[community] Fwd: AODA standard for Social Assistance?

Lucian Timofte luciantimofte at gmail.com
Sat Jul 17 21:19:22 UTC 2021


Hi John,

I think you captured very well the nuances of my prior message.

Questioning assumptions is legit and desirable as a researcher and as a
designer. Knowing your audience and exploring those questions with your
audience is even more weighty. As well, I believe it is very important to
be aware of your own assumptions and aims when doing research/design.

Questioning the definitions of disability is important. This reminds me of
a discussion from my first year with the Inclusive Design master program,
whether disability is a trait or social construction. At that time I
suggested disability is both and even more. I can't deny my biological
determinations, nor the social ones. But I am more than that if I look over
my disability from a spiritual perspective. Besides that, I think
disability is an inescapable reality to everyone, as human nature is
fleeting, we all will be facing at some point in life a form and a degree
of disability. It is just a matter of awareness as the line between ability
and disability will bloor with anyone some day. Then, in the context of law
and regulations, healthcare & social services, and the disability industry
I can see why the medical model is prevalent. Because it "simplifies" and
commodifies a complex problem. Of course it is inherently limited, it
solves some problems yet it ignores or creates others.

I think it is great you try to take a multilayered approach in your work of
service design for equity in social assistance. Those layers are all
interconnected but if they don't, the "top" has to be rewired with the
"bottom". They all are important but without "bottom", I think what is
above can't exist nor function properly.

Sincerely,
Lucian

On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 2:41 PM John W (personal) <pickupwillis at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hey Lucian, thanks so much for taking time to respond, I really enjoyed
> reading your words.
>
> I have always been a bit sceptical of frameworks that purport to explain
> complex behaviour with simple abstractions - I have seen the classic
> anti-oppression framework misused in this way on many occasions. For some,
> these kinds of tools help to excuse the user from doing the real work of
> engaging, observing, learning from other individual human beings. I think i
> am resonating with you (but tell me if not) on the understanding that
> actual people are more diverse than any conceptual framework or
> socio-political identity label can capture.
>
> Instead we should be working through an 'ethics of ambiguity' (Simone de
> Beauvoir's expression).
>
> But as a designer interested in systems, I don't see any contradiction in
> recognizing that assumptions, prejudices, knowledge and  present-tense
> evidence gets codified through policies, standards, technologies, and 'best
> practices' that layer on themselves to form foundations for institutions.
> Call them what you want ('episteme's e.g. Foucault) but I just mean the
> transformation of practices into quawsi-structural elements of future
> reality -- and this happens in a manner that reflects the current power
> relations, e.g. those with more privilege have more of their assumptions
> and preferences laid down in those structures.
>
> In my design work with social assistance, I think it is not so important
> to debate the labeling of these things (racist, ableist, etc) -- I try to
> accept what those with lived experience want to use.
>
> Rather I try to support participants to surface and interrogate the
> specific assumptions that characterize the system we are attempting to
> formulate new problem statements and responses for. I think that process of
> uncovering and acknowledging structures that claim to be unquestionable
> because tehy are foundational and rendering them maliable (turning 'facts'
> into 'concerns' as the systems thinkers urge) can be liberating and and
> does not (I don't think) contradict your pont (but do please let me know).
>
> I'm sorry to speak in abstractions.  By way of an example -- the
> legislation that created ODSP assumes there is a  real thing called
> 'disability' that can be defined and aligned to other legal structures and
> codes in Ontario.  Most importantly it requires a definition that can be
> adjudicated medically, and further assumes we must use western European
> medical knowledge for that purpose.  Finally, the definition must be
> capable of discriminating against individuals who 'should' be capable of
> earning income in the mainstream labour market (which is a construct about
> the proper role of the public sector, ie. a 'last resort').
>
> But what would it look like if we wrote the legislation in one of
> Ontario's ndigenous languages? Would weeven be able to, given (as I've been
> told but do not know for fact) that some indigenous languages don't have
> the concept of 'disability' so it would need to be invented?  A Very
> specific example, to some of your great points about healthcare -- the
> program funds some medical transoporaton but i think it is very indicative
> that the list of allowed provides are all western medical professionals.
> There is no provision for travel to a First Nations healing centre or sweat
> lodge, for example, regardless of need.
>
> Anyway, just wanting to acknowledge (to I think Cybele's point or spirit
> of her point anyway) that structural discrimination is a feature of the
> context in which individuals act toward each otehr. In our work of service
> design for equity in social assistance, we are trying to keep in view key
> dimensions simultaneously:
>
> - personal
> - interpersonal
> - institutional
> - systemic
>
> .. so that we do not ignore or suppress the real challenges AND
> opportunities that exist at all levels.
>
> (So that is one abstract framework I am willing to use, just so it isn't
> misunderstood they have zero value.)
>
> I hope I haven't put anyone to sleep with  this note :-) Looking forward
> to any thoughts from the community.  Thanks for the opprtunity Lucian and
> Cybele!
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 7:35 PM Lucian Timofte <luciantimofte at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting thought exchange, Cybele and John.
>>
>> While I acknowledge historical underpinnings or social determinations, I
>> am not really convinced that they are the sole cause of limited mindset
>> when designing anything for the disabled communities. Human history is,
>> among many things, a collection of adversities that is troubling and
>> regrettable. Regardless of their reasoning one thing is certain to me, they
>> will never disappear because the problem resides in the way humans function
>> as individuals and as collectivities. Something much important I think is
>> missing. Human beings are amazing yet surprising creatures in all
>> directions and what they think and do, either good or bad, becomes
>> contagious. I believe any social structure mirrors what happens at the
>> level of the individual. Then understanding a community is to pay attention
>> to each of its individuals and the context they live in. And it is not
>> rocket science to observe that the human person is a cluster of opposites
>> that cannot be easily kept in balance. Depending on the circumstances, the
>> same individual can switch back and forth an array of positions including
>> the victim and the aggressor. Anyone getting in a power position will take
>> advantage and set up desired rules. The rest engage in a battle for power
>> to overthrow existing rules and impose a different set of rules. Then
>> within this never ending circuitry, we fail to acknowledge that we all
>> share the same human nature with its great potential and
>> pitfall, brightness and shadows. For instance, I do not consider myself any
>> better or any worse than you Cybele or you John or you any of the actors in
>> the public sector. On a deep level we may come to the understanding that
>> each one of us is the extension of everyone. Disagreements are natural but
>> getting (too) confrontational will not make them disappear, on the
>> contrary. In order to enlarge our mindset, consistent practice of
>> empathy/compassion would need to happen. Having dialogue, switching
>> positions, understanding the other's perspective, getting along together,
>> overcoming divisions.
>>
>> Now, getting back to our social services and policies. When criticising
>> these, I would kindly ask you to stretch your imagination with the worst
>> case scenario, a flat landscape which to me is the true "marginal" position
>> in any society. From this position, we may appreciate the existing
>> landscape of inclusion with its imperfections and then we can move forward
>> to identify problems and solutions. I don't have much experience with OW
>> but I think the program is designed to determine receivers wanting to get
>> back in the workfield rather than punishing them for their poor performance
>> in the labour market. I have more experience with ODSP as a receiver and
>> from this position I clearly afirm the program is not a fit for those who
>> aim to live independently, outside of subsidized housing. Maximum allowance
>> for someone who rents a regular apartment is lower than the monthly rent
>> itself. A notorious drawback of ODSP is its total lack of funding for many
>> needed assistive devices such as hoyer/ceiling lifts, commodes, door
>> openers. However, they eventually would cover 25% of the client portion for
>> "basic" devices such as a power/wheelchair, I think every 5 years (if
>> really needed) and some very expensive furniture such as hospital bed,
>> basically to accommodate attendants. When it comes to caseworkers, most
>> ODSP receivers have experienced great disappointment in terms of
>> communication and approach to their challenges. Exceptions may occur.
>> Definitely, most caseworkers behave as solely bureaucrats interested in
>> numbers and saving money for the government. A nice feature of ODSP is they
>> allow the client to work without cutting the allover benefits but they
>> apply certain income deductions. As well, they consider family members in
>> the application if they don't have a job. I have heard that ODSP
>> eligibility would end beyond a certain age, 50-55, which if true, doesn't
>> make any sense to me.
>>
>> A bigger problem than OW/ODSP issues for the disabled communities I think
>> is the attendant services. Shortage of PSWs during pandemic, too many
>> intermediaries involved that waste public money, absurd and made up safety
>> regulations for transfers, poor training with the PSWs, modest wages for
>> PSWs, all these and many other things exposed the design issues
>> dramatically happening in this vital sector, that endangered the life
>> fellow disabled, put them in isolation, abandonment and fear. This exerts
>> inimaginable pressure and stress over them and it definitely has to be
>> addressed and has to be drastically rethought and changed as it is
>> essential for surviving and functioning. None of the fellow disabled can
>> make and pursue any plan in regards to their education and employment if
>> their basic needs cannot be covered on a daily basis.
>>
>> Having said these, I think the disabled communities have to connect
>> together and speak out over and over again, to reach out to the decision
>> makers/designers and to co-design any policy, product or service that is
>> tangential to them and that has an impact on their lives. Using
>> powerful arguments, showing intelligence, determination and dignity, yet
>> empathy/compassion towards adversity. There is no need for
>> unnecessary enemies. And remember, from seeing or hearing to the heart
>> understanding, is a long way. It takes time, great effort and good examples
>> to build emphatic relationships around us.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Lucian
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 7:25 PM John W (personal) <pickupwillis at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As always this community is awesome!! thanks all for your fee
>>>
>>> Cybele and Lucian, I agree with basically all your points, which is not
>>> to say there is no real distinction you are raising - rather, I think the
>>> redesign of social assistance is realy quie complex. The historic
>>> undermpinnings (as Cybele notes) really limit the mental models that public
>>> service managers of OW/ODSP can mobilize.  For example, OW is
>>> still designed to punish people who are not productive in mainstream labour
>>> markets, but they can escape into a higher income bracket (somewhat) by
>>> gaining entry to ODSP -- where the underlying logic is you are useless to
>>> society because you are neither able enough to 'produce' in the economy..
>>>
>>> The overall logic, then, is that people on social assistance are either
>>> failing because they aren't effective consumers or effective producers.
>>> This means they are eminently ignorable from a political standpoint.
>>>
>>> This is what it means to be truly 'marginal' in a capitalist society.
>>> The 'recovery' plan for social assistance coming out of COVID is in fact to
>>> double-down on this framework by funneling resources to job-seekers --
>>> which means those on Ontario Works by the way, not ODSP.
>>>
>>> Having said all that, the actual experience of getting services through
>>> these programs seems to me an important driver of equity as well - for
>>> example, if there are no touchpoints (no affordable wifi, no offices, no
>>> material in indigenous languages...) for low income nortrners, they cannot
>>> get the benefits for housing or food they may need.
>>>
>>> I now am starting to understand that the wedge, or lever, for change
>>> could well be the issues around culturally-appropriate services and
>>> supports. What does an indigenous northern young woman need in order to
>>> access services? What does a black family in Brampton need?  If 'equity'
>>> means anything I think it has to do with respecting difference in
>>> perspectives and designing for that difference - again let's challenge 'one
>>> size fits all' thinking!
>>>
>>> All of these threads converge, I think, on participatory models in which
>>> peple who use the service are involved in its design and governance. Big
>>> role for our community in that. Equity strategy must include real
>>> participation, co-design, co-production.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:19 AM Lucian Timofte <luciantimofte at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I cannot access enough data or facts to suspect everyone in
>>>> the
>>>> system as ableist.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:04 AM Cybele S <cybele.sack at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Structural ableism.  Systemic ableism.
>>>> >
>>>> > What is the limit of conscious ableism?  Are we defining individual
>>>> intent
>>>> > now?  Whose?  It's not necessary but it's certainly provable to show
>>>> > historic bias that underpins the creation and maintenance of these
>>>> systems.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 9:45 AM Lucian Timofte <
>>>> luciantimofte at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I agree the picture is larger. However, I am not sure if it is about
>>>> >> conscious ableism.
>>>> >> To me, lack of participatory design, funding issues, poor management
>>>> and
>>>> >> communication are facts.
>>>> >> Before digital inclusion with ODSP, PwDs still do pirouettes to
>>>> navigate
>>>> >> financial problems, underfunding their housing/renting, nutrition,
>>>> >> assistive devices and medical needs.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Sincerely,
>>>> >> Lucian
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:00 PM Cybele S <cybele.sack at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Of course those should not be lost.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What is the big picture on this?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Layers of denials of claims, filtering people out first by type of
>>>> >>> disability, then by system literacy and access to supports, then by
>>>> >>> technological barriers which amplify bias towards exclusion and
>>>> towards a
>>>> >>> belief that people are cheating the system.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> If we do tech fixes without addressing the bigger picture, we could
>>>> >>> whitewash these exclusions as “accessibility” when real
>>>> accessibility
>>>> >>> addresses ableism.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:50 AM arc23 <arcohoon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> > Great with that, just as long as the technology problems and
>>>> >>> communication
>>>> >>> > discussions are not lost thank you
>>>> >>> > written using voice to text excuse any mistakes 416-710-0817
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > On Wed., Jul. 7, 2021, 11:02 a.m. Cybele S, <
>>>> cybele.sack at gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >> Before we get too granular, can this discussion also include
>>>> >>> definitions
>>>> >>> >> of who qualifies and when?
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:59 AM Fran Quintero Rawlings <
>>>> >>> >> rawlings.fran at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> Hey this is a fascinating and important topic.
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> Firstly because of how many barriers there are to filling out
>>>> these
>>>> >>> >>> forms. The requirements for someone that is disabled, low
>>>> income or a
>>>> >>> >>> senior needing any type of assistance is ridiculous.
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> Secondly current AODA standards are still missing the mark -
>>>> they
>>>> >>> don’t
>>>> >>> >>> account for neurodiversity needs and perhaps other inclusive
>>>> need.
>>>> >>> On top
>>>> >>> >>> of being cumbersome, they are confusing and overwhelming to
>>>> fill out.
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> The elephant in the room around all of this is the lack of
>>>> dignity
>>>> >>> >>> considered in the design of these services. They are not
>>>> co-designed
>>>> >>> with
>>>> >>> >>> people that actually use the services (or the existing design
>>>> of the
>>>> >>> AODA
>>>> >>> >>> standard.
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> I would be interested in discussing this more.
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> Cheers
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> Fran
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> > On Jul 7, 2021, at 09:52, arc23 <arcohoon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> >>> >>> > From: arc23 <arcohoon at gmail.com>
>>>> >>> >>> > Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:40 AM
>>>> >>> >>> > Subject: Re: [community] AODA standard for Social Assistance?
>>>> >>> >>> > To: Brian Moore <bmoore at screenreview.org>
>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >>> > I am using both windows 10 and the latest version of Android
>>>> and
>>>> >>> then
>>>> >>> >>> both
>>>> >>> >>> > those cases if there is a way to fill a PDF without paying
>>>> for the
>>>> >>> >>> premium
>>>> >>> >>> > the user interface way finding does not make it easy so I
>>>> don't
>>>> >>> know if
>>>> >>> >>> > there is a way I didn't fill out the form without signing up
>>>> for a
>>>> >>> >>> monthly
>>>> >>> >>> > membership because I used up my free trial a few years ago
>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >>> > I bet it's a government security thing but the fact is it's
>>>> going
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> >>> nickel
>>>> >>> >>> > and dine as low income users they say you can get a word
>>>> document
>>>> >>> but I
>>>> >>> >>> > think you have to talk to somebody first and if you can't get
>>>> a
>>>> >>> hold of
>>>> >>> >>> > anybody then you're still stuck
>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >>> > written using voice to text excuse any mistakes 416-710-0817
>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >>> >> On Wed., Jul. 7, 2021, 7:47 a.m. Brian Moore, <
>>>> >>> >>> bmoore at screenreview.org>
>>>> >>> >>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> really! Are you using a mac?  Adobe reader the free version
>>>> >>> should be
>>>> >>> >>> able
>>>> >>> >>> >> to fill out pdf forms although most of them really suck for
>>>> >>> >>> accessibility?
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> I am not sure the mac version does though.
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> Yeah, I have heard that calling them is a shit show and you
>>>> can
>>>> >>> never
>>>> >>> >>> get
>>>> >>> >>> >> a hold of anyone. Clearly that hasn't changed since I was on
>>>> it.
>>>> >>> you
>>>> >>> >>> could
>>>> >>> >>> >> leave voice mails and never get a call back!
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> Contact me on skype: brian.moore
>>>> >>> >>> >> follow me on twitter:http://www.twitter.com/bmoore123
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> On 2021-07-06 5:28 p.m., arc23 wrote:
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> They have definitely made in roads in making ODSP more
>>>> digital
>>>> >>> >>> accessible
>>>> >>> >>> >> for users during the pandemic with my benefits website my
>>>> only
>>>> >>> >>> concern as
>>>> >>> >>> >> an ODSP recipient is the digital forms are all in PDFs that
>>>> need
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> >>> >> premium version of acrobat to fill electronically I cannot
>>>> use my
>>>> >>> >>> wordq to
>>>> >>> >>> >> fill out the digital PDF forms. Can I claim Adobe Acrobat as
>>>> an
>>>> >>> ODSP
>>>> >>> >>> >> expense that's the only way I can pay over $10 a month to be
>>>> able
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> >>> >> properly fill out ODSP forms online
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> And also doesn't seem like they want clients to get a hold
>>>> of them
>>>> >>> >>> easily
>>>> >>> >>> >> because I constantly had workers that just disappeared and
>>>> when I
>>>> >>> >>> call in
>>>> >>> >>> >> they tell me all your worker quit months ago and they do
>>>> nothing
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> >>> >> actually let you know that on their voicemail you just get a
>>>> >>> >>> voicemail box
>>>> >>> >>> >> that's full of messages
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> They should definitely look into inclusive design principles
>>>> and
>>>> >>> >>> better
>>>> >>> >>> >> customer service principals for for us clients do actually
>>>> use the
>>>> >>> >>> service
>>>> >>> >>> >> and do it more efficiently
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> But usually when I do send them a document through the my
>>>> benefits
>>>> >>> >>> website
>>>> >>> >>> >> I usually do get a response in about a week but it's getting
>>>> to
>>>> >>> talk
>>>> >>> >>> to an
>>>> >>> >>> >> actual person on the phone that is still a problem
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> written using voice to text excuse any mistakes 416-710-0817
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >> On Mon., Jul. 5, 2021, 5:12 p.m. Brian Moore, <
>>>> >>> >>> bmoore at screenreview.org>
>>>> >>> >>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >>> Hi.  If nothing else, I think all those programs
>>>> communications
>>>> >>> with
>>>> >>> >>> >>> consumers are still in print.  I think even the monthly
>>>> reporting
>>>> >>> >>> forms
>>>> >>> >>> >>> are still print. I heard some talk of online forms for
>>>> reporting
>>>> >>> >>> monthly
>>>> >>> >>> >>> income and there was some talk of developing this when I was
>>>> >>> doing
>>>> >>> >>> >>> contract work at MGCS but not sure if anything ever came of
>>>> >>> that.  I
>>>> >>> >>> >>> know they have an online application package now but can't
>>>> >>> comment on
>>>> >>> >>> >>> its accessibility as I haven't tried although I did hear
>>>> some
>>>> >>> people
>>>> >>> >>> had
>>>> >>> >>> >>> trouble.
>>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>> Would be interested what anyone knows about this.
>>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>> Brian.
>>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>> Contact me on skype: brian.moore
>>>> >>> >>> >>> follow me on twitter:
>>>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.twitter.com/bmoore123
>>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>> On 2021-07-05 4:11 p.m., John W (personal) wrote:
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> Hello Inclusive Design Community (aka My External Brain)
>>>> >>> >>> >>>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> I think a number of  folks here -- including Pina and
>>>> Jutta and
>>>> >>> >>> David L
>>>> >>> >>> >>> but
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> maybe others? -- have deep expertise in AODA Standards
>>>> >>> development.
>>>> >>> >>> >>>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> Question: Has there ever been a discussion with the
>>>> Provincial
>>>> >>> gov
>>>> >>> >>> >>> (either
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> the current Ministry or the former ADO) about developing a
>>>> >>> Standard
>>>> >>> >>> for
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> social assistance? Since OW an dODSP are heavily targeted
>>>> at
>>>> >>> persons
>>>> >>> >>> >>> with
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> disabilities, some of us are interested if this idea has
>>>> ever
>>>> >>> >>> surfaced
>>>> >>> >>> >>> and
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> if so, what was the upshot?
>>>> >>> >>> >>>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> If it has NOT come up, does anyone here want to make a
>>>> case for
>>>> >>> or
>>>> >>> >>> >>> against
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> having an AODA Standard for social assistance? Since
>>>> services
>>>> >>> under
>>>> >>> >>> OW
>>>> >>> >>> >>> and
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> ODSP are by eligibility only (not universal per se) this
>>>> would
>>>> >>> >>> >>> presumably
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> be a narrower Standard than others, but at the same time
>>>> it is
>>>> >>> >>> >>> interesting
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> to consider how a third-party standards-development process
>>>> >>> might
>>>> >>> >>> serve
>>>> >>> >>> >>> the
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> people who need social assistance in terms of
>>>> accessibility.
>>>> >>> >>> >>>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> thanks, all thoughts welcome
>>>> >>> >>> >>>> j
>>>> >>> >>> >>>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________
>>>> >>> >>> >>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>>>> >>> >>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe:
>>>> >>> >>> >>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>>>> >>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >>> > --
>>>> >>> >>> > _______________________
>>>> >>> >>> > Adam Roy Cohoon [name]
>>>> >>> >>> > @ARC23
>>>> >>> >>> > ARTIST/ACCESS advocate / Tech Tester
>>>> >>> >>> > cell. 416-710-0817
>>>> >>> >>> > www.youtube.com/ARC23
>>>> >>> >>> > skype: arcohoon
>>>> >>> >>> > arcohoon at gmail.com
>>>> >>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >>> > this may have been composed with experimental speech and word
>>>> >>> >>> prediction
>>>> >>> >>> > software, please, feel free to contact me for clarification if
>>>> >>> unclear
>>>> >>> >>> or
>>>> >>> >>> > always glad to talk via voice
>>>> >>> >>> > ________________________________________
>>>> >>> >>> > Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>>>> >>> >>> > Click here to unsubscribe:
>>>> >>> >>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>>>> >>> >>> ________________________________________
>>>> >>> >>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>>>> >>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe:
>>>> >>> >>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>>>> >>> >>>
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> ________________________________________
>>>> >>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>>>> >>> Click here to unsubscribe:
>>>> >>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe:
>>>> https://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *John D. Willis | CE CAIP MDes*
>>> Design & Innovation in Public Services
>>> Toronto CANADA
>>>
>>> Garbled text? My apologies - speech-to-text technology is still a work
>>> in progress...
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> *John D. Willis | CE CAIP MDes*
> Design & Innovation in Public Services
> Toronto CANADA
>
> Garbled text? My apologies - speech-to-text technology is still a work in
> progress...
>



More information about the community mailing list