.725 on very high-speed rotary presses 0:05:48.725,0:05:51.477 with ink that was kerosene and lampblack. 0:05:51.477,0:05:55.318 This is not a hospitable environment 0:05:55.318,0:05:58.520 for a typographic designer. 0:05:58.520,0:06:00.419 So the challenge for me was to design type 0:06:00.419,0:06:01.920 that performed as well as possible 0:06:01.920,0:06:06.665 in these very adverse production conditions. 0:06:06.665,0:06:09.520 As I say, we were in the infancy of digital type. 0:06:09.520,0:06:12.339 I had to draw every character by hand 0:06:12.339,0:06:14.054 on quadrille graph paper -- 0:06:14.054,0:06:16.006 there were four weights of Bell Centennial — 0:06:16.006,0:06:19.359 pixel by pixel, then encode[br]them raster line by raster line 0:06:19.359,0:06:20.340 for the keyboard. 0:06:20.340,0:06:24.764 It took two years, but I learned a lot. 0:06:24.764,0:06:26.394 These letters look as though they've been chewed 0:06:26.394,0:06:27.838 by the dog or something or other, 0:06:27.838,0:06:29.780 but the missing pixels at the intersections 0:06:29.780,0:06:31.385 of strokes or in the crotches 0:06:31.385,0:06:34.559 are the result of my studying the effects 0:06:34.559,0:06:37.505 of ink spread on cheap paper 0:06:37.505,0:06:41.242 and reacting, revising the font accordingly. 0:06:41.242,0:06:44.492 These strange artifacts are designed to compensate 0:06:44.492,0:06:47.244 for the undesirable effects of scale 0:06:47.244,0:06:49.530 and production process. 0:06:49.530,0:06:52.376 At the outset, AT&T had wanted 0:06:52.376,0:06:55.617 to set the phone books in Helvetica, 0:06:55.617,0:06:57.282 but as my friend Erik Spiekermann said 0:06:57.282,0:06:59.785 in the Helvetica movie, if you've seen that, 0:06:59.785,0:07:01.820 the letters in Helvetica were designed to be 0:07:01.820,0:07:04.561 as similar to one another as possible. 0:07:04.561,0:07:07.835 This is not the recipe for legibility at small size. 0:07:07.835,0:07:10.425 It looks very elegant up on a slide. 0:07:10.425,0:07:12.615 I had to disambiguate these forms 0:07:12.615,0:07:15.615 of the figures as much as possible in Bell Centennial 0:07:15.615,0:07:17.910 by sort of opening the shapes up, as you can see 0:07:17.910,0:07:20.823 in the bottom part of that slide. 0:07:20.823,0:07:23.480 So now we're on to the mid-'80s, 0:07:23.480,0:07:26.036 the early days of digital outline fonts, 0:07:26.036,0:07:28.393 vector technology. 0:07:28.393,0:07:30.431 There was an issue at that time 0:07:30.431,0:07:32.287 with the size of the fonts, 0:07:32.287,0:07:35.171 the amount of data that was required to find 0:07:35.171,0:07:40.141 and store a font in computer memory. 0:07:40.141,0:07:41.799 It limited the number of fonts you could get 0:07:41.799,0:07:44.789 on your typesetting system at any one time. 0:07:44.789,0:07:48.938 I did an analysis of the data, 0:07:48.938,0:07:51.462 and found that a typical serif face 0:07:51.462,0:07:52.921 you see on the left 0:07:52.921,0:07:54.937 needed nearly twice as much data 0:07:54.937,0:07:57.473 as a sans serif in the middle 0:07:57.473,0:07:59.535 because of all the points required 0:07:59.535,0:08:04.043 to define the elegantly curved serif brackets. 0:08:04.043,0:08:07.477 The numbers at the bottom of the slide, by the way, 0:08:07.477,0:08:09.179 they represent the amount of data 0:08:09.179,0:08:12.984 needed to store each of the fonts. 0:08:12.984,0:08:15.150 So the sans serif, in the middle, 0:08:15.150,0:08:18.114 sans the serifs, was much more economical, 0:08:18.114,0:08:20.313 81 to 151. 0:08:20.313,0:08:23.970 "Aha," I thought. "The engineers have a problem. 0:08:23.970,0:08:26.205 Designer to the rescue." 0:08:26.205,0:08:28.552 I made a serif type, you can see it on the right, 0:08:28.552,0:08:30.499 without curved serifs. 0:08:30.499,0:08:32.915 I made them polygonal, out[br]of straight line segments, 0:08:32.915,0:08:34.898 chamfered brackets. 0:08:34.898,0:08:39.266 And look, as economical in data as a sans serif. 0:08:39.266,0:08:41.565 We call it Charter, on the right. 0:08:41.565,0:08:43.535 So I went to the head of engineering 0:08:43.535,0:08:45.993 with my numbers, and I said proudly, 0:08:45.993,0:08:48.121 "I have solved your problem." 0:08:48.121,0:08:51.834 "Oh," he said. "What problem?" 0:08:51.834,0:08:53.480 And I said, "Well, you know, the problem 0:08:53.480,0:08:56.897 of the huge data you require[br]for serif fonts and so on." 0:08:56.897,0:09:00.444 "Oh," he said. "We solved that problem last week. 0:09:00.444,0:09:02.600 We wrote a compaction routine that reduces 0:09:02.600,0:09:05.180 the size of all fonts by an order of magnitude. 0:09:05.180,0:09:07.168 You can have as many fonts on your system 0:09:07.168,0:09:08.726 as you like." 0:09:08.726,0:09:11.340 "Well, thank you for letting me know," I said. 0:09:11.340,0:09:12.970 Foiled again. 0:09:12.970,0:09:15.015 I was left with a design solution 0:09:15.015,0:09:19.488 for a nonexistent technical problem. 0:09:19.488,0:09:21.957 But here is where the story sort[br]of gets interesting for me. 0:09:21.957,0:09:24.552 I didn't just throw my design away 0:09:24.552,0:09:25.953 in a fit of pique. 0:09:25.953,0:09:27.690 I persevered. 0:09:27.690,0:09:29.858 What had started as a technical exercise 0:09:29.858,0:09:33.122 became an aesthetic exercise, really. 0:09:33.122,0:09:36.171 In other words, I had come to like this typeface. 0:09:36.171,0:09:38.490 Forget its origins. Screw that. 0:09:38.490,0:09:40.980 I liked the design for its own sake. 0:09:40.980,0:09:43.363 The simplified forms of Charter 0:09:43.363,0:09:45.446 gave it a sort of plain-spoken quality 0:09:45.446,0:09:46.997 and unfussy spareness 0:09:46.997,0:09:49.487 that sort of pleased me. 0:09:49.487,0:09:52.040 You know, at times of technical innovation, 0:09:52.040,0:09:53.560 designers want to be influenced 0:09:53.560,0:09:55.296 by what's in the air. 0:09:55.296,0:09:57.527 We want to respond. We want to be pushed 0:09:57.527,0:10:00.938 into exploring something new. 0:10:00.938,0:10:03.837 So Charter is a sort of parable for me, really. 0:10:03.837,0:10:07.627 In the end, there was no hard and fast causal link 0:10:07.627,0:10:10.820 between the technology and the design of Charter. 0:10:10.820,0:10:14.582 I had really misunderstood the technology. 0:10:14.582,0:10:17.910 The technology did suggest something to me, 0:10:17.910,0:10:20.027 but it did not force my hand, 0:10:20.027,0:10:22.744 and I think this happens very often. 0:10:22.744,0:10:25.370 You know, engineers are very smart, 0:10:25.370,0:10:26.926 and despite occasional frustrations 0:10:26.926,0:10:28.453 because I'm less smart, 0:10:28.453,0:10:30.180 I've always enjoyed working with them 0:10:30.180,0:10:32.258 and learning from them. 0:10:32.258,0:10:34.600 Apropos, in the mid-'90s, 0:10:34.600,0:10:37.291 I started talking to Microsoft 0:10:37.291,0:10:39.679 about screen fonts. 0:10:39.679,0:10:42.100 Up to that point, all the fonts on screen 0:10:42.100,0:10:44.853 had been adapted from previously existing 0:10:44.853,0:10:47.230 printing fonts, of course. 0:10:47.230,0:10:49.733 But Microsoft foresaw correctly 0:10:49.733,0:10:51.883 the movement, the stampede 0:10:51.883,0:10:54.670 towards electronic communication, 0:10:54.670,0:10:56.700 to reading and writing onscreen 0:10:56.700,0:10:59.833 with the printed output as being sort of secondary 0:10:59.833,0:11:02.056 in importance. 0:11:02.056,0:11:05.635 So the priorities were just tipping at that point. 0:11:05.635,0:11:07.829 They wanted a small core set of fonts 0:11:07.829,0:11:11.134 that were not adapted but designed for the screen 0:11:11.134,0:11:13.707 to face up to the problems of screen, 0:11:13.707,0:11:17.549 which were their coarse resolution displays. 0:11:17.549,0:11:21.080 I said to Microsoft, a typeface designed 0:11:21.080,0:11:22.649 for a particular technology 0:11:22.649,0:11:26.024 is a self-obsoleting typeface. 0:11:26.024,0:11:28.118 I've designed too many faces in the past 0:11:28.118,0:11:31.697 that were intended to mitigate technical problems. 0:11:31.697,0:11:34.532 Thanks to the engineers, the[br]technical problems went away. 0:11:34.532,0:11:37.021 So did my typeface. 0:11:37.021,0:11:40.152 It was only a stopgap. 0:11:40.152,0:11:41.693 Microsoft came back to say that 0:11:41.693,0:11:43.323 affordable computer monitors 0:11:43.323,0:11:44.520 with better resolutions 0:11:44.520,0:11:47.116 were at least a decade away. 0:11:47.116,0:11:49.770 So I thought, well, a decade, that's not bad, 0:11:49.770,0:11:52.182 that's more than a stopgap. 0:11:52.182,0:11:54.183 So I was persuaded, I was convinced, 0:11:54.183,0:11:56.505 and we went to work on what became Verdana 0:11:56.505,0:11:58.177 and Georgia, 0:11:58.177,0:12:00.517 for the first time working not on paper 0:12:00.517,0:12:04.477 but directly onto the screen from the pixel up. 0:12:04.477,0:12:08.330 At that time, screens were binary. 0:12:08.330,0:12:11.370 The pixel was either on or it was off. 0:12:11.370,0:12:14.225 Here you see the outline of a letter, 0:12:14.225,0:12:15.692 the cap H, 0:12:15.692,0:12:18.493 which is the thin black line, the contour, 0:12:18.493,0:12:21.369 which is how it is stored in memory, 0:12:21.369,0:12:23.039 superimposed on the bitmap, 0:12:23.039,0:12:25.187 which is the grey area, 0:12:25.187,0:12:27.024 which is how it's displayed on the screen. 0:12:27.024,0:12:30.170 The bitmap is rasterized from the outline. 0:12:30.170,0:12:32.411 Here in a cap H, which is all straight lines, 0:12:32.411,0:12:34.499 the two are in almost perfect sync 0:12:34.499,0:12:38.867 on the Cartesian grid. 0:12:38.867,0:12:41.993 Not so with an O. 0:12:41.993,0:12:44.720 This looks more like bricklaying[br]than type design, 0:12:44.720,0:12:47.621 but believe me, this is a good bitmap O, 0:12:47.621,0:12:49.636 for the simple reason that it's symmetrical 0:12:49.636,0:12:52.116 in both x and y axes. 0:12:52.116,0:12:54.974 In a binary bitmap, you actually can't ask 0:12:54.974,0:12:56.694 for more than that. 0:12:56.694,0:12:59.098 I would sometimes make, I don't know, 0:12:59.098,0:13:01.454 three or four different versions of a difficult letter 0:13:01.454,0:13:02.960 like a lowercase A, 0:13:02.960,0:13:06.500 and then stand back to choose which was the best. 0:13:06.500,0:13:08.595 Well, there was no best, 0:13:08.595,0:13:11.020 so the designer's judgment comes in 0:13:11.020,0:13:12.409 in trying to decide 0:13:12.409,0:13:15.450 which is the least bad. 0:13:15.450,0:13:17.900 Is that a compromise? 0:13:17.900,0:13:19.446 Not to me, if you are working 0:13:19.446,0:13:22.533 at the highest standard the technology will allow, 0:13:22.533,0:13:24.742 although that standard may be 0:13:24.742,0:13:27.221 well short of the ideal. 0:13:27.221,0:13:28.812 You may be able to see on this slide 0:13:28.812,0:13:30.974 two different bitmap fonts there. 0:13:30.974,0:13:32.670 The "a" in the upper one, I think, 0:13:32.670,0:13:34.583 is better than the "a" in the lower one, 0:13:34.583,0:13:37.159 but it still ain't great. 0:13:37.159,0:13:39.066 You can maybe see the effect better 0:13:39.066,0:13:42.442 if it's reduced. Well, maybe not. 0:13:42.442,0:13:44.838 So I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist, 0:13:44.838,0:13:46.341 out of necessity. 0:13:46.341,0:13:48.270 For a certain kind of temperament, 0:13:48.270,0:13:49.970 there is a certain kind of satisfaction 0:13:49.970,0:13:53.608 in doing something that cannot be perfect 0:13:53.608,0:13:57.477 but can still be done to the best of your ability. 0:13:57.477,0:14:02.334 Here's the lowercase H from Georgia Italic. 0:14:02.334,0:14:04.607 The bitmap looks jagged and rough. 0:14:04.607,0:14:06.466 It is jagged and rough. 0:14:06.466,0:14:08.462 But I discovered, by experiment, 0:14:08.462,0:14:11.679 that there is an optimum slant 0:14:11.679,0:14:13.625 for an italic on a screen 0:14:13.625,0:14:15.957 so the strokes break well 0:14:15.957,0:14:18.440 at the pixel boundaries. 0:14:18.440,0:14:21.221 Look in this example how, rough as it is, 0:14:21.221,0:14:23.271 how the left and right legs 0:14:23.271,0:14:25.220 actually break at the same level. 0:14:25.220,0:14:28.740 That's a victory. That's good, right there. 0:14:28.740,0:14:31.918 And of course, at the lower depths, 0:14:31.918,0:14:33.841 you don't get much choice. 0:14:33.841,0:14:38.886 This is an S, in case you were wondering. 0:14:38.886,0:14:41.040 Well, it's been 18 years now 0:14:41.040,0:14:43.690 since Verdana and Georgia were released. 0:14:43.690,0:14:45.780 Microsoft were absolutely right, 0:14:45.780,0:14:48.194 it took a good 10 years, 0:14:48.194,0:14:50.474 but screen displays now do have 0:14:50.474,0:14:52.927 improved spatial resolution, 0:14:52.927,0:14:56.399 and very much improved photometric resolution 0:14:56.399,0:14:59.553 thanks to anti-aliasing and so on. 0:14:59.553,0:15:03.250 So now that their mission is accomplished, 0:15:03.250,0:15:04.980 has that meant the demise 0:15:04.980,0:15:06.860 of the screen fonts that I designed 0:15:06.860,0:15:09.511 for coarser displays back then? 0:15:09.511,0:15:12.906 Will they outlive the now-obsolete screens 0:15:12.906,0:15:15.078 and the flood of new web fonts 0:15:15.078,0:15:16.581 coming on to the market? 0:15:16.581,0:15:18.441 Or have they established their own 0:15:18.441,0:15:20.679 sort of evolutionary niche 0:15:20.679,0:15:24.416 that is independent of technology? 0:15:24.416,0:15:26.087 In other words, have they been absorbed 0:15:26.087,0:15:29.400 into the typographic mainstream? 0:15:29.400,0:15:33.058 I'm not sure, but they've had a good run so far. 0:15:33.058,0:15:35.553 Hey, 18 is a good age for anything 0:15:35.553,0:15:37.704 with present-day rates of attrition, 0:15:37.704,0:15:39.618 so I'm not complaining. 0:15:39.618,0:15:42.457 Thank you. 0:15:42.457,0:15:44.634 (Applause)