ABSTRACT

The Inclusive Design Research Centre at The Ontario College of Art and Design University partnered with Sidewalk Labs to engage the Toronto community in a co-design process, discuss lived experiences, share perspectives, and generate ideas that will help the Quayside project be more inclusive and accessible to a city as diverse as Toronto. This combined report shares the results of multiple co-design sessions and a hackathon conducted by the joint team.

Most relevant sections: Vol 1 (Quayside Plan) / Vol 2 (Mobility, Public Realm)

© 2019 Sidewalk Labs. The content, documents and materials contained herein are considered Sidewalk Proprietary Information.

TITLE: Co-designing Inclusive Cities—Ontario College of Art and Design Inclusive Design Research Centre /Sidewalk Labs Co-Design EngagementAUTHOR: The Ontario College of Art and Design - Inclusive Design Research Centre / Sidewalk Labs

Master Innovation & Development PlanTechnical Appendix

Co-designing Inclusive Cities: Ontario College of Art and Design Inclusive Design

Research Centre/Sidewalk Labs Co-Design Engagement

Executive Summary The Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) partnered with Sidewalk Toronto to engage the Toronto community in a co-design process, discuss lived experiences, share perspectives, and generate ideas that will help the Quayside project be more inclusive and accessible to a city as diverse as Toronto.

Deliverables

● Organized three co-design workshops with marginalized and underrepresented communities in Toronto to identify current challenges and generate a list of ideas and solutions that can improve urban experiences. See session reports in the Appendix.

● Organized a hackathon to bring together Sidewalk engineers and participants who have lived experience of disability and marginalization to build and test some of the ideas generated in the co-design sessions. See hackathon report in the Appendix.

● Contributed to the Sidewalk Accessibility and Inclusion Principles which are included in their Master Innovation and Development plan (MIDP).

● Developed an open and reusable co-design toolkit, which can be used by Sidewalk Labs, residents of Toronto, and other smart cities initiatives as a resource when planning and running co-design workshops. See Co-design toolkit in the Appendix.

Co-Design Sessions and Hackathon IDRC and Sidewalk Toronto co-facilitated the co-design sessions and Hackathon, that were held either at the Sidewalk office in Toronto or OCAD University. Each co-design session had a specific theme such as feedback and engagement, dynamic streets and threshold moments. In each session, participants shared their urban experiences, identified barriers in the community, brainstormed and prototyped ideas to address those issues. IDRC team went through the collected notes, documents, drawings, and prototypes from each session and built a database

of ideas generated in each of these sessions. IDRC and Sidewalk team worked together to select eight ideas from the three sessions to be tested and mocked up during the hackathon. Sidewalk team developed a detailed project description for each of those ideas (see appendix). The final eight ideas selected for the hackathon included an “Audible or haptic incoming traffic warnings at intersections” that lets people know about someone approaching on a bicycle or car if they’re preparing to cross the street and / or currently in the street, a “tranquil refuge” in public settings with information screens for transit, food, health and emergency services, a “Construction advisory beacon messages” to inform people of construction impediments on the path, “self-driving cars for sub-emergency medical visits” that acts as an alternative to ambulance for non-emergency medical transport, a “Augmented reality park feedback experience” to provide an easy way to give feedback to responsible parties, a “Rumble pavement” to indicate where the sidewalk ends and bike/vehicular traffic starts, a “Tactile sidewalk wayfinding strip” with geolocation for adjusting crossing times, an “AI floor describer” that describes the internal space of a building, and provides navigation assistance for the space. These ideas were selected from the co-design sessions, and were built by a team of engineers, product designers and community members at the Hackathon. The final products were tested and presented to the larger group, and the prize winning ideas were shared with the public at Sidewalk’s open access event.

Embedded co-design workshops IDRC team carried out a second stream of co-design within the community in addition to what was planned in the contract. In this effort, IDRC team invited different organizations to run their own co-design activities with their members and provided them with required support to facilitate those workshops. This stream of work enabled IDRC team to reach out to the broader community in Toronto and meet people who have lived experience of disability and marginalization where they are (deaf and deafblind community, people with lived experience of homelessness and developmental disabilities).

Contribution to the Sidewalk Accessibility and Inclusion Principles In the second and third co-design workshops and the hackathon, the participants were provided with a copy of the Inclusion and Accessibility principles created by Sidewalk labs, and were encouraged to provide feedback by directly making edits to the documents. Some of the participants in the embedded co-design sessions were also asked for their feedback regarding these principles. This document was then modified multiple times based on input from the community members.

Inclusive Cities Co-Design Toolkit IDRC has developed an open co-design toolkit to serve as a guide in planning and facilitating any group or community who aims to practice co-design. The toolkit contains perspectives on

co-design, reflections from our experiences in planning and facilitating co-design sessions and tools that can be used for planning and self-evaluating performance and outcomes. This is an open resources where the community can contribute to it and adapt to match their needs.

Moving Forward As a result of this partnership, the “Co-designing inclusive cities” website was launched, which includes an open platform for the community to share their insights, experiences and research about the inclusive and smart cities. It also incorporates open and active resources for doing co-design that will continue to develop by the community based on their emerging needs.

Appendix A version of all this information is available on the Co-designing Inclusive Cities Blog at https://cities.inclusivedesign.ca/blog/.

Co-design Session #1: Inclusive Feedback and Engagement The first of three co-design sessions was held on August 8th at 49 McCaul street, Toronto. The session began at 9:30 am and ended around 5:00 pm. Five IDRC members and one accessibility consultant from Sidewalk facilitated a group of 20 people from the Greater Toronto Area participated in this collaborative event. The theme of the first session was about inclusive feedback and engagement. Thus, the planned activities for the day encouraged participants to reflect on their personal experiences with regards to giving feedback in order to identify challenges in the feedback process and find ways to better engage the community.

Warm-Up Activity: Putting the story back together Objective: encourage active listening Duration: 15 Minutes The day began with a warm up activity. In this activity, a story was broken into a series of 17 sentences and phrases each written on a separate slip of paper. The slips of paper were distributed among participants. Each slip was also accompanied with visual icons to assist people in connecting the individual parts back together into a cohesive story. Participants were asked to keep their slips of paper to themselves and only read it out loud to each other. People who didn’t have a slip of paper immediately found a partner or worked as connectors to find the other related pieces of the story. Participants with visual impairment also paired up with other people in the room and actively participated in this activity. In addition to breaking the ice, this activity aimed to initiate conversation about core values of the feedback mechanism: active listening and taking action in response to what you hear.

Design Activity: Feedback Journey Map - Part 1 Objective: Mapping a feedback process from personal perspective Duration: 1 Hour After the warm-up activity, each person was assigned to a group. There were a total of 5 teams, with 4 members in each team. Each team was provided with four different contexts from the following list: school, fire/police station, community centre, waterfront, cafe / restaurant, farmers market, quiet place, street festival, your building, park, shopping mall, heritage building, street, city block, neighbourhood, outdoor movie, clinic, hospital, parties, attending an event. Teams were also given a blank card, so they could define their own context. For this activity, teams were asked to pick one context and think about a personal experience where they wanted to give feedback. Once they had selected the scenario they wanted to work with, they were given the following worksheet to map out the process of giving feedback within that context.

On this worksheet, participants were asked to identify the events/actions required to give feedback in their scenario, the challenges and barriers associated with each of those actions/events, their feelings at each step, and people who were responsible/accountable at each phase. By mapping out their feedback journey, we aimed to identify gaps, and find opportunities for improving current feedback mechanisms or creating new tools/processes. All groups were encouraged to take a note of new ideas and wishes they had for new ways to improve feedback tools and processes. Their wishes were posted on a “Wish Board” in the room.

Complete list of wishes Surfing the Design group Context: Street

● Accessible pedestrian signals should be on crosswalks too ● Lights activated as pedestrians cross the street ● Colour code curb to clarify where people stand based on need ● Feedback isn’t accessible: document need to be easy to understand and not too

technical ● More benches ● Wider berths with raised bumps as well as designated priority? Area for people w/

disabilities and access needs

Fantastic Five group Context: The Park

● Explore or improve “311” Feedback system for parks ○ Things to incorporate: more volume, natural input mechanisms

● Auto prioritization for feedbacks (receiving perspective) ● Continuous update during feedback response process ● Textual way-finding in parks (specific to wayfinding) ● Give you a reward for # of problems you have reported that get fixed ● Volunteer to help fix the problem (maybe engage student volunteer for credit) ● Track stage of your feedback (both sides can see) ● Information as public art ● Park Ambassadors - student volunteers ● Story telling beacons in parks for information on park amenities ● Triage Feedback - present in same method

Dream Machine group Context: Farmer’s Market

● Privacy Options - Access to Services without relinquishing privacy - option to opt-out ● Proactive vendors/quick response ● Transparent data collection and most importantly non-tech human interaction for help ● Accessible OMBUDSMAN when there is conflict or confusion - to mediate and identify

solution with clear way to identify them (mediation) ● Integrated, transparent communication system (from cleaners to emergency response)

in Real-Time for live support ● Transparent and accountable governance at all levels (cops, owner, government levels,

who and how and responsive with action) ● Food Governance at Market Level - labeling, and supply chain (transparent, coherent) ● Accessible Rates to washroom - signage and includes when there are

changes/construction ● Better Accessibility Education - Beyond AODA (better public training) ● Customized and specific, includes allergies for example ● Transparent and posting on website - feedback, complaints, what complaints are, who

they are from ● Database on site with complaints, response, action ● Legislation around transparent governance ● Human interactions during emergencies rather than robots ● Connected supply chain from vendor to consumer ● Vendors and operators educated on food accessibility needs

Five, The Other group Context: Shopping Mall

● A visible way to see how the feedback is implemented

● A place that learns from its usage and adapts to it ● Having an entity/person responsible for the feedback. (Knowing who is responsible for

certain spaces - architects, designers, owners, managers. Knowing where your feedback goes/lives. Humane/dignified wayfinding.)

● Individualized feedback channel with different options, including: app, person, telephone, feedback box, text message, feedback board

416-LABB group Context: Hospital

● Hospital Services Feedback ● Education - In location of hospitals/clinics ● Use of tech, multiple locations, languages ● Intelligent systems ● Transparent Information on who runs hospitals and who is making decisions ● Overnight staff specialists - complex, chronic (autoimmune), surgery and pharmacy ● Organizational structure of institutions and outsourced services (private/public) ● Feedback/information on when ambulance should be called and how much it will cost ● Better design and service of public transportation to hospitals ● More reasonable and affordable parking in hospitals ● Develop policies to encourage walk-in clinics to provide service during irregular hours

(clear information that guides efficient process) ● (Community support group) ● Provide access for transportations in the hospital (useful easy to understand language) ● Public education about emergency health care ● Finger/eye scanning system to replace health cards ● Education for emergency + volunteer room staff on how to properly communicate with

people in crisis ● Public Education about accessing healthcare - prior and on location

Design Activity: Feedback Journey Map - Part 2 Objective: Mapping a feedback process from alternative perspective Duration: 1 Hour In the second hour, teams were asked to flip their perspective and think about someone else within that context who is giving or receiving feedback. They were asked to think about people who were not there and perspectives which may have not been discussed yet. Teams completed the same worksheets and created feedback journey maps for this alternative perspective as well. In the last half an hour of the morning session, groups shared their scenarios and their journey maps with the rest of the group. The desired outcomes and wishes for the alternative perspective were also posted on the “Wish Board”.

Design Activity: Prototyping an Idea Objective: Exploring new and different ways of giving feedback Duration: 1 Hour In the afternoon session, participants were assigned to new groups. Each group was asked to pick a particular wish from the “Wish Board” and begin brainstorming ideas about how to make that wish a reality. Teams were asked to write down a brief description of their idea at the end of the hour.

The above image represents a prototype developed by one of the teams addressing issues around public transit, specifically targeting configuration of subway lines in the city.

Design Activity: Critique Objective: Considering unrepresented needs Duration: 30 Minutes After a quick break, groups were asked to switch the description of their idea with a group next to them, so the other group could critique their proposed solution from the inclusion and accessibility perspective. Each group was provided with the following questions to reflect on their peers work:

1. Who is excluded by this idea? 2. Who is supported/enabled/empowered by this idea? 3. What are the advantages of this idea? 4. What are the disadvantages of this idea?

Once groups completed their critique, they returned the worksheets to the original groups. Each team had half an hour to review the feedback they received and revise their initial idea.

Final Group Discussion

For the last our, each group shared their work with the rest of the teams and engaged in active discussion and questions when presenting each idea.

At the end of the session, participants were asked to complete a feedback from in order to assess their experience through the day and inform IDRC how they can improve their future co-design sessions.

Session #1 Synthesis Report OCTOBER 3, 2018 The first of three co-design sessions focused on the topic of Inclusive Feedback and Engagement. At this session participants were tasked with mapping out the journey of giving or receiving feedback from their personal experience as a group. Later in the afternoon, groups were tasked with building a prototype that could address some problems identified in the morning through their journey maps.

Themes that emerged from the journey maps Five city contexts were provided to each team to select from and create journey maps. The contexts selected by teams at this session include: Farmer’s market, Park, Street, Hospital, and Shopping Centre. Afterwards, teams were encouraged to share their personal experiences related to that city context and come up with a scenario that occurred within their selected context. Once they developed their scenario, they were asked to complete a journey map. The journey maps highlighted the actions they had taken to provide feedback, the challenges they experienced in the process, and the emotions that were elicited in response to those actions. Common issues and concerns raised by different teams were identified during the analysis of the completed journey maps created by each team. The participants reported having difficulty navigating an indoor/outdoor space because of a lack of information, inaccessible presentation of information, or information that is too complex to understand. The participants reported that lacking knowledge about the space significantly impacted their overall experience, and that they felt excluded. Others reported that they were unable to reach those responsible for the space and keep track of the feedback they had provided due to a disconnect in the system and a lack of transparent governance. The accessibility of a physical space was another important discussion point as many felt that physical spaces such as shopping malls or parks were not accessible for mobility devices, lacked visual and auditory cues for the deaf and blind communities, and posed a safety hazard (e.g. inaccessible or absent APS at intersections). Lastly, participants also recounted instances where assistance in public spaces was provided via an intercom/robot system and they expressed a concern for their privacy sharing information to a device in public, and preferred human interactions in case of an emergency.

Participants wishes Participants were asked to document any wishes or ideas throughout the different steps of the journey mapping exercise. Their wishes were collected at the end of the morning session and posted on the wish board to be used for prototyping a solution in the afternoon session.

Prototypes During the afternoon session, participants were assigned to new groups. Each group selected a wish from the board and developed a prototype to make that wish a reality. Here is a brief description of each group’s prototype:

Re-designing TTC for different visual, auditory, and cognitive needs This team developed a transit system that will be accessible for people with different abilities. In this design, the names for subway lines, streetcars and buses were associated with street names that they were situated on. The names of subway stations corresponded to the intersections or major landmarks it was located on. The subway lines were color coded and used the same colours for intersecting streetcar lines. Similar font was used in subway and streetcar lines that traveled in the same direction, for example same font for North-South lines and another font for East-West lines. All the vehicles, maps, and signs were marked with textures and colors instead of numbers. Each texture was associated with a particular color. For further information about this project you can visit one of the participants’ posts regarding her experience during this session.

An integrated transportation system for sub-emergency needs This team developed a one-button service that calls an autonomous vehicle to drive a person feeling ill to the hospital and allows the individual to record their symptoms and send them to the hospital in advance. This service also has the option for a neighbour to accompany the individual to the hospital in the autonomous vehicle and notify the hospital that they are coming.

Providing information and education about accessibility This team worked on creation of a semi-closed and accessible space that creates a refuge in busy and crowded areas. They proposed a kiosk that promotes relaxation and sensory regulation such as with plants, including water station, kids toys, and mood music and lighting. The second aspect of this kiosk is a screen that provides information about accessible transit, food, healthcare, and other social services in the area.

Fostering fallow spaces for unstructured creations This team proposed a service to intentionally make room for fallow spaces to happen in the city. They identified fallow spaces as spaces or infrastructure hiding in plain sight due to institutional neglect, no economic interest, abandonment, or having ambiguous ownership. They plan to build a network of these pre-existing fallow spaces and provide options for people to acquire custom permits to rezone and use these spaces for different purposes. Fallow spaces can be booked through a booking system online.

Accessible healthcare This team introduced a central dispatch system that receives calls from people who require health care. Through a triage system, the individual is provided with options by the dispatch team such as receiving health care through a mobile unit or be sent to the hospital for immediate care. The mobile unit includes tests, x-rays, lab work, and common treatment options. The mobile unit service is delivered by healthcare professionals who have access to individual medical records. The users will be able to provide feedback that other users and the doctors will have access to.

Themes that emerged from the prototypes The prototyping activity enabled us to draw out specific qualities that the participants thought were important and should be included in the design of inclusive cities. The group prototypes suggested that participants valued dynamic spaces that served many purposes and could be adapted to many different public uses. There was also significant emphasis on the design of spaces that provided sufficient information through multiple modalities and sensory domains to allow ease of access for all users. Other groups advocated for interconnected services that improve efficiency throughout the city. Most participants expressed that options should be given to provide feedback, receive feedback, and track their feedback and any action taken in response to their feedback. Groups also provided feedback on other prototype ideas, and commented on issues around cost, privacy, and access in the design of cities and services provided. The IDRC team went through all the notes and the artifacts from this session and extracted as many ideas as possible for the hackathon session. The IDRC team and Sidewalk team went through these ideas once again and picked about 3-4 ideas to be built during the hackathon.

Co-design Session #2: Dynamic Streets The second of three co-design sessions was held on August 24th at the Sidewalk Labs office at 307 Lakeshore Boulevard East, Toronto. The session began at 9:20 am and ended around 5:00 pm. Five IDRC members and one accessibility consultant from Sidewalk facilitated a group of 20 people from the Greater Toronto Area participating in this collaborative event. The focus of the second session was dynamic streets. Thus, the planned activities for the day encouraged participants to reflect on their personal experiences on the streets of Toronto in relation to three main themes and think about how their experiences can be used to inform the streets of the future. The three themes focused on issues of wayfinding and orientation, co-existing within a dynamic space with competing needs, and envisioning a city that meets the needs of all its users.

Warm-Up Activity: Share one word that you associate with “street” Objective: encourage reflection on personal experiences Duration: 15-20 minutes The day began with a warm up activity. In this activity, the participants sat in a large circle and took turns introducing themselves and sharing one word that comes to mind when they think of streets, and give a brief explanation for their word choice. This activity was tailored to the participating group and allowed participants with visual impairments to participate by reducing visual input. In addition to breaking the ice, the activity provided an opportunity for participants to learn how others experience streets, and to become aware of how their perspectives may be at conflict with one another.

Introducing the Dynamic Street Prototype: Sidewalk Labs Following the warm up activity, Jesse Shapins from Sidewalk Toronto provided an overview of the dynamic street prototype at the session’s venue, and talked about the broader implications for the city of Toronto. He described the four key components of the street design: modular, dynamic, heated, and permeable. Jesse and other representatives from Sidewalk Toronto also answered questions from the participants regarding the material used for the street, the technology, and the goals of this approach to street design.

Introducing the themes for the session: After experiencing the dynamic street prototype, the following themes were introduced to the audience. Each participant was assigned to a group to work on one of these themes for the rest of the session.

1. Co-existing: managing conflicting needs in shared spaces "We all have different needs, and in many situations our needs conflict with the needs of other people around us. In an environment where we have some control over our

surroundings, how can we manage this conflict? What mechanisms should be in place to allow us to better share spaces and accommodate many?"

2. Lost and Found: wayfinding and orientation in dynamic spaces "Finding your way in a city can be challenging as it is, but what if the environment keeps changing? In this theme you will explore how dynamic spaces add a layer of complexity to wayfinding, and what navigation methods we can use in these situations."

3. A city working for everyone: Shared spaces that are perceivable, operable, and understandable for all. "Perceivability, operability and understandability are core principles when it comes to making web content more accessible and inclusive, but we can also apply these to create more inclusive spaces and streets. What aspects of our streets would benefit most from being perceivable, operable and understandable to a broader range of citizens?"

Design Activity: Part 1 - Group Discussion Objective: Discussing each theme based on personal experiences Duration: 30 minutes Step one and step two of the design activity included questions that encouraged participants to reflect on their personal experiences and share their perspectives to build a common understanding of their theme. Below are the questions asked in step one and step two for each theme: Co-existing:

● Step One: As a group discuss and list when your needs conflict with other street users: (e.g. bikers, slow walkers, etc.)

● Step Two: As a group discuss what aspects of the street led to those conflicts. Lost and found:

● Step One: Think about how you would navigate a space that keeps changing, such as a dynamic street. (come up with as many ideas as possible)

● Step Two: As a group think about the situations when you got lost: (What caused you to get lost? What wayfinding mechanisms failed you?).

A city working for everyone: ● Step One: As a group discuss and list what aspects of the street work for you, and why:

(Think about your personal experiences) ● Step Two: As a group discuss and list what aspects of the street do not work for you,

and why not.

Design Activity: Part 2 - Prototype Challenge Objective: Brainstorming ideas and prototyping a solution. Duration: 2 hours After sharing personal experiences relevant to the theme assigned to their group, each group was given a challenge related to their theme to resolve. Groups first had 30 minutes to

brainstorm a pool of ideas to address their challenge. The challenges for each theme are presented as below: Co-existing:

● Challenge: Think about different ways to address conflicts in shared spaces. (How would you prioritize needs? How would you create spaces that address multiple needs simultaneously?)

Lost and found: ● Challenge: Think about how you would navigate a space that keeps changing, such as a

dynamic street. A city working for everyone:

● Challenge: Think about how you can make aspects of a shared street that are more perceivable, operable and understandable to a broader range of people.

As the groups engaged in discussion, the assigned facilitator provided insight and guided the discussion to reflect each theme. Each group then had the opportunity to briefly share their ideas with the larger group and received feedback before continuing on to the next part of the activity.

Whiteboard with ideas generated during a large group discussion. Each group shared their urban experiences and the barriers they have encountered on the streets as well as some preliminary ideas/solutions to these issues.

Complete list of wishes Relink group

Theme: Shared spaces for All

● less commerce focused ● multisensory & allow for respite → zones changes in texture or airburst ● who feels welcome & understand rules ● terrible smells ● welcoming for animals ● build predictability

Harmony group

Theme: Managing Conflict

● tourists/different needs ● intuitive division ● traffic signals → adaptable ● construction management

○ coordinated ● pedestrian overpasses ● street furniture ● allocate street for specific usages ● fast pedestrian lanes ● dynamic barriers ● more prescriptive use of curbs ● better management of intersections

Sweet Streets group Theme: Lost & Found

● how senses affect wayfinding ● finding people & relying on their help ● movable landmarks that are predictable ● tech to make them found easily ● fixed landmark for bearings (lights) ● some consistency

Boulevard group Theme: Shared 4 All

● audio description (real time)

● beacons & buttons ● glasses for reading storefronts ● improve google maps ● eye contrast edging ● tactile strips

Side Thought group Theme: Lost & Found

● remove fear & anxiety RE: getting lost & change ● learning from current examples ● provide some consistency through landmarks

○ S side of street has tactile landmark ○ use heat mapping to show where people go

● difficulty reading signage → use pics & icons ● how to get live info → to reduce anxiety

○ robots that roam around ○ value of people: crossing guard → always on N side

● people plan where they go → how to help when things change ● culture of city → only changing/dynamic in some areas

○ letting other areas know that they may be next to become dynamic Following the brainstorming session, each group had 1.5 hrs to select one idea and explore different ways to prototype their idea to make it a reality. Some groups chose to create three dimensional models using the physical space, while other groups created drawings or completed a write-up of their design. The following images are examples of prototypes created by the groups.

Design Activity: Part 3 - Swap and Critique prototype Objective: Considering unrepresented needs Duration: 30 minutes After each group finished prototyping their selected ideas, they swapped a written description of their idea accompanied by other built artifacts with another group, so the other group could critique their proposed solution from the inclusion and accessibility point of view. Each group was provided with the following questions to reflect on their peer’s work:

1. Who is excluded by this idea? 2. Who is supported/enabled/empowered by this idea? 3. What are the advantages of this idea? 4. What are the disadvantages of this idea?

Once groups completed their critique, they returned the worksheets to the original groups. Each team then had half an hour to review the feedback they received and revise their prototype.

Final Group Discussion

For the last hour, each group shared their work with the rest of the teams in an open discussion.

Teams were engaged in active discussion and questions when presenting each idea.

At the end of the session, participants were asked to complete a feedback form in order to

assess their experience through the day and inform IDRC how they can improve their future

co-design sessions.

Whiteboard of notes on the discussion of the 5 prototypes. Each group described their prototype, presented their initial process, and discussed the critiques they received. Relink created a multisensory information kiosk. Boulevard created an embedded tactile strip system which also feeds information to an app. Sweet Streets created hexagonal street pavers with dynamic abilities to add or remove tactile strips/bumps. Harmony created an optimized intersection with dynamic signs and an associated app. Side Thoughts created a pedestrian and community focused neighbourhood with a colour and texture coded wayfinding system indicating cardinal directions. Relink group

● Kiosk ○ create multisensory @ intersections ○ interface is AI about surroundings (ASL, braille, CC)

● Criticism ○ navigation dependent on tech ○ how to customize to various tech (w/c, scooters…)

■ can use voice recognition ■ solar powered

○ not useful for cars → mainly for pedestrians ■ give extra time to cross street based on signal ■ motion sensor → activated when someone walks close

● What info? ○ any kind of info ○ directions ○ like cellphone ○ accessibility (tactile map, move up & down, may options)

Boulevard group

● Tactile strip down center of all sidewalks ○ into streets & change @ transitions ○ embed info into tactile strip to work w/tech & GPS ○ audio information

■ speakers ■ come out @ you as you walk from tiles

● Critique ○ didn’t go over how pedestrians know where/when crossing → vibration → button

or voice control ○ tweak style of walk & don’t walk to reduce glare → separate w/green/red system ○ strip a couple of inches wide based on what’s happening on street

■ interacts w/smartphone → embedded in tactile strip ○ allow someone to walk from point A → B “follow the yellow brick road” ○ robots @ intersection to help people cross street

○ trying to use sound as a cue if embedded in pavers (already exists) → more effective @ eye level

○ adapt to weather? - heated therefore no snow → hopefully rubber tactile strip

Sweet Streets group ● Hexagons → divots → allows tactile feature that are dynamic

○ have retractable braille trail → walkway (braille) vs road (smooth) ■ changes based on person ■ just like the lights

● Critique ○ supported for people who use beacons & landmarks

■ landmark stable but info changed w/ area around it ■ landmark are all same → can be moved like bollard

■ press button to give you information about where you are ○ vertigo/dementia → is braille trail the entire sidewalk → on the edges →

passageway itself is smooth ○ who decides when streets are what? → considered in future prototyping &

implementation ○ giving the people who use to decide

■ government need to approve ■ during planning phase

○ why hexagons? ■ strength/flexibility → SWL to share info after ■ engineers should consider further research RE: surface

Harmony group

● Optimize intersection ○ designed to reduce conflict & optimized for pedestrians

■ price cost of demand to control traffic flow ○ staggered car/bike stops → priority @ intersection ○ price of blocking @ intersection ○ audio signals for wayfinding ○ new signs ○ pedestrian priority signal

● Critique ○ reading/language/cognitive barriers

■ too much going on ■ app in car w/ transponder ■ digital signs → show most impt msg

○ people w/ financial barriers ■ moved pricing w/n app in car → location-based ■ # of people in car to adjust pricing → income-based

○ Bike land/road → Bollards ■ challenge = resolving conflict

○ Tourists → complicated system → pricing → political debate ■ non-local license plate not charged ■ only cars

■ promote active transport ■ logistical reasons

Side Thoughts group

● Pedestrian/community focused ○ cars@perimeter, pedestrians centre

● encourage pedestrian traffic & community ○ like plaza → hexagons inside

● coded indicators ○ cardinal directions

■ color/texture/haptic based ■ always know where N is ■ not direction of flow but where they are right now

● Critique ○ lots of ways to navigate

■ digital kiosks on buildings themselves ■ physical navigation

○ maximizing space ■ challenge traditions of our current urban space ■ rethinking approach how to navigate urban space

■ treat like adventure & enjoyment → change culture ○ referencing super block model from Barcelona

■ multiple benefits ○ each doors@building has screen

■ info is on things that don’t change

Session #2 Synthesis Report OCTOBER 18, 2018 The second of three co-design sessions focused on the topic of Dynamic Streets. At this session participants were tasked with discussing their current experiences navigating streets, brainstorming solutions, and prototyping their ideas. For the discussions, groups were assigned one of three topics related to dynamic streetscapes: managing conflicting needs in shared spaces, wayfinding and orientation in dynamic spaces, and shared spaces that are perceivable, operable, and understandable for all.

Overarching Themes

Co-Existing: Managing conflicting needs in shared spaces The participants reported conflicts between pedestrians, drivers and cyclists who all share intersections and often find themselves in conflict with each other. Participants also discussed inter-pedestrian conflict for example when the needs of slow walkers and fast walkers conflict when sharing the sidewalk. Further, participants discussed the multi-uses of sidewalks that often conflict with each other, for example street furniture (trees, benches, garbage bins, bike racks, signs, bus shelters), street sports, street festivals and construction interrupts the flow of foot traffic and acts as a barrier for pedestrians (e.g noise, debris etc). The groups discussed that these conflicts occur because sidewalks are meant to serve multiple purposes, and there is a lack of coordination to accommodate all uses. The participants also reported that the city infrastructure is built to be permanent which is not compatible with the changing needs of the users. For example, traffic lights do not adequately manage the flow of traffic and they lack multimodal signals for all users. The groups suggested different ways to enable multiple uses of streets that will be accessible for all. These included enforcing strict rules to manage the uses of sidewalks, for example allocating spaces for different uses (e.g. garbage bins, ramps, pedestrians, etc.) to reduce conflict. Also, to improve the usability of sidewalks for pedestrians with different needs, the groups suggested having a mandatory training program for all pedestrians (e.g. walking license), create separate lanes for people with different walking speeds, and pedestrian overpass and underpass. Other means to regulate shared street use included opening and closing streets to manage drop offs, coordinating and planning construction, more adequate management of traffic lights and public shaming to discourage inappropriate parking (e.g. honk if person double parks).

Lost & Found - Wayfinding and orientation in dynamic spaces During groups discussions, participants shared different strategies they use to navigate the streets: travelling by foot or via public transit (subway, buses, streetcars), relying on Google Maps/Earth, street signage, curbs cuts, curbs, landmarks, pictures, sounds and smells, tactile strips, street beacons with BlindSquare app, asking directions from other pedestrians and familiar neighbourhoods as markers to help them find their way around the city. Participants reported instances of getting lost in the city often due to poor signage (inappropriate or inconsistent placement and language, which included street names, directional signage, and subway station signage). Groups also discussed the unnotified construction and associated changes in landmarks that cause confusion in navigating the streets and contribute to getting lost in the city. Other factors included broken elevators in public places (e.g. subway stations) and the lack of proper directions and signage to help people using mobility devices reroute and reach their destination. Similarly, people felt overwhelmed with the overcrowded city streets, incorrect GPS routes and directions, and the lack of U-turn and left turn options in the city that made navigating the city while driving very difficult. After discussing their challenges, participants brainstormed strategies to navigate a space that is constantly changing. Some of the strategies included using visual, haptic, and auditory indicators, live maps, observation, dynamic signage and consistent furniture placements (e.g. benches at north side of street and food on south side) to help them navigate the streets successfully. Groups also discussed receiving information directly from the street through sensors and notifications that would connect to their personal technological devices. Other groups also discussed using landmarks that can be moved in times of construction and road blocks, and replanted in other locations to help with navigation. These landmarks will have consistent and predictable features (e.g. color, texture, shape, size, sound) that can be learned to easily locate these markers throughout the city. Other ideas included incorporating fixed, unchanging “safe/rest spaces” or fixed light poles for people to use to orient themselves in the city.

A city working for everyone: Shared spaces that are perceivable, operable and understandable for all For this theme, participants shared that they enjoy uncrowded streets with wide sidewalks, green spaces, and multi crossings. They suggested having easy and quick access to benches and rest areas for people and animals, accessible public washrooms, and garbage cans that are functioning properly makes the streets more accessible for them. Some participants pointed out that a historic or art element, such as statues, public art projects, graffiti, etc enhances their street experience. Groups also talked about how changes in texture/color on the streets (e.g. different texture at the curb cuts) and receiving audio notifications (e.g. beeps at the traffic lights) can support their safe navigation of the streets.

On the other hand, groups discussed that areas that are commerce based, car dominated, crowded, cluttered with street furniture/ trees, or obstructed by construction don’t work for people particularly if they have accessibility needs. Another aspect that led to confusion and feeling lost for several participants was unpredictability and sudden changes in the environment. One example is construction, and how it forces different street users to take alternative routes. The other example discussed related to the inconsistent signage, and wayfinding indicators across different parts of the city (e.g. using different materials for sidewalks in different neighbourhoods). Participants also expressed that, the unpredictability issue will be more problematic in a dynamic street setting particularly for people who can’t easily adapt and are afraid of change. Lack of communication about the nature of different spaces, whether they are public or private, policed or under surveillance, have specific schedules or any other restrictions made some participants hesitant to use particular spaces across the city. Groups also found street signs, and bus stops difficult to find particularly when bus drivers change routes. The arrangement of the streets, having streetcars in the middle requiring passengers to cross car lanes and bike lanes to get to the sidewalk was another aspect of the streets that made crossing of the street a more challenging task particularly for participants with accessibility needs. Participants suggested using multi-sensory indicators, such as air bursts, vibrations, tactile markers, contrast strips, and audio feedback to indicate different street zones and inform people when they are transitioning from one zone to another. They also discussed utilizing technology across the city to make the streets more accessible. Some of their ideas include providing more accurate GPS locations, embedding beacons technology in store fronts/ intersections/ different parts of streets, providing adaptive traffic lights and interactive information kiosks across the city, and making Wi-Fi widely available across the city. Several participants also indicated that providing means to easily notify others of construction, or any other obstructions on the street and informing them of alternative routes could significantly help their navigation across the city.

Prototypes During the afternoon, participants continued to build on their ideas and developed a prototype. Here is a brief description of each group’s prototype:

Kiosk Description: This team proposed creating a multisensory interface located near intersections and various other locations to help pedestrians safely navigate the space. Through use of AI (Artificial Intelligence), this interface is able to detect the pedestrian’s communication need and provide contextual information about their surroundings in a language and with a modality that they prefer. During the peer critique, other groups suggested that this solution may not be accessible for people who are not accustomed to technology as well as other users of the space, such as

drivers, bikers and people using mobility devices. They were also concerned about the pedestrian’s privacy and security as this interface would use face recognition and personal stats to identify their needs and adapt its setting. Other comments related to cost, sustainability and maintenance of such solution throughout the city.

Tactile Strip on Sidewalks Description: This group proposed a tactile strip to guide pedestrians when crossing the street. This guided walk helps pedestrians with finding addresses, and orienting themselves in space. The tactile strip is integrated with a mobile app that provides audio feedback and more detailed information about street names, features at an intersection, and stores. A combination of the strip and the audio feedback informs pedestrians as they arrive at a new street/intersection. Audio feedback can also count down distance from the destination (steps).

The app enables users to control how much information they would like to receive about their surroundings. This team also suggested a partnership with restaurants and stores to install beacons to help pedestrians navigate indoor spaces. Some of the feedback this group received related to implementation challenges and integrating this strip in all streets. They also mentioned the tactile strip may cause difficulty for people with balance issues, and would not be accessible for deaf and deaf-blind users. As a response to this feedback, the group proposed adding vibration to the audio feedback. They also proposed using removable tactile strips, so they can be easily added to most streets without further need for construction.

Hexagons with “Braille Trail” Description: This group’s idea was integrated with the Sidewalk dynamic street hexagon tiles. They proposed that each hexagon could have a hole in the middle and retractable braille trail. The hole in the middle can be filled with trees, lights, poles, or moveable landmarks. IoT (Internet of Things) or other related technology can be integrated in the tiles in the walking areas. The moveable landmarks would have an embedded beacon technology that can be triggered via a button to provide location details for pedestrians. The beacons can be reprogrammed to provide different kinds of information. One of the main feedback this group received was related to the removable landmarks and could be confusing or disorienting for some people.

Optimized intersection Description: This group proposed an intersection that is optimized for pedestrians and cyclists and designed to reduce vehicle volume, congestion, and blockage. To achieve this goal, the group suggested dynamic pricing for cars to drive through the intersection. They also integrated signage to indicate to vehicles cost of blocking intersections in order to encourage good behavior. To promote safety, they staggered bicycle (yellow stop line) and car stops (blue stop line), and added tactile crosswalk boundaries (yellow and green lines). This intersection would be equipped with adaptive signals that change based on real time demand and contextual data (e.g. extend a walking sign so pedestrians can catch an incoming train) and audible signals will be integrated for the visually impaired pedestrians. One of the main feedback this group received was related to high volume of information being communicated at this intersection via signage and different types of indicators. They found this to be confusing and somewhat overwhelming particularly for people with developmental delays, processing issues, reading barriers, and language barriers. They also found the pricing strategies to be a financial barriers for groups that have no other option than using their cars (e.g. people travelling from out of town, or using mobility devices). In response to the feedback they received, and to further ensure understandability of signage, the group consolidated their signage into one dynamic sign that only would only display the most important messages at a time to prevent information overload. The group also incorporated a dynamic pricing system for each vehicle based on transportation alternatives and income and travel origin.

Pedestrian/Community Focused Neighbourhood Description: This group focused on designing streets that allow for easy navigation by pedestrians. They tried to encourage wayfinding as an activity, experience and social connection. They focused on city blocks and tried to create micro communities. They incorporated a coded navigation system with texture, color, vibration and smell within each of these city blocks. They also capitalized on landmarks in each block to amplify navigation. They also suggested integrating technology in buildings that are facing pedestrians in order to facilitate wayfinding. One of the main feedbacks this group received was related to all the different ways and cues to be able to navigate this area. Many of these navigation methods / cues require education, otherwise they would be ignored. A combination of all these different navigation methods can also lead to sensory overload, confusion and feeling lost in this area, particularly for people who are in a rush.

Themes that emerged from the Prototypes The prototyping activity enabled us to draw out specific qualities that the participants thought were important and should be included in the design of inclusive cities. The group prototypes suggested that participants valued incorporating artificial intelligence to develop systems that allowed pedestrians to directly connect to the street and receive feedback and directions in multiple modalities from the street itself. Groups also emphasized the importance of developing multimodal systems that allow pedestrians with different needs and capabilities to safely cross intersections. The design ideas incorporated mobile apps that would be connected directly to traffic lights, provide multi-sensory and multilingual prompts to indicate when to cross, and sensors that detect pedestrians and control traffic lights to ensure safe crossing at the intersection. Further, designing a neighbourhood that focused on the needs of pedestrians was also an important topic of discussion among groups. Two groups developed prototypes that ensure ease of navigation for pedestrians through better signage systems (multi-sensory and multilingual), dynamic landmarks, and through the incorporation of IoT technology to provide real-time data on changes in the environment and guidance on how to safely and effectively navigate these changes. The IDRC team went through all the notes and the artifacts from this session and extracted as many ideas as possible for the hackathon session. The IDRC team and Sidewalk team went through these ideas once again and picked about 3-4 ideas to be built during the hackathon.

Raw Data ● Scanned images of the group worksheets and peer feedback from the entire session

(PDF) ● Tables generated based on the collected information in co-design session#2 (Word

document)

Generated Ideas ● List of ideas from the second session for the hackathon (Word document)

Co-design Session #3: Thresholds SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 The last of three co-design sessions was held on September 5th and 6th at the Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) at 49 McCaul Street. The event was split between two evening sessions. The purpose of having an evening session was to accommodate participants who might be unable to attend during regular business hours. An audio describer was present at both nights and provided audio description of any visual material or built object as requested by participants. Each day began at 5:15 pm and ended around 9 pm. Five IDRC members and one accessibility consultant from Sidewalk Labs facilitated a group of twenty people from the Greater Toronto Area participating in this collaborative event. The focus of the third, and last, session was on thresholds. Thus, the planned activities for the day encouraged participants to reflect on their personal experiences in moving between different spaces and environments and think about how to improve these transition points in the future. To discuss and come up with ideas related to different types of thresholds, we focused on the following areas:

● In & out: moving in and out of spaces ● Up & down: moving between different levels of a space ● Getting around: transitioning between different modes of transportation

Warm-Up Activity: Build a Door Objective: encourage collaboration and creative thinking, familiarize participants with each other Duration: 15-20 minutes The first day began with a warm up activity. In this activity, participants were given the following imaginary scenario, “Imagine all doors disappeared from the world”. Then, each participant was given two random items written and embossed on a piece of paper. These items were purposely chosen to have varying levels of practical use for building doors, and included items such as “marshmallows”, “hedgehogs”, “foam blocks” and “bricks”. Participants were then asked to form groups of three and discuss ways to build a door with their materials. After about five minutes of brainstorming, two groups of three merged to create an even better door with the new materials. Groups had another five minutes to combine their ideas and build a better door. At the end of this activity, groups had a chance to share their ideas with the larger group. Facilitators encouraged groups to have fun with the activity, and not worry about developing a polished idea.

Introducing the themes for the session: After the warm-up activity, the following themes were introduced to the audience. Each participant was assigned to a group to work on one of these themes for the rest of the session.

1. In & Out: Moving between spaces "This theme explores thresholds that we encounter moving in and out of spaces, for example moving in and out of buildings, private or public spaces or places with open or restricted access. We want you to think of your personal experiences transitioning between spaces. How do you think these thresholds limit or enable your urban experience?"

2. Up & Down: Moving between different levels of a space "This theme explores thresholds that exist between different levels of a space for example going from one level of a building to another. With this theme we want you to think of the different types of thresholds that are encountered moving up and down, and the challenges that exist in crossing these thresholds. How can these transitions be made more seamless?"

3. Getting Around: Transitioning between different modes of transportation "In urban settings, we often rely on different modes of transportation to get around the

city. For example our morning commutes to work may include taking the subway, then switching and hopping on a street car and then walking to our work building. During these commutes we come across many thresholds that either slow us down or facilitate our journey to work. With this theme, we want you to think about your journey throughout the city, the thresholds you encounter, and reflect on your unique experience crossing these thresholds."

Design Activity: Part 1 - Group Discussion Objective: Discussing each theme based on personal experiences Duration: 45 minutes Step one, two, and three of the design activity included questions that encouraged participants to reflect on their personal experiences and share their perspectives to build a common understanding of their theme. Below are the questions asked in step one to three for each theme: In & Out:

1. As a group discuss and list what thresholds you encounter when entering or exiting buildings: (E.g. transitioning between indoor/outdoor, public/private, open/restricted access)

2. As a group think about the negative experiences you have had transitioning in and out of spaces: (Times you felt confused, had to ask for help, denied access, etc.)

3. As a group think about the positive experiences you have had transitioning in and out of spaces: (Times you felt informed, supported, allowed entry etc.)

Up & Down: 1. As a group discuss and list what thresholds you have encountered when trying to move

between different levels (different heights, raised platforms, floors, etc.): (E.g. inside buildings, in outdoor spaces, etc.)

2. As a group think about the negative experiences you have had when moving between different levels: (Times you felt confused, had to ask for help, denied access, etc.)

3. As a group think about the positive experiences you have had transitioning in and out of spaces: (Times you felt informed, supported, allowed entry etc.)

Getting Around: 1. As a group discuss and list what thresholds you have encountered when traveling to

different places in the city: (E.g. transitioning between walking, rolling, biking, driving, street car, etc.)

2. As a group think about the negative experiences you have had moving between different modes of transportation: (Times you felt frustrated, in danger, rushed, etc.)

3. As a group think about the positive experiences you have had moving between different modes of transportation: (Times you felt calm, safe, at ease, etc.)

Design Activity: Overview of Sidewalk Accessibility Principles Objective: Introduce the accessibility principles developed by Sidewalk Labs, and provide an opportunity for the group to review the principles and provide their input. Duration: 20 minutes A Sidewalk representative provided an overview of the accessibility principles developed by Sidewalk Labs. The principles were grouped into three main areas; digital, physical and general accessibility. Printed copies of the principles and examples were provided to each group for review.

Design Activity: Part 2 - Brainstorming Objective: Brainstorming ideas Duration: 30 minutes After sharing personal experiences relevant to the theme assigned to their group and also learning about the accessibility principles, each group was given a challenge related to their theme to resolve. Groups had 30 minutes to brainstorm a pool of ideas to address their challenge. The challenges for each theme are presented below:

In & Out: ● Challenge: Imagine a better experience in the future for moving in and out of an office

building Up & Down:

● Challenge: Imagine a better experience in the future for moving between different levels Getting Around:

● Challenge: Imagine a better experience in the future for switching modes of transportation

As the groups engaged in discussion, the assigned facilitators provided insight and guided the discussion to reflect on each theme. Each group then had the opportunity to briefly share their ideas with the larger group and received feedback before prototyping their idea the next day. The end of the group discussion on preliminary ideas marked the end of the first half of this two-day session. Participants were encouraged to reflect on their ideas and be more observant of the thresholds over the following day.

Whiteboard with ideas generated during a large group discussion. Hedgehog group

● Consistent garbage collection

● Footrest for bikers ● Frequent dog relief stations ● Paths for wayfinding ● Path to where bike lanes are ● Doors are always on the same spot in transit ● Give priority to automatic doors

The A Team group

● Based on consistency ○ Areas with up and down escalators → tactile marker to indicate direction

● Large elevator system, not reliant on touch screens → railings of appropriate length ● Consistency of stairs → Risers and treads always at the same place ● Tactile and audio announcement → multimodal wayfinding

Challenging group

● Consistency → street designed that stop signs & bus stops in the same place ● Transit has varying places to get in/out ● Construction sites→ hard to get around & never the same → no curb cuts ● Apps for construction zones/closures ● More audio things → where to tap for presto → better turnstiles ● Taxis → hard to flag

○ Cant see meter, only uber has an app ● More space to sit on sidewalk

○ Not in way to prevent tripping

Cats and Dogs group ● Beacon technology → doors that slide based on beacon ● Building surrounds no snow and ice ● Tactile surfaces leading to elevator → or receptionist to help ● Device that tells you verbally what’s around and guide you → ipad with map of building

Group #2 group

● Clear wayfinders with multisensory ● Co-design with lived experience ● Textured edges → railings/ramps ● Sensitivity training → know what to say ● Equal access opportunities → elevators near stairs ● System of monitoring how things are working ● Contrast strips → illuminate edges/textured gradients ● Curb cuts in center marked with colour/texture to get out of vehicle safely

Assorted Barrier Busters group ● Cab pulling up to office building in January → ramp and road clear of debris → some

vehicle that docks at cab for smooth transition/transfer which carries you into building → recall your accessibility preferences based on badge → app to be a local helper.

Design Activity: Part 3 - Prototype Challenge Objective: Building a prototype to meet unrepresented needs Duration: 1 hour 30 minutes The second day began promptly with the prototyping challenge. Participants were given an hour and a half to choose an idea they brainstormed the previous day, expand on the idea, and build or prepare a demonstration of their idea. Each group was provided some prompting questions to help this process: Is it accessible? Is it safe? Does it support independence? What would you need? How can technology help? Who else is involved?

Shown above is “Assorted Barrier Busters” group’s prototype. They have used lego blocks to build a platform, craft paper to build an elevator cube and plasticine to create a mobility device, such as an electric scooter and a guide dog.

Shown above is “Assorted Barrier Busters” group’s proposed “Access” app prototype made with craft paper. There is also a sheet of paper that shows the information they desire to include in their app, such as internal, external, thresholds, generic.

Shown above is “Challenging Hedgehog” group’s prototype made with plasticine to represent a special tile with the function of vibrating and heating the paver.

Shown above is “Cats & Dogs” group’s prototype made with paper cup, tape, lego block, and pipe cleaner and other craft material to represent a mini robot.

Design Activity: Part 4 - Swap and Critique prototype Objective: Considering unrepresented needs Duration: 30 minutes After each group finished prototyping their selected ideas, time was provided for each group to quickly describe or demonstrate their idea. Then, each group swapped a written description of their idea accompanied by any built artifacts with another group, so the other group could critique their proposed solution using inclusion and accessibility questions provided below. Each group was provided with the following questions to reflect on their peer’s work:

1. Who is excluded by this idea? 2. What are the advantages of this idea? 3. What are the disadvantages of this idea?

Once groups completed their critique, they returned the worksheets to the original groups. Each team then had half an hour to review the feedback they received and revise their prototype.

Final Group Discussion For the last hour, each group shared their work with the rest of the teams in an open discussion. Teams were engaged in active discussion and questions when presenting each idea.

Whiteboard of notes on the discussion of the 5 prototypes. Each group described their prototype, presented their initial process, and discussed the critiques they received. The A Team group

● Smarties box & plasticine → changes in level through multimodal cues ● Domes → rough plating on current streets ● Heating, lighting, colour ● Holes in domes, depression on ground (hollow) ● Indicates central groove ● Tactile plate → ice cream sandwich

Revisions/Discussion

● Warning plate → warn people that a ramp/drop is approaching ● Constructed like an ice cream sandwich

○ Cane users can hear that they’re on it ● Haptic features → circuitry inside and underneath ● Heating plate ● How many lights? → solicit user feedback

● Will heating interfere with other circuitry ● Navigate to plate → meant to indicate upcoming slope → plate at top of slope → find

feel with tactility of bumps ○ Metal because of durability and conductivity

Criticisms

● Too much happening at once ● Might cause issues for people with cognitive problems/mental health…etc ● Tactile bumps for people who have difficulty lifting legs may be a problem ● Constant illumination may be over stimulating → change to gentle illumination ● No vibration → tactile cues enough ● Groove maintained to guide canes ● Keep bumps only at edges for smoother movement for all ● Holes for heating/drainage/light → hole are very small ● Hollow space changes sound regardless how you navigate ● Bumps are like current tactile bumps but smoothed out a little for smoother movement

for all Cats and Dogs Group

● Wayfinding to get to building ● Little bot to navigate inside building ● Input your needs (wheelchair, visual…etc) ● Can pre-program on phone and tap robot ● Can sign (ASL) to it and use voice control ● Folds down at the end of day ● Vending machine for bot ● Bot can wait for you or it has a recall button to come back when you’re ready ● Like R2D2, stays within 3 ft of body

Revisions/Discussion

● Could carry parsels? → no because small ● Can be costly → will be cheaper when scaled up/mass produced ● People can trip or fall on it if it’s so small ● Has auditory output ● Doesn’t require personal info → just preferences ● Stored on site → connected to larger system (about 3 ft tall to prevent tripping and easier

use) ● Battery powered ● Has emergency mode and leads to nearest exit ● How not to freak out pets → if it becomes common you can train it to become used to it ● Automation eventually leads to savings ● It’s like google maps but inside buildings

● Feedback and monitoring system for maintenance ● 3 laws of robots

Challenging Hedgehog Group

● App to help switch between modes of transportation ● Real time data ● Add preferences for things to avoid ● Open source real time data ● Personal profile that you can access at bus stop if your phone dies/you don’t have a

phone ● 1st screen → location and destination → mode of transport ● Give other info → interests, hobbies, good snow removal, construction (detailed

information), fallen trees, links to things (311⁄911) ● “In-Struct”

Revisions/Discussion

● People who don’t have access to tech ($$/learning disability…) include links for 311 ● If phone dies → charging stations which has all the ports ● Multimodal notifications → multilingual ● Problems with wifi and data costs money ● Keep simple and easy to use

○ Focus on GPS aspect ○ Curb cuts and construction

● Kiosk → find info and charge device

Group #2 group ● Cross street from streetcar to get to elevator ● App that works with navigation ● Safe passage ● Button activate light system ● Braille floor and beacons to get to elevator ● Can use app to interact ● Announcement to be mindful ● Seated areas on platform ● Raised platform (ramps all around)

Revision/Discussion

● No physical barriers → was intentional, trying not to exclude people, system meant to draw attention to be wary of people crossing, should be pedestrians only

● What happens when elevator is broken

○ Info will be in embedded app ● How to scale? → network of paths? ● What about snow? → robots or heated

Assorted Barrier Busters group

● Interview next day ● Access app for accessibility in and out of buildings ● Voice activation ● Set up for automation at thresholds ● External → satellite vehicle comes out to greet and welcome you ● Helps bring person in ● Elevator is accessible

○ Spacious ○ Control panels on the side (not on door side) ○ Height accessible buttons ○ Buttons raised and have braille

● Display outside elevator to tell which one is coming and how long ○ Beeps a few seconds before it arrives

Revision/Discussion

● Deaf people → visual display screens ● Smartphone/app → fob with 3 buttons and the ability to pre-set custom preferences ● New system → learning curve? Building costs? ● Employer gives people phones ● Like the idea of buttons on side instead of on door

At the end of the session, participants were asked to complete a feedback form in order to assess their experience through the day and inform IDRC how they can improve their future co-design sessions.

Session #3 Synthesis Report OCTOBER 24, 2018 The third co-design session focused on the topic of Threshold moments. At this session participants were tasked with discussing their experiences with different types of thresholds or transition points in their urban experience, brainstorming solutions to the challenges they experienced, and prototyping their ideas. For the discussions, groups were assigned one of three topics related to thresholds: Up and down (moving between different levels of a space), In and out (moving in and out of spaces), and Getting around (transitioning between different modes of transportation). For more information about this session please visit the Co-Design Session #3: Thresholds post.

Overarching Themes

Up and Down Groups discussed thresholds they have encountered moving between levels. The participants reported thresholds such as: curb cuts, doors of different types (e.g. automatic, revolving, sliding and multiple sets) in various contexts (e.g. subway, elevators), escalators, gurney, hill, kneeling buses, ladder, railings, ramps, scaffolding, sidewalks and pavements, slide, stair lift/stair climber, and staircase/steps.

In and Out Groups discussed thresholds they have encountered when entering or exiting buildings in private or public spaces. The participants reported thresholds such as: navigating through construction sites, access controls and buttons in buildings (e.g. entrances, parking exits etc.), doors, temporary and permanent ramps, handrails/guardrails, steps, and subway platforms with various obstacles to navigate around.

Getting Around Participants discussed their experiences moving around in the city and the thresholds they experience. The groups reported thresholds such as: construction sites, bike lanes, buses/taxis, uber, ferries, access controls and buttons, crosswalks, curb cuts, doors (automatic, elevators, subways, multiple sets, revolving and sliding), parking lanes, different noise areas, steps and stairs, and entrances to subways and streetcars and trains.

Negative and Positive Experiences with Thresholds Groups highlighted some of their positive and negative experiences with thresholds. Participants discussed thresholds they experience when using public transport (e.g. carrying bike around between different modes of transportation). Groups discussed the set back of bike

lanes which often block off transit drop offs (e.g. bus, streetcars and wheel trans) and create anxiety in pedestrians who accidently wander into bike lanes to cross the street. Other groups commented on the benefit of bike lanes which create a divide between cars, bicycles and pedestrians and reduce the risk of accidents. Bike rentals were also praised by some groups for providing the comfort of bikes that do not have to be carried between different modes of transportation and can be left behind. Group discussions also included buses and bus stops. Participants reported that the interior design of buses often create a choke point because they do not have adequate space for mobility devices. Further, bus stops that were often relocated due to prolonged construction, and street furniture that blocked bus exits posed a barrier for many users. However, many participants appreciated the auditory announcement systems, rack for bikes and the kneeling ramp options in buses. Similarly, groups also discussed experiencing difficulty getting on and off subways due to the overcrowded environment, and feel rushed because the doors close too fast to easily transition onto the platform or onto the train. There was also discussion about the presence of obstacles that are encountered on a subway platform and the step between the subway and platform that acts as a barrier for many people. Participants also talked about how disoriented they feel when they get off transit and they are not sure where they are. The groups also discussed their experience with thresholds on the streets. Some of the challenges discussed included clutter and street furniture that becomes obstacles for pedestrians especially people with mobility devices (e.g. benches, bike stands too close to road, bike parked in the way, garbage bins, planters, pole, tied up dogs etc). Other obstacles included cracked pavements, lack of curb cuts, poorly designed ramps and slopes, which create issues for mobility devices (e.g. wheelchairs and baby carriages). Roundabouts were expressed as being inaccessible and anxiety provoking for many users, particularly those with low vision. Participants also shared some positive experiences, which included all-way crossings with audio indicators and associated time countdown for ease of crossing. Participants shared their positive and negative experiences in indoor spaces. Some groups commented on the safety hazards associated with the design of staircases (e.g. lack of proper handrails, lack of clear transition into the stairwell from the ground, and tonal contrast to identify depth of the stairs, and lack of adequate indicators for stairs, and floor number). Other issues reported included automatic doors opening and closing too fast, entrances too narrow for wheelchairs, double doors opening in different directions and narrow space between two sets of doors and tight corners with insufficient space for turning. Glass walls that are becoming very common in buildings also reported to be confusing for service dogs as they look similar to doorways. Some of the positive experiences included wide doors with appropriately placed buttons, doors with motion detection features and sliding doors. Groups also discussed the issue of access in indoor spaces which require access cards or button controls which are not accessible for all users. These issues were also discussed in the contexts of elevators which often do not include accessible controls (e.g. no braille for blind users, inappropriate placement of controls, no clear indication of elevator arriving etc). Participants expressed that the access

issue extends to attitudinal barriers and sometimes they are not allowed entry due to carrying service animals. Some of the positive comments included elevators that announce each floor, provide braille controls, include signage displaying floor numbers, include buttons to call special elevator for wheelchair access and sensors adjusting doors for people.

Imagining Better Experiences for Thresholds in the Future Participants were asked to imagine better experiences for thresholds in the future.

Up and Down The groups focusing on the Up and Down topic identified the following features and improvements that could make better thresholds: sturdy and graspable handrails, multimodal information announcements, good wayfinding (tactile, clear and easy to find accessible route), tactile warning surfaces (including audible features), indication of direction of escalators, building wide, good tonal contrast and good lighting at night, gentler ramps, good crowd flow/control, snow removal/melting, and standardization in approaches for change in level.

In and Out The groups focusing on the In and Out topic identified the following features and improvements that could make better thresholds: automatic doors, personalization of experience in a building (preferred level of assistance, application of technology for movement and assistance according to each person’s parameters), systems and procedures for all tenants during an emergency (including people with disabilities), keeping entrance-ways and approaches to buildings clear of snow and ice (e.g. with coverings, heated areas, robot shovelers, better drainage), better elevators (signals when doors open / reach a floor, longer timing for doors, personalized experience such as language used, multiple modes of signalling such as light, sound, and voice), and driverless vehicles to bring a person from the roadside to the building entrance (over terrain and obstacles and through weather conditions).

Getting Around The groups focusing on the Getting Around topic identified the following features and improvements that could make better thresholds: finer details in navigation apps, Be My Eyes for transit, automatic TTC payment with mobile device (such as Apple Pay), ubiquitous data connections, unlimited data for people with disabilities, audio announcements when exiting transit (for wayfinding for example), standardization (e.g. consistency in bus stops, ramps, curb cuts, sidewalk material, audio announcement frequency, placement of controls), wider sidewalks that can accommodate 2 wheelchairs, more pedestrian focused streets, street furniture that encourages use but does not obstruct, dedicated pick up / drop off areas for taxis, easier thresholds for cars/taxis, accessible/audio meters in taxis, integration with transit apps to inform service provides of blindness, construction sites with solid boundaries (for canes) and with audio warnings, and updates to wayfinding apps for construction.

Prototypes

Access App & Elevator Description: This group suggested an improved and more accessible elevator design that is integrated with an “Access” application. Users can set up preferences for accessibility and indicate their prefered settings (e.g. temperature, voice activation). The app also provides information about the the external environment (weather info) and internal space (e.g. timing of the automatic doors). The elevator is accessible and provides enough space inside for mobility devices to turn around. The control panel inside elevators is placed on the left or right side and at a lower height, thus, no turning around is needed to press the buttons. The elevator’s control panel is voice activated and provides information about where the passenger is going. Numbers are also raised and have braille indicators. Where there are multiple elevators, there would be a display outside elevators to tell which one is coming and how long it will take. The arriving elevator beeps a few seconds and provides visual indications before it arrives to notify the users. There will also be a call for help button to provide assistance when needed. This group also proposed a service vehicle that is integrated with the app and can pick up the person from outside of the building and take them to the lobby. One of the main criticism that this group received was regarding the functionality of some the services including the Help button and some of the app features for the deaf community. There was also a comment about inaccessibility of the app for people who are not accustomed to technology and don’t use smartphones. In response to this feedback, the group suggested including a key/fob that can be programmed based on user’s preferences.

Seescape Toronto Description: This group focused on building a safe passage between the streetcar stop and a building’s elevator. They proposed an elevated platform with a long slope for the streetcar stops. The platform would be illuminated and wide enough so wheelchairs can easily maneuver. From the platform, there would be a safe path to the sidewalk that includes benches, green space, a braille strip, and it is equipped with beacon technology to announce the distance to the destination (particularly to the elevator). Once at the elevator, the doors and buttons are clearly visible, tactile and provide audio feedback. There is also a button for emergency contact, and guidelines for someone panicking inside the elevator. This solution is also integrated with an app, which would notify the users of any problems or barriers along the way from the platform to the elevator. One of the main criticism this group received related to scalability of this solution and how it could be integrated at each stop and with every building. As a response to this feedback, this group suggested a network of paths branching off from transit stops and at major sites.

In-Struct App Description: This team proposed building a mobile application to help people switch between different modes of transportation. Users can enter their preferences and things they want to avoid in the app, such as steps. Once users enter the destination/ address, the app can recommend the most accessible route and transit option based on their preferences. The app is

also connected with social media and other real-time news feed, thus the recommended path would include real-time data (e.g. accidents, crimes, weather, etc.) about the route. Users can also input information in the app to make it available for others. Each user has a password protected profile, so they can access their account from different phones, computers or stations if their phone runs out of battery. The app also provides a direct link to 311 service. One important feedback this group received was regarding the inaccessibility of such a solution for people who don’t use smartphones, are not accustomed to using technology, or do not have access to a Wi-Fi connection.

Indoor Accessible Mapper Description: This group tried to address the problem of wayfinding when entering a building. They proposed having a little robot with a screen and lights to accompany and guide an individual on their route. They would provide information about accessibility features inside buildings and accessible indoor pathways. These robots are equipped with voice/ASL/ text description of the route and programmed to stay within 3 feet of a person. People can input their needs (wheelchair, ASL, visual, etc.) via their home computer, or their mobile phones and request for a robot to wait for them upon their arrival. There is also a recall button to request a robot to come back when they’re ready to leave a building. This group proposed a system similar to a vending machine that can dispense these mini robots upon request. These robots can be folded at the end of each working shift. The robots also have an emergency mode and able to lead people to the nearest exit during emergencies. One of the main feedback this group received was related to the size of these robots and whether they can disturb animals, and create tripping hazards for people who can’t see them. The group responded that the proposed robots would be about 3 ft tall and that they would provide audio indications to inform others of their presence in the space.

Level Drop Warning Plate Description: This group proposed installing a rough plate over the current streets to inform pedestrians of changes in the ground level through multimodal cues. This plate would include grooves on its surface as well as illumination and color cues to provide both haptic and visual notifications regarding the ground level changes. They proposed installing the plate over a hollow space, thus, cane users would recognize different audio feedback from the hollow space. There would also be a rumbling sound and a heating system embedded into the plate to provide audio feedback and keep the plate above the freezing point during the colder seasons. One of the main feedback this group received related to inaccessibility of the suggested multimodal cues for people who experience anxiety, particular mental health conditions, epilepsy, and migraines. It was also mentioned that the grooves on the surface may make it difficult for mobility devices to drive over the plate.

Themes that emerged from the Prototypes The prototyping activity enabled us to draw out specific qualities that the participants thought were important and should be included in the design of inclusive cities.

The prototypes suggested that groups considered a combination of low tech/ analogue techniques with more high tech solutions to be able to address a wider range of needs. Most teams included a mobile app to notify users of real-time changes, alternative routes, and also provide information in different languages and modalities. Most prototypes tried to include an option for entering personal preferences to receive directions based on individual needs. Some of the prototypes also aimed to enable users to control and adjust their surrounding environment based on their preferences, such as timing of the automatic doors, voice activation of the controls, temperature of the indoor spaces, etc. All groups tried to incorporate multiple modes of interaction (haptic, visual, audio) to address a broader range of needs. Some of the groups emphasized the importance of integrating real-time data, such as construction, snow removal, accidents, fallen trees, crime, weather info, broken elevators, etc. to inform users of the most current accessible routes. The IDRC team went through all the notes and the artifacts from this session and extracted as many ideas as possible for the hackathon session. The IDRC team and Sidewalk team went through these ideas once again and picked about 3-4 ideas to be built during the hackathon.

Raw Data ● Scanned images of the group worksheets and peer feedback from the entire session

(PDF) ● Tables generated based on the collected information in co-design session#3 (Word

document)

Generated Ideas ● List of ideas from the third session for the hackathon (Word document)

Hackathon Summary OCTOBER 5, 2018 The hackathon session was held on September 21st at the Sidewalk Toronto office at 307 Lakeshore Boulevard East, Toronto. The event started at 9:30 am and finished around 7:00 pm. 12 engineers from Sidewalk labs as well as 27 people from the community joined this event. The members of the community included engineers, designers, and people with lived experience of a disability. Two members from the accessibility team at Sidewalk Labs and five IDRC members facilitated the event. One Sidewalk Lab engineer was also available throughout the session providing assistance regarding required electrical components for each project.

Overview of the Day Participants were divided into 8 groups with at least one Sidewalk engineer in each group. The participants were assigned to projects they had expressed an interest in during the invitation process. During the morning session (10:00 am - 12:00 pm), groups had 2 hours to assign roles, develop a plan and start building their project. At each hour, groups were asked to update the progress status and notify facilitators if they required assistance. After lunch and during the afternoon session (1:00 pm - 4:30 pm), groups had another 3 hours to work on their project. At 2:30 pm, groups were asked to share a quick update about their progress with the larger group and get feedback from their peers and the facilitators. Around 4:45 pm, groups started giving out their final presentations.

Hackathon Project #1: Audible or haptic incoming traffic warnings at intersections

Idea An occupancy sensor (pressure sensor, camera, etc.) in the street that lets people know about someone approaching on a bicycle or car if they’re preparing to cross the street and / or currently in the street.

Use cases ● Someone who is blind or has low-vision is preparing to cross to the bike lane and would

be notified auditorily that there is a biker approaching from the left and how much time before the bike/car will pass.

● Someone who is deaf is preparing to cross the bike lane and would be notified via a watch vibration that there’s a bicyclist approaching from the left.

● Someone is standing in the middle of the street and not paying attention; an electric AV approaches but doesn’t make a sound. This traffic warning notifies the person that there is an AV approaching and guides them off the street.

● The light is green and the pedestrian has right of way, but there is a car approaching quickly that may run the light. This would notify the pedestrian that it is not yet safe to walk. (Only in a legacy vehicle situation).

This prototype must include ● A way to sense or indicate that someone is waiting to cross ● A way to sense or indicate traffic that is approaching from at least 50m/150ft away

(assuming vehicle travelling 40km/hr at outer limit). ● How far away (in time) the vehicle is ● Which direction it’s coming from ● Produce an audible warning signal and description ● Doesn’t require a phone

This prototype could optionally include ● This could optionally provide a vibration or haptic signal as well (via smart watch or

bracelet), and light up the space between the bicyclist/vehicle with a light path in the street that gets shorter as the bicyclist moves toward the crosswalk.

● This could optionally integrate with the temporary physical tactile crosswalk to notify a biker that they should stop for a pedestrian.

● This could optionally integrate with street lighting that would turn red if the person should not start crossing

● This could optionally integrate with the AR demo to give you an auditory signal when the AR AVs approach you if you’re standing in the middle of the street.

Major risks to work on/ What do we hope to learn ● Is it annoying to have loud sound coming from the street? ● How often would this trigger in normal traffic patterns? ● Is it annoying if this happens too frequently? ● What happens if there are multiple vehicles (cars or bikes) approaching? How should we

describe a line of cars (or normal traffic)? ● Do occupancy sensors do a good job of predicting how long it’ll take for a vehicle to

approach?

Hardware/materials needed ● Occupancy sensor (pressure sensor or camera or radar) ● Traffic sensor (radar or camera or LIDAR) ● LED lights ● Arduino ● Sound emitting speaker, e.g.

https://www.instructables.com/id/Arduino-Basics-Making-Sound/.

Special skills needed ● Arduino skills / sensors (some light hardware)

Team’s Project Description: An occupancy sensor (pressure sensor, camera, etc.) in the street that lets people know about someone approaching on a bicycle or car if they’re preparing to cross the street and / or currently on the street. Sensors installed at intersection corners near crosswalks measure incoming traffic and their relative velocity. A honk or ring sounds at current crosswalk signs when an object passes by the sensor. The sound will change based on the speed of the object; faster objects will trigger a honk whereas a slower object will trigger a ring. Additionally, coloured lights located at the same crosswalk signs will trigger similar information; yellow light for slower objects and red for faster objects.

Hackathon Project #2: Tranquil Refuge

Idea A place where people who need a physical or sensory reprieve from the environment can go to rest and recharge. Potential to give priority access to people with accessibility needs.

Use cases ● An 8 month pregnant woman has been visiting a street festival in Quayside, and it’s over

30 degrees out. She desperately needs to sit down and cool off. She’s also ready to go home, but doesn’t know the best way to get out of the festival and find the public transportation option that will get her home the fastest.

● A parent is visiting Quayside with their child who is on the autism spectrum. They know that their child is only comfortable being out in a loud and busy environment for 15 minutes at a time and needs a quiet, restful, low-lit place to chill out and recharge between activities.

● A person who is Deaf has been signing with their friends outside on the grass in the hot sun for a long time; they need a place to be able to rest and close their eyes without worrying about personal safety.

● A teenager who uses a mobility device notices their chair is running low on batteries. They need somewhere out of the way to charge their chair. As they start looking around

for a place to go, they realize their phone is running low on batteries too - they’ll need to find somewhere to go to find an outlet for that too.

This prototype must include ● A life size model of a physically enclosed pod-like structure.

○ This model must accommodate all kinds of mobility devices (scooters, chairs, motorized personal vehicles, bikes, strollers, etc). There should not be a curb to entry; if there is a step, it should have a ramp.

● Seating ● Mockup of an information screen with illustrative information (e.g. map of the area with

food and restrooms) ● Audible, conversational location-aware smart device to answer questions (e.g. Google

home to direct person to the closest coffee shop) ● Low-stimulus colors and adjustable lighting and sound options (e.g. white noise from

Google Home). ● A way to give feedback on the space ● Text / symbol based signage and/or audible messaging that communicates the rules and

norms for using the space in plain English.

This prototype could optionally include ● Leave space for potential for a washroom (think about how to integrate a public

washroom, no full prototype needed) ● Soundproofing or representation of soundproofing

Major risks to work on/ What do we hope to learn ● How many people should this fit? What if you have 3 kids? ● Is there a lock? How do you tell if someone is inside? Do you have to badge in? ● How big should this be? (Recall physical accessibility). ● How could we deploy this with step-free access? ● Should this be bookable? Can you book this upon arrival even if someone is inside and

get a notification to come back when your reservation is there. How to notify someone inside that there’s someone waiting?

● Should there be a time limit on use? ○ If yes, how do you enforce it / signal time is up?

● What happens if someone is using it and you really need it? What kinds of social norms should exist for giving up your seat to someone in greater need? How to do this in a respectful nonintrusive way?

● Should some spaces be reserved for people with accessibility needs? (e.g. front seats on bus)

● What does the outside have to look like? Does it have windows? Is it translucently panelled?

● How does this get cleaned? Can it be self-cleaning?

● Is there a way to prevent illicit use through the design?

Hardware/materials needed ● Large foam core boards (at least 8’x5’) or wood for frame ● Foam blocks to serve as bricks and also for seating ● Something to represent a table (foldable table) (maybe foam core) ● Marker ● Tablet or something representing a tablet ● Tarp ● Hinges for foamcore ● Smart device (Google Home) ● Charging port (or something representing a charging station)

Special skills needed ● Google Home conversational program (apps for Google Home) ● Someone who can move blocks, wood and foam core around.

Team’s Project Description: A place where people who need a physical or sensory reprieve from the environment can go to rest and recharge. Potential to give priority access to people with accessibility needs. This project proposes a semi enclosed space with options to book fully enclosed rooms. The semi- enclosed space is similar to a courtyard that provides shade, water and seating areas. Each room is climate controlled and gives the user options to change the room environment, such as temperature, sound, and lighting. Each room has a place to lie down, a plant and calming walls. Rooms can be used through voice activation or through a touch screen connected to Google Home. Rooms can be booked through an online system, accessible outside the rooms, and indicators outside the rooms show if the room is currently in use and times it has been booked. Settings are on a time of 20 minute increments. Users in the room are required to reconfigure their settings if they choose to continue to use the room up to a maximum of 60 minutes. After 60 minutes, users must exit the space and re-enter a room in order to continue using the room. If a user has not left after 90 minutes, management will be called to come and check up on the person. Each room is equipped with an emergency phone.

Hackathon Project #3: Construction Advisory Beacon Messages

Idea An advisory message sent from a beacon informing people of construction impediment(s) on the path.

Use cases ● A user who is blind uses Blindsquare to hear audio beacon messages as she moves

through the city. She walks down a street she’s taken many times before, but there is now construction. The beacon on that street that normally says “30m ahead is the No Frills Grocery Store” has detected that there is construction and rewrites the message to say “Construction ahead. Follow temporary construction path around to your left. 30m ahead is the No Frills Grocery Store.”

This prototype must include ● The ability to recognize construction in a photo (either from an existing model or by

training a model on generated or self-taken images with construction or not - doesn’t have to be perfect)

● The ability to autogenerate a message about the construction and (optionally) how to get around it.

● Distance of construction from the user. ● Test your construction detection on any given photo. ● Assume the user is looking/moving in the same direction as the beacon’s camera.

This prototype does not need to include ● You don’t need to actually push your messages to the beacon or add a real camera. ● Ability for beacon to take the image - assume that you have a bunch of pictures that the

beacon has taken 1x/day (you can take these with a phone). ● Orientation (left or right) of construction from the user, since beacons are

omnidirectional.

This prototype could optionally include ● The ability to describe how to get around the construction

Major risks to work on/ What do we hope to learn ● Is it possible to reliably detect construction? ● Where should beacons be placed in a street environment such that they could get good

pictures of construction occurring on the sidewalk? ● Is it possible to generate a useful descriptive message about the construction that a user

who is blind or partially sighted could use to get around the construction? ● How can you determine how far the construction is from the beacon (user)?

Hardware/materials needed ● Beacon ● Computer ● Images of construction and not construction

Special skills needed ● Machine learning ● Programming

Team’s Project Description: An advisory message sent from a beacon informing people of construction impediment(s) on the path. This project proposes a new feature integrated with BlindSquare that users currently installed traffic cameras to identify areas with construction through image identification scripts. This information will be sent to BlindSquare users by describing where in the intersection there is construction with the option to “shake for more” for more details regarding the construction area. Additionally, this team proposed working with the City of Toronto to implement a new bylaw for construction sites to include beacons around their site. Staff will be required to view the images

identified as construction areas and tasked with writing detour instructions for BlindSquare users.

Hackathon Project #4: Self-driving cars for sub-emergency medical visits

Idea A dependable audio interface for ordering non-emergency medical transport.

Use cases ● It’s the middle of the night. Someone is feeling pretty ill (not hospital ill), and they have

low vision. They need to get to urgent care. They hit one button on their phone and say “I need to get to urgent care.” Their phone responds, “OK, I’ve ordered you a car and it’ll be outside in 6 minutes. I’ll remind you when it’s time to leave.” Their phone then guides them step by step to the car.

● A person is joyously walking through the continuous public realm when they feel a pain arise in their shoulder, the third time this week. This person has low vision and isn’t familiar with this part of the neighborhood. It’s rush hour and public transit will be hectic, but they’d like to see urgent care. They tell their phone’s assistant, “I need to go to urgent care”, initiating a sub-emergency medical visit system that confirms the issue is not an emergency, confirms their location, orders a vehicle, and sends advance information to the hospital.

This prototype must include ● Audio/voice interface for:

○ Greeting and orienting the caller ○ Confirming their location ○ Confirming non-emergency ○ Ordering a self-driving car ○ Directing the caller to their pickup location ○ Collecting medical information to send to the hospital

● This will assume the user has access to a smartphone or smart home device (like a Google Home), and this device has the location coordinates of the user

● This must include the geolocation of the user and allow the user to confirm or alter this geolocation

● A way to notify the urgent care center that the person is on their way, and ask the user to provide information about their case.

● This prototype should stub out the actual calling-an-AV functionality (don’t integrate with any actual rideshare company, for example).

This prototype could optionally include ● Turn-by-turn inside and outside directions to guide the user out of a building they’re in,

into to their assigned self-driving car using audio and haptic cues ● If the user says it’s an emergency, call 911 for them.

Major risks to work on/ What do we hope to learn ● Can you dependably finish this process using voice only? ● Does this result in a good enough user experience? ● Does this require a pickup curb or consistent pickup location rather than dynamic AV

locations? Can an AV go straight up to the front door of the building? ● How few steps can we do this audio exchange in? ● What is the minimum amount of information you need in order to get the person what

they need? ● Do you even need to know who they are in order to do this well?

Hardware/materials needed ● Phone ● Computer ● Suggest using Google’s and DeepMind’s speech recognition and text-to-speech APIs

Special skills needed ● Programming ● UX flow design

Team’s Project Description:

A dependable audio interface for ordering non-emergency medical transport. This project proposed an app that can be accessed through google assistant or Siri. The app could be activated through one action activation, and walks the user through a series of questions to determine the level of assistance necessary. First the app confirms whether or not it is an emergency. If it is an emergency, the app will call 9-1-1 for the user. If not, the app will confirm your location and call an autonomous vehicle (AV) to the closest urgent care center. The app gives the user the option to receive more information about their pick up and whether the user wishes to send information regarding their situation. It will give the user instructions for how to access the AV coming to pick them up such as ways to identify the vehicle and the estimated time of arrival. The AV is a large platform with wheels and glass walls to enable wheelchair users to easily wheel into the vehicle. Working together with the AV are a series of robots that fold flat and unfold into a wheelchair to help transport users or the users’ stuff from their home into the AV.

Hackathon Project #5: Augmented reality park feedback experience

Idea Providing actionable information about a public park — features and amenities — and a means for reporting maintenance issues within the park to responsible parties in an accessible, easy manner.

Use cases ● The pavement is broken. User can pull out a phone with this AR app to see who the

responsible agency is and make a call or text to report it. ● There is construction in the park. Someone who is blind or partially sighted is walking

down a path and encounters the construction. They pull out their phone and hold it up; they hear a message about who is in charge of the construction and a question about if they want to report it being inaccessible. They make the call and then go about their day. If they want to request additional help, there’s also an option for that.

This prototype must include ● Visual and audio component; you should hear an indicator when you’re in view of

something ● Interaction for further information (“shake to hear more”) ● A call to action: send an email, make a call, notify responsible persons ● Be aware of where the user is located and include in action / report ● We assume that the user will have a phone or tablet here.

This prototype could optionally include ● The ability to associate a targeted object (found by the user) with a known object

(cataloged previously in a database), and link the two in the action / report (computer vision and comparison step where you don’t have a known located list of objects in AR space)

● Ability to request instantaneous help with something that’s broken (e.g. elevator)

Major risks to work on/ What do we hope to learn ● Does this create too much visual or auditory clutter? ● Should you have to plug in headphones to use this? Do you hold the device to your ear? ● What does it feel like to hear sounds as part of the AR experience? ● Is it annoying to have to report something by talking to your phone (auditory

experience)? ● How accurate is the positioning and orientation; do you actually feel like you’re focusing

on the thing you want to be? ● How many things should have report mechanisms on them? ● How long does it take go through a full reporting process? ● Where should the indicators appear visually within the scene? Above the object?

Embedded in the object? With a symbol?

Hardware/materials needed ● iPads ● Computers ● Earphones ● Mic (or computer mic)

Special skills needed ● Experience with AR programming

Team’s Project Description:

Use of augmented reality (AR) to provide actionable information about public park features and amenities. Additionally, provides user a means of reporting maintenance issues within the park to responsible parties in an accessible, easy manner. Users can explore a public park with AR using an iPad. Key features can be selected by user and the AR app will provide an audio and text description. Additionally, users can report issues and provide feedback through the app by placing an AR pylon. After placing an AR pylon, the app guides the user through a series of questions to describe the issue and determine the responsible party. Afterwards, the information is submitted to the responsible parties and users are given the option to give more feedback or return to AR exploration. The data collected from the AR pylons are compiled in a CSV database. The data includes: date, time, location (latitude and longitude), screenshot from the app of the area identified as an issue, and feedback information.

Hackathon Project #6: Rumble pavement

Idea A dynamic audible/haptic indication of where the sidewalk (pedestrian-only section) ends and potentially dangerous bike or vehicular traffic starts.

Use cases ● A person who is Deaf or hard of hearing is walking down the street, reading on their

phone. They accidentally step too close to the bike lane, which is crowded, and the pavement ‘rumbles’ with a low hum to notify them they’re close to higher speed traffic.

● A person with low vision is walking down the dynamic street, which has been configured to have an adjacent bike lane during rush hour! This person starts to veer towards the bike lane, filled with speeding commuters. Before reaching the bike lane, they are warned by a powerful low hum that they have gone off course, directing them back towards the pedestrian section.

● A person who uses a white cane is getting off the streetcar in between vehicular traffic and a bike lane. They’re not sure which way to go and start walking towards vehicular traffic. They sense normal tactile strips and stop, and furthermore the pavement vibrates to indicate they’re moving in the wrong direction and should instead move in the other direction to cross the bike lane.

This prototype must include ● A sensor to detect when a person is approaching the bike lane ● A noticeable audio / vibrational indication when a person is detected, which dissipates as

the person walks away. Ideally this is vibrational, so that it is usable by people who are Deaf and hard of hearing in addition to people who are blind and low vision.

This prototype could optionally include ● Increasing volume or intensity as the person gets very close ● Optionally, only turn on if there’s a cyclist or car approaching

Major risks to work on/ What do we hope to learn ● Can you use a speaker in order to create a vibration/hum strong enough to be felt

through shoes? ● How loud/strong does the hum need to be in order to effectively warn someone walking

at normal speed? ● Can this hum be felt if you’re using a mobility device with wheels (e.g. scooter,

wheelchair, motorized wheelchair)? ● How far away from the bike lane does this strip of rumble pavement need to be in order

to effectively warn people before crossing into the lane but not annoy people who frequently walk close to the bike lane?

● Is this hum physically detectable (as vibration) by someone who uses hearing aids or who is Deaf?

Hardware/materials needed ● Extra Dynamic street wooden pavers ● occupancy sensor:

https://www.adafruit.com/product/2167?gclid=CjwKCAjwlejcBRAdEiwAAbj6KTgIp77jywOkeYfaLPeULtquB2cFsExXRvPdfEdMRzse_mNkbefugxoC_NcQAvD_BwE

● Speaker, audio cable ● Raspberry Pi 3

Special skills needed ● Hardware engineering (Raspberry Pi) ● Programming

Team’s Project Description: A dynamic audible/haptic indication of where the sidewalk (pedestrian-only section) ends and potentially dangerous bike or vehicular traffic starts. The pavement nearing the edges of pedestrian throughways are equipped with speakers beneath the surface. The speakers produce a pulsing pattern through the subwoofer, creating an audible sound and haptic vibration. As pedestrians walk closer to the edge, the pulsing rate increases until it changes to a constant indicator at the edge. Visual indicators such as coloured lines and lights are also present: spaced out red lines indicated an upcoming edge, closer yellow lines with lights indicated that you are approaching the edge, and very close raised yellow lines indicated you have reached the edge.

Hackathon Project #7: Tactile Sidewalk Wayfinding Strip

Idea A continuous tactile path on all sidewalks that provides wayfinding to and contextual, place-based information about the nearest transit stop.

Use cases ● Someone new to the neighborhood who is blind or partially sighted follows a path from

their hotel to a nearby bus stop. ● Someone who’s looking down at their phone notices that a crosswalk is coming up

because of the tactile cue they’re stepping on.

This prototype must include ● Indicate the direction of the nearest transit stop and provide warnings about crosswalks

beginning / ending.

● Must be able to integrate with the existing modular hexagonal paver system. These should be per-paver systems (either toppers for pavers or actually cast into the pavers themselves - this last option would require a limited number of types of wayfinding pavers to be defined).

● Designed to be at least 2m away from potential vehicle or faster traffic in the center of the street.

● Should be detectable with a white cane or with feet in shoes. ● Should be immediately intuitive what different tactile indicators mean.

This prototype could optionally include ● Could integrate with autogenerated beacon messages to give auditory complement to

tactile wayfinding features. ● A color coding system (ideally high-contrast) that makes the strip visually significant as

well. ● Include a system of differentiated textures to indicate more comprehensive wayfinding

directions (distance to feature “30 more meters to the bus stop” or the corner, changes in direction “right turn ahead” and changes in walking context “entering crosswalk”) and information about the feature (“bus stop for Line A going north every 30 minutes”).

Major risks to work on/ What do we hope to learn ● How wide should this be? ● How many different kinds of tactile pavers are needed? Which textures work best (e.g.

nested arrows, oriented patterns (dash, dot, space - always follow the dashes) ● Should the system be a modular component that attaches to the pavers, or a series of

modified pavers (with specific textures)? ● How much information can be conveyed through tactile textures felt by foot or cane. ● Will people bump into each other if there is only one line in the sidewalk to follow? ● Is the system universal, direction or impractical since all wayfinding needs to be specific

to origin/destination? ● How many people can use it at once? ● How tall should these indicators be?

Hardware/materials needed ● Foamcore or thick 4-ply museum board or hard plastic material to cut into textures (thin

enough to roll over, but thick enough to be felt) ● Templates for basic texture shapes (dots, lines, grids, etc.) ● Base material to set textures on (paper or real wood paver covers) ● X acto knives ● Rulers ● Colored paper, paint or markers ● Painters tape to space out other elements of the street

Special skills needed ● Ability to cut, tape and glue ● Ability to test with wheels

Team’s Project Description: A continuous tactile path on all sidewalks that provides wayfinding to and contextual, place-based information about the nearest transit stop. Raised indicators in the shape of arrowheads/chevrons provide tactile feedback on the directionality towards the closest transit stop. Inner edges are raised more sharply to help cane users feel the shape of the indicators in the intended direction. Along the middle of the shortest path is a groove for cane users to follow and allow for a visual wayfinding cue. Edges of intersections are indicated with raised dots, matching the current system of tactile sidewalk cues. Indicators for turns are marked with a connected raised strip. The number of consecutive chevrons indicates the relative distance from the transit stop, with more chevrons indicating more distance from the stop.

Hackathon Project #8: AI Floor Describer

Idea

Auto-generate an audio description of a one-floor floorplan, including the elevators / stairs / washrooms / seating area / doors.

Use cases ● Someone has just gotten a job in a new building in downtown Toronto. They want to

know the layout of their new building. They’re blind or partially sighted and would like to have this information conveyed to them via audio.

This prototype must include ● The geolocation of the user ● The position, relative to the user, of the:

○ Elevators (if any) ○ Stairs (if any) ○ Washrooms ○ Seating areas (if any) ○ Doors to leave the room the user is currently in (how to move on).

● An audio description of a single floor of a building ● Identify the entryway (the door that people would use to enter the floor)

This prototype could optionally include ● The audio description should state the emergency exits. ● Orient the user (find out which direction they’re facing).

This prototype does not need to include ● Generation of floor plans. Assume these are provided. We will provide the 307 floor plan

and 1-2 others. ● Detection of the orientation of the user. Assume that they’re at the entranceway to the

floor (but this will need to be detected from the image). ● This prototype could use machine learning but doesn’t have to; it could also be rule

based.

Major risks to work on/ What do we hope to learn ● Is it possible to autogenerate a useful description of a floorplan? ● Are elements of a floorplan common enough to be able to detect?

Hardware/materials needed ● Floor plans ● Computer

Special skills needed ● Machine Learning

Team’s Project Description: Auto-generate an audio description of a one-floor floor plan, including the elevators / stairs / washrooms / seating area / doors. This project proposed an app [to integrate with BlindSquare] where floor plans can be uploaded and features can be identified using Microsoft VoTT. Once features are identified and categorized, descriptions will be automatically written for users to help navigate the area. The app will describe the direction the user is facing and key features near the user. The app has options to generate best routes based on accessibility requirements for the user such as ensuring clear paths with ramps for wheelchair users, or the shortest path with few obstacles for blind users.

Wrapping Up The event was concluded by a voting process. Each participant was given three sticky notes. They had the option to vote for any project and as many times as they preferred, however, they could only vote for their own project once. The winning projects were the Tranquil Refuge and the Rumble Pavement with 14 votes each.

● Hackathon Project #1: Audible or haptic incoming traffic warnings at intersections - 8

votes ● Hackathon Project #2: Tranquil Refuge - 14 votes ● Hackathon Project #3: Construction Advisory Beacon Messages - 8 votes ● Hackathon Project #4: Self-driving cars for sub-emergency medical visits - 8 votes ● Hackathon Project #5: Augmented reality park feedback experience - 9 votes ● Hackathon Project #6: Rumble pavement - 14 votes ● Hackathon Project #7: Tactile Sidewalk Wayfinding Strip - 6 votes ● Hackathon Project #8: AI Floor Describer - 6 votes

Co-design Toolkit

PLANNING YOUR CO-DESIGN ACTIVITY Including unique and diverse needs in the co-design process is an effective way to ensure our design adapts to a broader range of needs. However, involving citizens in a co-design process may seem expensive, time consuming, and overwhelming. This template provides a list of items to consider when planning, executing, facilitating, and reporting a co-design process based on your goals, context, and resources. It can be used in any format or order, and adapted for your own processes by adding, removing, and modifying its content. If you have any comments regarding this template or the following resources, please send us an email via cities@idrc.ocadu.ca.

You can download the Co-design template in PDF, Google Doc, Word,Audio page 1, Audio page 2, and Braille 3D print files (ZIP) formats at https://cities.inclusivedesign.ca/resources/.

A list of resources is provided to elaborate on each section of the template. These resources include best practices, reflections of our own co-design experiences, and practical tools to plan a co-design process. We encourage all those involved in co-design to share their perspectives, methods, challenges, and learnings by completing an online form and contributing to this public resource.