July 25-27, 2018 / Vancouver, BC

Design for 7 Billion. Design for One.

Written by Kat Holmes

August 28, 2017

Transcript

It's an honor to be here today. It's an honor to round out what has been a really amazing event. One of the best conferences, certainly that I've been to, been with in a while. So, it's really an honor to be amongst so many talented people. And hopefully bring it home a little bit today, and tie in some of the things that we've heard over the last two days. I always like to start with a short film. It's about four-and-a-half minutes. Just gonna set the tone for the topic and to give us a launching point for our conversation.

So the short film is part of a series that I developed while at Microsoft. And folks from Microsoft here, most of them contributed in some way. So I wanna take a moment to acknowledge that. Antoine Hunter, Rosemarie Garland-Thompson, Haben Girma, Victor Pineda all are world-class experts in inclusion and accessibility. If you wanna learn more, they each have a featurette that I'll point to a little bit later. But, really what I love to show about this in terms of setting the stage is to talk to us in terms of, as designers. And when I say design, I mean the broadest possible sense of design. I mean the experiences that we as human beings create for another human being. So that can be a dinner table setting that we're creating for a party. It could be the digital products that we make and create content and visuals for and experiences for. So all of that. I invite you as we talk today to think about, through that lens of design, that very broad lens. Someone recently asked me how I got into disability.

And I thought it was such a strange question. Because ability is one of those things that transcends every other kind of human diversity. We're all born. We gain abilities as we grow up. We lose abilities as we age, as we're injured. As we move from one environment to the next, our abilities change. And yet, disability is one of those facets of diversity that we talk about at the very end, if at all, when listing other types of human diversity. And so my commitment and my passion really is to bring it to the forefront of these conversations and really ask the question, why aren't we all thinking about ability and disability first when we create experiences that other people interact with?

So my path to... Oh, actually, real quick, before I go on a personal note. Haben mentions the term temporarily able-bodied, which I love. Because according to the World Health report and World Report on Disability, a billion people in the world who have disabilities. But there are 6.4-billion people who are temporarily able-bodied. We are all changing at every moment. So my path to this work has more to do with a deep interest in human diversity. This is a snapshot of my hometown, Oakland, California, across the Bay from San Francisco. This is what it used to look like. This is how I like to remember it before so much change happened. And my parents chose to raise my family there because we're a multiracial family. They wanted me and my sister to grow up in an environment where there were lots of multiracial families. And Oakland is known for its rich diversity. Of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, language, income level.

And so growing up in this environment was very much part of the conversation in my education and in my social circles. But, everything I've learned about inclusive design in the last three years has really transformed how I think about human diversity. I wanna share a little bit more about that. My path to what I would say is design in a very broad sense started with a love of both science and art. This is me in the 4th grade, trying to communicate earthquakes with a sculpture. I love keeping this picture up because it reminds me of what I'm always trying to get back to. I went to school for, I studied orthopedic biomechanics and material science engineering.

My first job out of school was a very technical mechanical engineer, which eventually led to industrial design. And my quest towards design, and specifically inclusive design, is always been trying to get back to this place. Where thinking about the human being and the ways to extend the abilities in a really meaningful way connect people to the world around them. That eventually led me to Microsoft, where for the last three years I led a team called inclusive design. The work there really happened in a surprising way. We never set out to make inclusive design the charter, but it became important as the company was resetting its mission. And the focus on accessibility became top of the list for most teams at Microsoft. The problem is how to think about that through a design lens, how to think about that through a content lens. What does that really mean? Beyond pure accessibility criteria, but really, what is the language translation that happens across multiple geographies? How do we think about multiple abilities and experiences that people have?

And the more teams... I had a great opportunity to work really broadly across the company. A lot of different products, a lot of different businesses. And the consistent, simple version of my job is, my job was to ask why would anybody want this. And why is this meaningful and why is this relevant in the world? And that led to seeing... I saw some patterns in terms of how we were making products, questions that we would ask, that we started to codify. And that became the early work for inclusive design. So, we'll talk a little bit today about some of those inclusive principles and methods that I believe, and I know now as I'm working outside of this one company, broadly apply across the industry. I left Microsoft in April. So really recently. In part, it was because there were so many other areas in our field that really, we're curious about how to do this work. The methods and the processes and the ideas that we developed, there was an external demand that matched the internal demand.

And so I took a leap out there and wanted to bring that method with me and really focus on how to extend that in new ways. Kata, anybody know the word kata and what it means? Are you martial artists? So my father was a tai chi instructor and a karate instructor. Kata, and I'm going to give my as best I can description, actually applies to many areas of life. It's very well known in martial arts as a set of practices. There's kata one, kata two, kata three, and the mastery and repetition of those kata give you an ability to then improvise and interweave and create and use them as needed. The specific practice over time is what develops the skill. And so my passion is to really bring that kind of method to inclusion itself. And I saw a real lack, a real missing of specific processes, specific ways to think about human diversity in our products and the things that we make.

One of the first lessons, or lessons of being an entrepreneur, I had to learn how to build my own website. So I was putting this up as a demonstration and it took me three days to build an accessible website using Square Space. Walking the talk is really an important part of this work, but also knowing that it's OK to not be perfect, and I think that's one of the things that actually is a barrier for a lot of people stepping into the space, is the fear of getting it wrong. So I'm like at a B-plus with this website right now and I'm working for that A. Walking the talk is a huge part of this. As I've been working with more companies, I've been really fortunate to have a good set, especially with startups in this first few months. There's more patterns that are emerging, and I think that these have been echoed by many of the speakers over the last two days.

This relationship between the things we make, who uses them, how we make them, and who is making them. Where does that cycle of exclusion. I'm starting to think of it as a cycle, this is work in progress. By the time I write the book, it should all be very clear. What is that nature between our own biases, our own abilities and how they inform the things we make and the impact then on the people who use them? I'm particularly interested in this connection between the human to these two human points, because who makes it? You think about a company the size of the one that I just recently came from. You get upwards of 5,000 if not 10,000 people working on one product, one experience. And getting all of those personalities, all those different abilities, all those assumptions into one place.

Who's really accountable at the end of the day if someone on the other end of this line is unable to use the experience? Another key question is at the other side here, we were creating those experiences, which human actually belongs in the center of that design? 'Cause who you put in there will dramatically change the outcome of what you create. So this underlying piece up here is the part that I really want to dive into, and we'll get back to this one over time, but this one here, which humans are in the center? I'd imagine, in this room, there's people that are creating products, experiences for thousands if not millions if not billions of people that touch the experiences that you create. And many of us are chartered with reaching that scale, but at the same time creating an experience that feels personal and unique and meaningful to one person. And we found there's a really interesting tension that tension between something universal and personal at the same time, and can that exist? The underlying crux of it, I believe, is human diversity. But even more so the way that we categorize people, the way that we typify people.

So you think about kind of briefs that we might get, challenges that we work on. We categorize people maybe by gender, by age, by demographic and by geography, income level maybe, but many of these categories have more to do with social power or marketing priorities than they do with how people actually interact in the world. So I invite you today to take a look with me for a moment. If we thought about human diversity through the lens of interaction, what would that look like? Now, from an interaction standpoint, we think about the evolution of human-computer interfaces, it made sense at one point in time for our interfaces to be highly visual and highly cognitive. This is a 25, 30-year-old paradigm that's still riding in most of our devices, where one person is using one device maybe in one environment completing one or two tasks.

But as we all know, it's just exploded. There's a proliferation of ways that people interact with digital experiences, environments they're moving through. Then one day, someone might have two dozen interactions with something digital. So thinking about that kind of diversity that happens and how to design for that is a real challenge. An aha moment for me and the team was the World Health Organization's definition of disability which was dramatically redefined in 2001. As a mismatch in interaction between the features of a person's body and the features of the environment in which they live. Now, that shift was profound, especially 'cause we're still in many areas of our culture very tied to this definition of disability as a personal health condition that is outside the range of normal.

But this shift towards thinking about interaction squarely places in the lap of everyone in this room and many, many more people to think about every choice that we make in our product, every choice we make in our solutions and our experiences, we're either raising or lowering those mismatches between people and their environment. So that was a key moment in our thinking. A couple of quick examples of this. Joseph Freedman, inventor of the flexible straw. This is my favorite inclusive design example. Joseph was at a ice cream shop with his four-year-old daughter. She was trying to drink a milkshake. Paper straws at that time were entirely straight. Trying to do that with a high counter was not going well for her. He took the paper straw home, he put a screw inside of it, and he wrapped a wire around the outside to create a joint. And certainly, that went on to benefit his daughter, but any of us who have ever been sick in bed or in the hospital certainly benefit from this design.

Or maybe on a beach having a vacation beverage in the summer with the umbrella in it also benefit from the design, right? So went on to create benefit for many more people. OXO tools might be another one that many people are familiar with. Betsy Farber and Sam Farber were a couple. Sam created OXO tools after seeing Betsy trying to work with the utensils she had in the kitchen. She had arthritis and was really struggling to use the products they had at hand. The design certainly benefits people with arthritis, but it benefits any of us whose hands are wet in the kitchen and we need a better grip to do the tasks that we're doing. And then curb cuts, which

I think many of us are familiar with. We use them every day if we're walking through the city. This is a picture, it's a little fuzzy, I apologize for that, from the archives of the Center of Independent Living in Berkeley. Ed Roberts. If you haven't learned about Ed Roberts, I'd highly recommend looking him up. He's the father of the Independent Living Movement in Berkeley. He was the first student to attend UC Berkeley with very extensive mobility limitations and had a independent student career at the school. He stayed and built this center and they worked to make Telegraph Avenue the first fully wheelchair-accessible street in the United States. So every dot here marks a different ramp. So those ramps from the curb down to the streets certainly benefit people who use wheelchairs, but any of us who are dragging a suitcase, or pushing a stroller, or riding a bike on the sidewalks. Dangerous, dangerous.

So these are just a few examples of inclusive design. There's a much longer list, I have a snapshot here, some of it I think were most influential in the digital space. The thing that I love about this list is many of them are love stories. There's stories of someone who created an experience or solution for someone who they cared deeply about. They saw how they were facing a mismatch, how they were excluded from participating and they thought about how to create that solution in a new way. There's a lot of definitions of inclusive design that are out there. One of the only educational programs I could find in inclusive design when I started this work is based at OCAD in Toronto. Jutta Treviranus if you know her is a mentor and by far the world's leading expert in this topic.

There are distinctions between universal design and inclusive design. I'm happy to chat with anyone who's curious about that. Just wanted to talk about this specific definition, the focus on the methodology that really works well for digital environments because the things that we make are malleable, they can adapt to people's variations in bodies and abilities. We've arrived kind of at a definition. I wanted to dive a little bit deeper into, how do we get to actual methods from here? It's one thing to have a theory and the idea, but how do we get into this practice. So Jutta introduced me to Todd Rose. Anybody read this book, The End Of Average? I also recommend this one, highly.

So, Todd gets into the origins of our thinking about normalcy and what he calls averagarian thinking. I think it becomes more relevant than ever as we're all making investments in big data in a new way. There's a quick story from this book I'll share. I would say the founding father of most of our notions of normalcy and averagarian thinking is Adolphe Quetelet. He's a Belgian mathematician and astronomer who had aspirations to be as well known as his hero, Isaac Newton. He was born in 1794, I believe, and right about the time he was coming into his career, war broke out in Belgium and he couldn't access the telescopes because they were occupied by the military. So that kind of cut his career short, and he poured all that ambition into applying the mathematics of astronomy to human beings in our society. So he started measuring every dimension of human bodies, capturing large, large amounts of data.

He measured behaviors, quantifications of intelligence, early groundwork for a lot of the standardized ways that we test and categorize people today. The trick to that was, as he developed this, he started to want to personify the average person, what he deemed a perfect, ideal human being. He wanted to find the perfect face, the perfect intelligence level, and to really bring that character to life. So in this, this is kind of a quick quote here, the way that Todd Rose describes it, that, "The individual in that process was seen as the error, "whereas that average of the group was seen as the ideal." What then happened is, societally, we adapted that in really interesting ways, but then we also started to think about ourselves as needing to exceed that average. It was about being above average, and that creates a whole nother category of new behaviors on human society. So this was the foundation for a lot of social sciences, for a lot of the data sciences, but most importantly, for the way that human beings started to stereotype each other.

So, getting into that, going back and knowing that there's a moment in which there was a construct that was created around normal human bodies and normal human abilities, can we get there and untangle it and ask ourselves, what if there was no normal? What if there is no normal? What would that be like? As I do this work with people, this is usually the point where there's a lot of anxiety kicks in, because many, many of us were taught in school, whether it was engineering school or social sciences or design, that there's an 80-20 rule. If you design something for the 80%, that 20% on the outlying of the curve will kind of pick it up, or it's an edge case and we'll get to it later. But if we know that that 80-20 is a fallacy, is the flaw in the first place, then where do we start as designers, how do we create solutions? Accessibility certainly is one of the most important first kind of standards that helps us think about that differently.

Accessibility has led to great standards in architecture, in digital, especially web experiences, but is also insufficient. This is a snapshot from a fantastic TED Talk by Sinead Burke, who stands at three feet five inches tall. She talks about especially moving through public environments, airports in particular, and the accessible amenities in those environments are primarily designed for people who are wheelchair users. So, for Sinead, being able to even reach the lock inside of a bathroom or the door into a building is sometimes a huge obstacle. So the question really is, who is it accessible to when we talk about accessibility. So there's so many kind of angles and pieces that come together. Rather than trying to solve all of them here and share all that today to carry us forward into our principles, I just want to drop those ideas in. My favorite definition of inclusive design comes from Susan Goltsman, who passed away in 2016. She was a pioneer in inclusive playground design.

So she spent all her time observing children of all ages, including adults, in playgrounds. And her definition I'll read really quickly, "Inclusive design does not mean "that you're designing one thing for all people." It means you're creating a diversity of ways for people to participate and experience so they have a sense of belonging. And that's really the heart of these principles that we carry forward. So I'm gonna take a step through these. And as we do, thinking about that sense of belonging, the function and the emotional aspects is something that I invite you to do. So recognizing exclusion, learning from diversity, and solving for one and extending to many. So first step, recognizing exclusion. So exclusion happens when we use our own abilities, preferences, or resources as a baseline for solving problems. Ability bias is one of the most sneaky, most pervasive types of bias, because I can see what I'm designing here in my studio. I have relatively decent eyesight. Should be good enough, I'll ship it out into the world.

Well, when we design products using our own abilities as a baseline, they can end up working well for people who have similar abilities, resources, preferences, but they end up excluding much larger groups of people. An example of this, I just tried to draw the extreme, I think we can all kind of stretch and see where maybe using our own abilities might have that translation. But on a big scale, this is an example also from The End Of Average, was the US Air Force in World War II. So they're setting out to design the flight deck, the cockpit of their fighter jets. And to do that, they did research, they did a very quarterly kind of approach. They did research with 4,000 pilots. They took body dimensions, I mean there was 125 ways to measure your body, but they measured all those.

And they took all the data and they took smack in the middle and said that must be the perfect pilot. And then they designed everything in that cockpit to be exactly fixed into place to fit that average. So over the course of the war, they had a lot of crashes they couldn't attribute to mechanical failure or to pilot error, and quite frankly, at the end of World War II, they were running out of pilots. So in preparation for the Korean War, a young researcher in the army whose name was Lieutenant Daniels took just 10 of those facets and did a study again with 2,000 pilots and measured who actually fit those 10 facets. So any guesses on how many human beings were a perfect match? Yeah, likely zero. Nobody fit in, right? Nobody fit the design. In essence, it had been created for everyone and no one.

And I love this example because it is so close to what commonly happens in companies when we design with homogenized personas in mind, or when we think about, make gross assumptions about the human beings who are using our products. We end up creating something we think we've solved for everyone, we end up creating something for no one. This led to what's known as the individual fit principle. Innovations in adjustable chin straps, seat placement, things that, any time you get in a car, that you're benefiting from the design of this process. Another example in terms of recognizing exclusion. Think about gender exclusion that happens in design. So the automotive industry for decades used an average Caucasian male body type in their safety testing. But they also knew that female drivers were over 40% more likely to be injured in a car accident.

And so it wasn't until 2011 that they started using a range of body types in their safety testing, which certainly led to benefits for people of all genders and people of all sizes, not just female customers. But if we think about the interaction again, the diversity of the interaction that happens and the way that that can benefit or exclude people by gender, this is a great example. So in thinking about exclusion, there's a lot of places to dig, there's a lot of ways to look. These are the three areas that I think about most often. The physical types of exclusion that happens, certainly, what we can and can't use as we interact, but also cognitive, how do we learn? How do we solve problems? What ways do we focus? What is the level of distraction that we can work with and when does it become too much? Societal. A lot of our assumptions based on social norms. So digging in these different areas and looking for opportunities, or exclusion happens by interaction is the real heart of this first principle. If you're interested in the topic, I think it's more important, I'm just a little plug here for if you're into data, big data-driven design, big data-driven decision-making, please pick up this book and learn about some of the examples of how that exclusion bias is being proliferated across our society by machine learning and artificial intelligence, things like predictive policing algorithms, how criminal sentences are assigned, the way that home loans are approved.

More and more are being assigned to algorithmic-based decision-making models. But there is bias within that based on the assumptions of the people who created those algorithms. Second principle, learning from diversity. Human beings are experts in adapting to interaction diversity. You give us something we want, put an obstacle in the way of that, we will find a way to work around that and to persevere. So when I say expert, this is a snapshot of a card from our inclusive toolkit. Really thinking about who is most excluded on a regular basis from the experience you're trying to create, whether that be whose voice is missing, who's quietest, who do you know, faces, obstacles, and barriers as they're interacting with your product, and then seeking out that person because they will be an expert in new ways to solve that problem.

So you think about some of the examples here, like interactions between human beings that are facilitated by technology. How someone who can't see communicates with someone who can't hear using a phone, not so straightforward. But people have ways to make that work. Thinking about our environments, the objects that we interact with. Thinking about where that mismatch happens and then finding someone who knows how to navigate that. A quick example from the earlier video. Victor Pineda is the head of World Enabled, he's also an urban planner and just launched a smart cities initiative. He spends 45 weeks out of the year traveling around the world. In the video that we created featuring Victor, it shows him climbing Machu Picchu, which I don't know how to do.

I think it's easier now because there's like a tram that goes or something, but he wanted to climb it. Victor is an expert in certainly navigating the world as a person who uses a wheelchair, but he is also an expert in the development of smart cities. He is the person who is going to know what types of interactions are going to open up that space to as many people as possible. So bringing his expertise into the core of that design is what I mean by the second principle. Another example, I love Pill Packs, anybody familiar with Pill Packs? It goes up every time, so their business must be doing pretty well. So if you think about the pill bottle, the design of the pill bottle and the childproof cap. In 1965, when they started putting candy coating on the outside of aspirin, they added a childproof cap because it tastes like candy. Well, that thing is impossible to get off, right? It's impossible. And if you have dexterity issues, it's even more so. And the curved bottle also is really hard to read the label, it leads to a lot of people mistaking their medication.

So Pill Packs worked with IDEO. They talked to 15 people who were lifelong cancer patients, people who took upwards of 16 different medications over the course of the week, and asked them, what would be the ways that you would think about this, solving this problem of the delivery and minimizing the risk of mistaking your medication? And what that led to wasn't a more accessible pill bottle, although there are certainly designs that have tried to solve that problem. What it led to was a rethinking of the entire delivery system of medication. For homes especially, many, many homes that don't have children, having the medication presorted two-week segments and then delivered to your house in a way that's really easy to kind of just tear off what you need today and go.

There's enormous benefits for, certainly, the patients who they first met with, but we found also that it goes onto benefit a lot of people who are taking their vitamins, the road warriors that are traveling all the time. So there's extended ways that this has come out. So rethinking that entire solution from the ground up. So one other way, in addition to finding people who are most excluded, bringing them in and having conversations that you can learn about their expertise, it's just a stress test. When you think about your solution, the ways that you're communicating content, the ways you're communicating an interaction, how can you test that with different types of physical limitations somebody might have or physical changes in ability or social context. If someone can't see and they're in a crowd, maybe a very different type of set of requirements to consider than if they can't see and they're alone.

So, like to call this like the mix and match game that we do at a lot of teams. So learning from diversity and thinking about that interaction through the lens here, and there's definitely a lot of room to grow this into cognitive and societal types of exclusion that happen as well. Third principle, solving for one, extending to many. So this one has become one of the most popular concepts and methods. People really gravitate towards it. I'm gonna show a quick video, it's about three-and-a-half minutes, and then we'll talk a little bit how this principle works and then we'll wrap up.

[Woman] Man walks down a hall. A woman signs. A Skype icon pulses. Young people are in a school hallway. A young man is at his locker. A young man slips a backpack over his shoulder. A girl in the US puts on a headset and skypes with students overseas. Max smiles. Design for all of us begins with design for each of us.

So that was another film series that we worked on kind of to again bring the examples to life. So in this, we see how something like captioning, and you may have also noticed the audio description in that film and that's something I'm also very passionate about. I think there's a lot of room for the people in this room to be thinking about the beauty and design of audio description which helps make visual content accessible to people with low vision. And it's really fun, kind of describing, narratively, what's happening in a film.

To the point that Jutta is making, that we think about captioning and subtitles as being something that was designed for people who have hearing loss or are deaf. But we all benefit, whether we're trying to read the news in the airport or in the gym or in a crowded pub somewhere. Literacy and learning to read, that being able to see and hear what's being said is extremely beneficial to people's certain types of learning styles. So we think of this as a persona spectrum. Certainly, we build on personas, personas they have some real debate and challenges with, but when we think about the spectrum of ability that that kind of bridges, there's a lot of different ways you can start to draw this. And here's a few examples of persona spectrums by different physical interactions. We can certainly think about this about cognition or different types of societal facets.

But designing something that works well for someone who experiences a mismatch on a permanent basis, this left column here, can then extend a benefit to somebody who experiences it on a temporary basis or in a situational basis. So as an example, the one that people always have a real reaction to is the see one. Designing something that works well, where we all are starting to benefit from these as we do more voice-based interactions for someone who's blind or has low vision can certainly also benefit somebody who has had eye surgery, maybe doing with cataracts, or someone who's driving in a car and maybe is getting their directions turn by turn in some way. I certainly don't endorse using your phone in the car, but just the way that computers are now moving into those environments, how are we designing that in a way that transcends and thinks differently about those solutions as we all experience and benefit from this.

So the key to it is certainly to have that continuum viability, but the top line is the most important part, which is why would somebody want to participate in your experience? What's actually the ultimate motivation? Is it independence? Is it to create something, to collaborate with other people, connect with other people? So keeping that ultimate motivation in mind while you're thinking about how to create this spectrum. So one last example. Anybody read about Morgan's Inspiration Island in San Antonio, Texas? Texas is the last place I expected to find a really great example, and it's such a cool example. Gordon and Maggie Hartman wanted to create a waterpark for their daughter, Morgan.

They thought first and foremost about how to make it work well for children who used wheelchairs but also have low vision and low hearing. And then it kind of expanded from there as they brought more people who have been excluded from this ability to go to a waterpark in San Antonio in the heat of summer. They started to think about things like how to adapt the water temperature in realtime so that it could be adjusted for people with sensory sensitivities. My favorite outcome of this project is the design of this wheelchair. It's a company also in San Antonio I believe, it's called the PneuChair. Rather than being battery-powered, which would not work in a waterpark, it uses compressed air to move. And it takes 10 minutes to charge as opposed to many hours for a battery-powered wheelchair.

And so we see the park has these readily available for anybody who visits. The thing that this creates, that top motivation, isn't just play, but it's independent exploration. Just so fundamental to being a kid. I'm gonna be taking a trip to San Antonio soon. I need to go to this play park. So solving for one, extending to many. So this is a quick recap of the principles that we've talked to and the way that they tie in to different experiences. And to bring us back around to a close, thinking about human diversity, how many different types of people there are in the world. The more I do this work, the more I'm convinced that there's 7.4-billion different types of people. It's just the way it is. We got to work our brains and work our bodies to figure out new ways to think about that categorization of diversity.

And as you go through those steps, I hope I leave you a little bit of inspiration today and maybe some starting points and things you can do to take this forward. One is certainly practice recognizing exclusion in your own work, feedback channels that you depend on to create your experiences. Whose voices are missing? How does the design of that feedback channel determine who can show up to contribute feedback? I have some great examples there, but I won't get into them right now. And then second, starting with excluded communities. So really thinking about, who has systematically been unable to participate in this part of the experience?

Seek out those love stories, because you could seek out people who have been excluded that have wanted to participate, they're gonna have some ingenuity and some real ideas on how to solve the problems that you are currently working on. And then apply these inclusive principles and methods to your own workplace. This one, can't emphasize enough. The work that we do, the tools that we use in our own environments determine who can create, who can make those solutions. So is about those teams and that makeup of that team, but it's also the design of the things we use to create work with each other.

So get creative and innovate in the things that you're using at hand in your own workplace, because that will shift the sense of purpose that people have in their ability to do great work, and it shifts who shows up to contribute to that work. So thank you so much for your time. I just wanted to end on... If you want to learn more about the topic and want to check out the toolkit or some of the videos that I shared today, they're available at kata.design. And if you have questions, let me know. I am available through that site as well. Thank you so much for your attention at the end of a long, amazing event. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration.