The former implies that our goal is a fair algorithm that “treats all individuals the same,” within the tightly bound limits of its operational domain and regardless of the effects of past or present-day discrimination. The latter implies something else: that the end goal is to provide access, opportunities, and improved life chances for all

design narratives: who receives attention and credit for design work,

described a typology of citizen participation arranged as a ladder with increasing degrees of decision-making clout ranging from low to high. The Arnstein rungs ascend from forms of ‘window-dressing participation,’ through cursory information exchange, to the highest levels of partnership in or control of decision-making.”

The costs of communicating specific user needs will generally be higher for users from disadvantaged locations within the matrix of domination.

lead user innovation, information asymmetry between manufacturers and users, and variance in user product needs.

social-relational model: that is, an analysis of how disability is constructed by culture, institutions, and the built environment, which are all organized in ways that privilege some bodies and minds over others.

we have to raise the question of whether algorithm design should be structured according to the logic of “fairness,” read as color and gender blindness, or according to the logic of racial, gender, and disability justice.

We view change as emergent from an accountable, accessible, and collaborative process, rather than as a point at the end of a process.

Many design approaches that are supposedly more inclusive, participatory, and democratic actually serve an extractive function.