Womens Java Serraje Flip Flops Beige Yokono Outlet Eastbay efFuWsfc4r

Womens Java Serraje Flip Flops, Beige Yokono
Womens Java Serraje Flip Flops, Beige Yokono

Quick search form

Social Media

Main menu

By FOOTWEAR Laceup shoes Thompson Free Shipping From China Factory Outlet Cheap Price Cheap Sale Low Cost Wiki For Sale Footaction Cheap Online LQ6mmcdMMN
Google Tumblr Mens Darlington Derbys Barker Largest Supplier Store For Sale Sale Cheapest Price Pay With Visa Cheap Price Limited Edition Online 7GWELdCNY
Linkedin Free Shipping Low Shipping FOOTWEAR Lowtops amp; sneakers Paez Cheap Sale Store Free Shipping Cheap Cheap Sale Best Wholesale Clearance Looking For ITSUhErN
Free Shipping With Paypal Discount Shop Brown Suede Tassel Loafers Carmina Shoemaker Buy Cheap Limited Edition Wholesale Price Sale Online Browse Cheap Online yLOLotdn6

Lynne Taylor-Corbett’s mother played piano for a ballet class in the basement of Denver’s University Park United Methodist Church and took her 5-year-old daughter along.

That’s how a career spanning Hollywood, Broadway and the stages of some of the top ballet companies was born.

“One thing led to another, and then it kind of snowballed,” Taylor-Corbett said in a telephone interview.It isn’t, however, dancing on the boards where Taylor-Corbett has cut her reputation, but as a choreographer and director.

Taylor-Corbett is back in Denver staging her ballet, “The Little Mermaid,” with the Colorado Ballet and on Sunday will be giving a talk about her life and experiences, which include choreographing the 1984 movie, “Footloose,” and creating a ballet with Patti LuPone for the New York City Ballet.

The free talk, sponsored by the University of Denver’s Carson Brierly Giffin Dance Library, will be held at 4 p.m. in the university’s Special Events Room, Anderson Academic Commons, 2150 E. Evans Ave., Denver.

Taylor-Corbett, who is in her late 60s (that’s all she is giving up), left Denver at 17 to find fame and fortune in New York City. In short order, she had a job at the New York State Theater, home to the New York City Ballet — as an usher.

“I didn’t realize it, but I learned a lot up there in the balcony about the shape and form of dances,” Taylor-Corbett said. Improbably, she landed a job with the Alvin Ailey Dance Theater.

“I was the only white,” she said. “They called me Miss Scarlet.”

Even more improbably, she toured the Middle East and Africa with the company right after the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. Years later, she would take that experience and turn it into a dance for Ailey, “Prayers from the Edge.”

Still, in those earlier years, there was a lot of kicking around. “It was so hard to make a living,” she said. “I knew I had to be versatile.”

Taylor-Corbett was a member of a small group, The Dance Theatre Collection.

“We choreographed for each other so we would have something to dance.”

One of Taylor-Corbett’s dances was eye-catching enough to land her a commission to create a ballet for a company in Lisbon, supported by the Portugal-based Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Off to Lisbon she went.

125th Anniversary
March 8, 2017

By Womens Cintia Trainers Black Vagabond Quality From China Wholesale New Arrival Cheap Price Sneakernews For Sale Where Can You Find Discount 2018 New BVOoodj

Photographed by Knee Boots Darwin 85 leather black Jimmy Choo London Shop Offer Sale Online From China Free Shipping Low Price TJrEqkpHyR

Early on in the history of NASA, mission control was white shirts and ties, crew cuts and cigarettes. There were women behind the scenes, as famously seen in , the story of Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson, the three (brilliant) African-American women whose math fueled the launch of astronaut John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. But the faces at what became Kennedy Space Center stayed mostly the same during the ’60s and ’70s, when the race to the moon got caught up with the Cold War. By the ’80s, though, NASA got better at recruiting women. “I remember that when I first came here, I was the only one in my group,” recalls Luz Marina Calle, the lead scientist and principal investigator of the Corrosion Technology Laboratory at an outdoor exposure facility. “When I used to answer the phone, people thought I was the secretary, and I would say, ‘No, in fact, he is my colleague.’ ”

Cut to today, or better yet, to the fall of 2018, when the new Space Launch System, or SLS, expects to make its first launch, currently being orchestrated from Firing Room-1 by Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, a veteran of the Space Shuttle era. At the top of the SLS will be the Orion, the capsule designed to take astronauts—men and, yes, now women—as far as Mars (come the 2030s). Thus, Blackwell-Thompson is the first launch director for the world’s most powerful rocket, and the first female launch director at Kennedy Space Center, developing countdown plans, launch procedures, and training approaches, working in the room she remembers marveling at on a tour just before she was hired in the ’80s. As for a lot of NASA employees, it’s more than a living. “I to do this job,” she says.

The scope of the Space Center’s work—to explore space, not to mention Earth—is breathtaking. Kathy Lueders, one of the first female program managers, helps private companies into space, meaning she works with new designs in space travel. “Engineers love design and development and doing cool things and hard work,” sa ys Lueders, “and guess what? We’ve got it in spades! It’s like working in a candy shop.” Alicia Mendoza-Hill is a mission integration manager in the Launch Services Program, meaning she matches rockets with payloads. “It’s an interface between, say, a spacecraft and a powerful and explosive rocket,” she says. Right now, she’s working on finding the right rocket for an asteroid redirect mission, meant to practice moving asteroids off a collision course with Earth. Barbara L. Brown, chief of the Strategic Integration Office in the Exploration Research and Technology Programs, works in cryogenics, focusing on the storage of fuels at low temperatures. “It’s always been my desire to work here,” Brown says. “People would pay to do what we do.”

, Launch Director,Ground Systems Development and Operations Program, in front of a mural of NASA milestones

, Chief of the Strategic Implementation Office in the Exploration Research and Technology Programs. Photographed at the cryogenics test facility.

, program manager, Commercial Crew Program. In college, she studied business. “I wanted to work on Wall Street, but then in my senior year I wanted to switch to my roommate’s major, engineering.” After getting married and having kids, she decided to go back to college and earned several degrees in engineering, landing with NASA at the propulsion lab at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, New Mexico. “I was the second woman at the propulsion lab—I think the first one lasted about a week,” she recalls. At NASA, she feels as if she’s making a difference. “I’ve had the chance to work on the international space station program, and when you work in different countries, you see that women elsewhere don’t always have the benefits that women have in this country. You realize how important it is to be first a woman, and then an engineer, and then somebody working for NASA who can be a role model for not only girls in this country, but girls in the world.”

, research biologist and lead scientist of NASA’s Veggie project, which works on growing plants on the International Space Station. “Think about not having fresh vegetables for months at a time, or years, if you go to Mars, and how difficult that might be, and how the addition of growing things and fresh produce to aid the diet can really help your well-being and keep you in touch with Earth,” she says. For the record, she loved Matt Damon’s character’s agricultural work in . “It was really wonderful to see an indication of how important plants are for human survival.”

, pictured in the Vehicle Assembly Building, always wanted to coach and thought about going to college in order to own a sports team—until her physics teacher nudged her toward an engineering degree: “I said, ‘Now, what could I do with an engineering degree?’ and he said, ‘Now, Charlie, what you do with an engineering degree?’”

, chief of the Fleet and Systems Management Division in the Launch Services Program. “In high school, I vividly remember watching the early Space Shuttle launches on TV and asking my dad why I didn’t see women in the control rooms,” she says. “He suggested that it might be up to me to work on that.” She studied aerospace engineering in college and eventually made her way to Florida. “I never had a backup plan and thankfully never needed it. I love that no two days are ever the same and the way we always rise to a challenge.”

, lead scientist and principal investigator at the Outdoor Exposure Facility, where she studies corrosion. Like a lot of NASA employees, she grew up puzzling. “I was very curious about things like fireflies,” she says. Now she works to prevent rust. “Did you know that the cost of rust in the U.S. is estimated to be about $1 trillion? That is one of the things I love about NASA, that we really want to share new technologies.”

is a mechanical design engineer who works on the ground support equipment—the arms and umbilicals that attach to the ship as it awaits launch—as well as in the famous White Room, where astronauts make their way to the Orion capsule. “It is the last place where they actually talk to their families, so I keep that in mind,” she says. She grew up loving race cars, but she applied for an internship at NASA. “I about dropped the phone,” she recalls. “We all have the same goal—it’s a big group of people trying to put humans in space.” She’s hoping to be one of them. “I’m applying to be an astronaut,” she says.

, chief of the Strategic Implementation Office in the Space Center’s Exploration Research and Technology Program. As a kid she wanted to do it all: write, sing, drive a truck, and work at NASA. “I knew about it. I was a Trekkie! My parents always told me I could do anything, and I still write a little and sing,” she says. At NASA since 1986, Brown manages the integration of the Space Center’s research and technology portfolio, making sure the science they’re working on aligns with where they want to go. One project: building robotic and autonomous systems to monitor fueling at launch, which must be kept cold (thus the fog of nitrogen in the cryogenics test bed). “Fortunately, most of us enjoy a good challenge,” she says. “That’s why we work at NASA. We’re so lucky. People would pay to do what we do.”

, senior project manager for Launch Complex 39B, the old Space Shuttle launch pad that will eventually launch the SLS/Orion. “Growing up in Indiana as a kid, working for NASA never entered my mind. However, I always knew that I liked figuring out how things worked and solving puzzles,” she says. After earning an engineering degree from Purdue, she first worked at NASA in 1988. “Once I got the job, it took a long time working there before it actually sank in that I was working for NASA. I still to this day often stop and think how incredibly fortunate I am to get to do this job that I love that may benefit generations to come.”

, Mission Integration Manager, Flight Projects Office, Launch Services Program. Mendoza-Hill grew up in Florida, always working on her brothers’ cars. “We were farmers, and we couldn’t afford repairs so we fixed them ourselves,” she recalls. “I really wanted to take things apart, and put them back together, which sometimes got me in trouble, but I ended up in engineering because of that.” In college, she applied for a NASA internship. “I about dropped the phone when I got the call,” she remembers. Now at NASA, she’s in charge of finding the right rocket for the right payload. Recently, she helped launch eight satellites in one firing, an incredible choreography of micro-navigations. “So many things have to happen,” she says. “There’s always a challenge to do something we have never done before. And it’s not just space. It’s about how to improve our life here on Earth.”


Daniel Arnold

California Girls

Deanna and Ed Templeton

Latinas of L.A

Stefan Ruiz

White House Journalists

Alex Majoli

Pageant Queens

Ben Rasmussen

Standing Rock

Alessandra Sanguinetti


Jonas Bendiksen

Miss Rodeo America

Charlie Engman

Muslim Life

Lynsey Addario

Armed Forces

Jackie Nickerson

21ST-Century Family

Cass Bird

Alaskan Fisherwomen

Evgenia Arbugaeva

Art World

Lorna Simpson

The Alpha Kappa Alphas

Mayan Toledano


Bella Newman

Photographed by Jonas Bendiksen / Magnum Photos Editor: Alessandra Codinha Visual Editor: Samantha Adler Designers: Fernando Dias De Souza and Sara Jendusa Producer: Maleana Davis Photo Producer: Ashley Solomon Engineer: Gregory Kilian Subscribe to Vogue Magazine

Don Norman: Designing For People

Simplicity Is Highly Overrated

Interactions, volume 14, issue 3. © CACM,

"Why can't products be simpler?" cries the reviewer in the , the , the local newspaper. "We want simplicity" cry the people befuddled by all the features of their latest whatever. Do they really mean it? No.

But when it came time for the journalists to review the simple products they had gathered together, they complained that they lacked what they considered to be "critical" features. So, what do people mean when they ask for simplicity? One-button operation, of course, but with all of their favorite features.

I recently toured a department store in South Korea. Visiting department stores and the local markets is one of my favorite pastimes whenever I visit a country new to me, the better to get to know the local culture. Foods differ, clothes differ, and in the past, appliances differed: appliances, kitchen utensils, gardening tools, and shop tools.

I found the traditional "white goods" most interesting: Refrigerators and washing machines. The store obviously had the Korean companies LG and Samsung, but also GE, Braun, and Philips. The Korean products seemed more complex than the non-Korean ones, even though the specifications and prices were essentially identical. "Why?" I asked my two guides, both of whom were usability professionals. "Because Koreans like things to look complex," they responded. It is a symbol: it shows their status.

But while at the store, I marveled at the advance complexities of all appliances, especially ones that once upon a time were quite simple: for example, toasters, refrigerators, and coffee makers, all of which had multiple control dials, multiple LCD displays, and a complexity that defied description.

Once upon a time, a toaster had one knob to control how much the bread was to be toasted and that was all. A simple lever lowered the bread and started the operation. Toasters cost around $20. But in the Korean store, I found a German toaster for 250,000 Korean Won (about $250). It had complex controls, a motor to lower the untoasted bread and to lift it when finished, and an LCD panel with many cryptic icons, graphs, and numbers. Simplicity?

After touring the store my two friendly guides and I stopped outside to where two new automobiles were on display: two brand new Korean SUVs. Complexity again. I'm old enough to remember when a steering wheel was just a steering wheel, the rear view mirror just a mirror. These steering wheels were also complex control structures with multiple buttons and controls including two sets of loudness controls, one for music and one for the telephone (and I'm not even mentioning the multiple stalks on the steering column). The rear view mirror had two controls, one to illuminate the compass the other simply labeled "mirror," which lit a small red light when depressed. A rear view mirror with an on-off switch? The salesperson didn't know what it did either.

Why such expensive toasters? Why all the buttons and controls on steering wheels and rear-view mirrors? Because they appear to add features that people want to have. They make a difference at the time of sale, which is when it matters most.

Why is this? Why do we deliberately build things that confuse the people who use them?

Answer: Because the people want the features. Because simplicity is a myth whose time has past, if it ever existed.

Make it simple and people won't buy. Given a choice, they will take the item that does more. Features win over simplicity, even when people realize that it is accompanied by more complexity. You do it too, I bet. Haven't you ever compared two products side by side, comparing the features of each, preferring the one that did more? Why shame on you, you are behaving, well, behaving like a normal person.

The complex expensive toaster? I bet it sells well.

What really puzzles me, though, is that when a manufacturer figures out how to automate an otherwise mysterious operation, I would expect the resulting device to be simpler. Nope. Here is an example.

Siemens recently released a washing machine that, to quote their website, "is equipped with smart sensors that recognize how much laundry is in the drum, what kind of textiles the laundry load comprises, and if it is heavily or lightly soiled. Users only have to choose one of two program settings: hot and colored wash, or easy-to-clean fabrics. The machine takes care of the rest."

Hurrah, I said, now the entire wash can be automatic, so there need be only two controls: one to chose between "hot and colored wash" and "easy-to-clean fabrics," the other to start the machine. Nope, this washer had even more controls and buttons than the non-automatic one. "Why even more controls? I asked my contact at Siemens, "when you could make this machines with only one or two?".

"Are you one of those people who wants to give up control, who thinks less is better?" asked this usability expert. "Don't you want to be in control?"

Strange answer. Why the automation if it isn't to be trusted? And, yes, actually I am one of those bizarre people who think that less is better.

It appears that marketing won the day. And I suspect marketing was right. Would you pay more money for a washing machine with less controls? In the abstract, maybe. At the store? Probably not.

Notice the question: "pay more money for a washing machine with less controls." An early reviewer of this paper flagged the sentence as an error: "Didn't you mean 'less money'?" the reviewer asked? That question makes my point precisely. If a company spent more money to design and build an appliance that worked so well, so automatically, that all it needed was an on-off switch, people would reject it. "This simple looking thing costs more?" They would complain. "What is that company thinking of? I'll buy the cheaper one with all those extra features - after all, it's better, right? And I save money."

Marketing rules - as it should, for a company that ignores marketing is a company soon out of business. Marketing experts know that purchase decisions are influenced by feature lists, even if the buyers realize they will probably never use most of the features. Even if the features confuse more than they help.

Yes, we want simplicity, but we don't want to give up any of those cool features. Simplicity is highly overrated.

Don Norman wears many hats, including co-founder of the Nielsen Norman group, Professor at Northwestern University, and author, his latest book being . He lives at www.jnd.org .


I'm a champion of elegance, simplicity, and ease of use. But, as a business person, I also know that companies have to make money, which means they have to deliver the products that their customers want, not the products they believe they should want. And the truth is, simplicity does not sell. Why?

One of my correspondents posed the question with great clarity:

The answer is the latter: people are not willing to pay for a system that looks simpler because it looks less capable. Hence the fully automatic system that still contains lots of buttons and knobs. Joel Spolsky of Fog Creek Software has an eloquent description of the problem, and why he too discovered that adding apparent complexity is necessary. See his blog:

A few others have chimed in to support the notion that complex products look more powerful. One gave an example from Iran:

In my article I used a Korean example. As a result, many of my readers seem to think I wrote the entire article based upon this one experience. Some seemed to think this was my first and only trip to a foreign (or Asian) country. Amazing. I wrote the article after decades of experience in design, especially of consumer products. The arguments apply universally. Do I travel? Hah. Over 140,000 airline miles in 2006 alone. Close to 2 million documented airline miles total.

Do we have to go to Korea or Iran to find this tendency? Nope. I have experienced this in the United States. Here is one example.I am helping a company design an entirely new approach to one of their standard products. It looks simple. During a user test, one person said that he really liked it, but it was too bad he wouldn't use it. "Why not?" we asked. "Because it isn't powerful enough for my particular problem," he replied."Try it," we suggested, "we would like to see where it fails so we can make it better."Well, it didn't fail. it handled his problem just fine. Looking simple was the culprit. if it looks simple, he seemed to think, it must not be powerful.

Many of the complaints sent to me provided examples of specific difficulties with poorly designed, complex devices. Hey, I am not advocating bad design. I am simply pointing out a fact of life: purchasers, on the whole, prefer more powerful devices to less powerful ones. They equate the apparent simplicity of the controls with lack of power: complexity with power. This doesn't mean everyone. it does mean the majority, however, and this is who the marketing specialists of a company target. Quite appropriately, in my opinion.

One person truly misunderstood because he advocated hiding the extra controls, thus preserving the apparent simplicity. Sorry: it is the apparent complexity that drives the sale. And yes, it is the same complexity that frustrates those same people later on. But by then, it is too late: they have already purchased the product.

Many correspondents understood this, but presented very sensible, very logical arguments as to why this should not be true. Logic and reason, I have to keep explaining, are wonderful virtues, but they are irrelevant in describing human behavior. Trying to prove a point through intelligent, reasonable argumentation is what I call the "engineer's fallacy." (Also, the economist's fallacy.") We have to design for the way people really behave, not as engineers or economists would prefer them to behave.

Logic is not the way to answer these issues: human behavior is the key. Avoid the engineer's and economist's fallacy: don't reason your way to a solution -- observe real people. We have to take human behavior the way it is, not the way we would wish it to be.

So, of course I am in favor of good design and attractive products. Easy to use products. But when it comes time to purchase, people tend to go for the more powerful products, and they judge the power by the apparent complexity of the controls. If that is what people use as a purchasing choice, we must provide it for them. While making the actual complexity low, the real simplicity high. That's an exciting design challenge: make it look powerful while also making it easy to use. And attractive. And affordable. And functional. And environmentally appropriate. Accessible to all.

That's why I like design: it presents wonderful challenges.

And now read the latest squabble: Why is 37signals so arrogant?

After reading "simplicity is highly overrated," one thing seems to puzzle me. Do you mean that features packed system cannot have a simplistic interface? Or do you mean that people are not willing to pay for a system with same number of features because it appears to have less manipulable things on its interface, and hence looks less capable than some other intimidating-looking complex machine?

Language: English

Join the club! Sign up for our newsletter

Atelier Doré
Prev Post
Slimfit Stripetrimmed Virgin Wool Sweater Moncler Discount New Arrival Wide Range Of Online Discount Largest Supplier Shopping Online High Quality Sale Cheap Price mXAj4Nh
0 like
0 tweet
0 pin
Google +
0 share
0 share

4 years ago by New Styles Many Kinds Of Vara patentleather pumps Salvatore Ferragamo 100% Original Discount Best Seller 3QyyRA

Lately, I’ve been trying to simplify my life. I want simplicity in everything. Like, even Homeland annoys me because it’s too complicated.

Everyday life, beauty, clothes. I really don’t feel like worrying about any of it. I’m leaving today for three days in Mid heel silver pumps Proenza Schouler 2018 Newest Cheap Price Lowest Price Cheap Price Sale Choice Clearance Geniue Stockist LjQZ9ptxA
, and my ultimate goal would be to fit all three days into my handbag (except that since I’ve simplified everything, my bag is tiny) (ok, maybe just fit all three days in my carry on) (ok fine, in my big suitcase, then — I guess I still have a lot to learn about living simply).

(And plus, if I only had three items of clothing, this would be a pretty boring fashion blog, right?)(Even if honestly — what’s all the rage right now to say you want to have less, which is proof that this post is not at all anti-fashion.)

This process has been in the works for awhile now — I told you about downsizing my wardrobe, remember ? Well I enjoyed that so much that now it’s taking over my whole life.

I only carry one bag now. It’s my favorite one — my Lulu bag by Saint Laurent , and I always have it with me. I don’t care about the others, this one is enough for me. It’s sublime, it goes with everything, and it’s not too recognizable, which I love.

You can’t fit much in it. So that forced me to rethink my wallet. I was tired of having a huge thing in my purse full of receipts and useless stuff. I figure if guys (guys are like old people — they’re right about a lot of things!!!)(oh there, I should write a post about that next time) can go out without a handbag, I should be able to go out without a wallet the size of Kanye ’s Hummer.

So I got rid of everything and bought a tiny Comme des Garçons wallet which totally fits my needs. And my goal is to manage to make it work with nothing but a Smythson card holder in the near future — that’s how liberated I’ll be from all these base earthly concerns.

So now all I take with me every day is my phone, my wallet, my headphones, my keys, and a lip gloss. And honestly, I don’t miss any of the other stuff. Well, except for chewing gum, maybe. And blotting papers. And my compact. And hand cream. And a scarf.

Ok, we’re not going to talk about my haircut again, I think you’ve understood by now — it’s really super easy, and plus, the more Clyde , my hair stylist, gets to know me, the faster and more beautiful it is every time, and we don’t even have to talk to understand each other anymore.

As for makeup, I asked Tatyana , my favorite makeup artist (who told me “You really don’t know how to put on makeup” the first time I met her! And like any good French girl, I love when people tell it to me straight, even more when it’s at first encounter) to do two looks for me. One for night time, one for day time. We picked out my colors together, and I got rid of everything else — all the old tubes and tubs that were just collecting dust. I’ll show you what we picked out soon if you want!!!

I’ve already talked to you about this, so I won’t go on and on, but this is another area of my life where I keep simplifying. I just bought five Salon raffia sandals Carrie Forbes Buy Cheap Very Cheap Free Shipping Get Authentic 2018 Cheap Price 100% Authentic Cheap Online k9WBtLkw
sweaters. Cashmere, v-neck, neutral colors. They go with everything and even if it’s not quite a Bompard (do you know where I can find Bompard sweaters in New York?) it honestly makes my life so much easier.

Those, and a few pairs of well-cut jeans — that’s my base. Then I add either jewelry, a pretty coat, or a killer pair of shoes, and that does it for me. I’m still on the lookout for my killer pair of shoes for this winter, by the way…

Hey, I didn’t say I was Normcore. I like beautiful things and I think too many basics kill the basic. And vintage 501’s scare me. They’re really not for everyone.

I make single-ingredient meals. Like yesterday, I wanted to make ratatouille, and then I ended up just cooking zucchini. The ingredients? Zucchini. Nope, I didn’t even add onions — it gives them a weird taste. It’s super tasty, takes only 5 minutes to prepare (it’s all in the provençal style cooking — a little olive oil, salt and pepper, and then you have to burn them just a little) and frankly, for someone who lives in New York and spends their life in restaurants, it gives your palate a nice break. And it’s healthy!

So I make myself little dishes with three ingredients max. I love it. Squash soup. Avocado toast. Steamed leeks. Dark chocolate. Sardines. Cheese for dinner. A glass of red wine. Ah the good life!!!

Not too far. Not too complicated. For New Year’s, I’ll be on a beach in Costa Rica. The goal? To surf, eat ceviche, and drink margaritas with friends. That’s it. Hey, speaking of food and Costa Rica, hahaha. Bathing suit anxiety right after Christmas.

After pretty much quitting yoga since it was kind of messing up my back (it’s a little depressing, given my incredible talent for it , I don’t know why, but yoga just hurts my back) I decided to start exercising again, but without setting stupid goals that I’ll give up on after half an hour.

So now I work on my abs and butt at home, and I walk at least an hour per day (to get to the Studio, for example)(I have a pretty good app for that — it’s called Moves*) or I’ll run for half an hour if I know I won’t have time to walk. That plus push-ups to get me ready for surfing (I’m at 12 now — in your opinion, how many do I need to do? 100? 88 more to go!!! Yay!!!) And when I have time, I’ll do yoga or pilates or a dance class with a friend. Just for fun.

Voilà. Simple, right?

What about you? Are you super trendy like me or are you still accumulating a bunch of stuff? (That’s so 2011 — seriously, pull yourself together!)

———————- *Moves, is like an improved pedometer that counts your steps. The only problem with Moves is when there’s a glitch. Yesterday I walked like a crazy person to beat my record and suddenly the app froze, and I lost everything I’d done and felt like I’d walked for nothing, which is ridiculous and just goes to show how addicted we can get to these things!!!

My bag.

Authorized and accredited by Special Olympics Inc. for the benefit of persons with intellectual disabilities. Copyright © 2018 Special Olympics Kansas. All Rights Reserved.