an ongoing project and today already eleven businesses have adjusted tension on their rest room doors and people are reporting says what other barriers do we find. Can you show me something else? So it's proven to start the conversation. So what we have learned is that advocates learn, well, basically this process really enables people how to find accurate ADA information, businesses are asking for more AZA information and most importantly businesses are making improvements to accessibility. Again, as Pam said earlier, the guide is on the Southeast ADA Center website and for more information you can contacts the Southeast ADA Center. (Applause). >> Really cool. Really organic. Any questions? >> AUDIENCE: This is really interesting. I really enjoyed it. We have heard from a number of different presenters today, it's very important to do not research on people, but with people with disabilities. Given that how did the unique participatory voice of people with disabilities in your project, I think that's one of the most important learnings of this project actually, then how do you think different questions were posed or the research process was framed differently because of that key presence? >> KAREN HAMILTON: I can say as a part of the whole process people with disabilities who were involved in the research project, everything from forming the question to carrying the research out, it tweaked everything along the way. It really guided researchers at forming questions that were meaningful to people with disabilities in the community, and the people who participated in the project said that. >> I can add too that the reason that we serve eight states. The reason you saw six states is because the first state ended up being a pilot state because we realized quickly that what we thought we were doing once we started pulling everyone in and everyone was participating in the research, we realized we didn't have a clue. And what we thought the question was not the question. So we had to go back and reframe everything. And everything, there was a very thorough review process with all of the researchers, so everyone had a voice in the process. It took longer in order to be able to do it, but it was still worth it. >> I would also like to plug that we were not, that people with intellectual disabilities were not included as part of the research team in the first research project, and that was something that the group as a whole brought up as a concern, and
an ongoing project and today already eleven businesses have adjusted tension on their rest room doors and people are reporting says what other barriers do we find. Can you show me something else? So it's proven to start the conversation. So what we have learned is that advocates learn, well, basically this process really enables people how to find accurate ADA information, businesses are asking for more AZA information and most importantly businesses are making improvements to accessibility. Again, as Pam said earlier, the guide is on the Southeast ADA Center website and for more information you can contacts the Southeast ADA Center. (Applause). >> Really cool. Really organic. Any questions? >> AUDIENCE: This is really interesting. I really enjoyed it. We have heard from a number of different presenters today, it's very important to do not research on people, but with people with disabilities. Given that how did the unique participatory voice of people with disabilities in your project, I think that's one of the most important learnings of this project actually, then how do you think different questions were posed or the research process was framed differently because of that key presence? >> KAREN HAMILTON: I can say as a part of the whole process people with disabilities who were involved in the research project, everything from forming the question to carrying the research out, it tweaked everything along the way. It really guided researchers at forming questions that were meaningful to people with disabilities in the community, and the people who participated in the project said that. >> I can add too that the reason that we serve eight states. The reason you saw six states is because the first state ended up being a pilot state because we realized quickly that what we thought we were doing once we started pulling everyone in and everyone was participating in the research, we realized we didn't have a clue. And what we thought the question was not the question. So we had to go back and reframe everything. And everything, there was a very thorough review process with all of the researchers, so everyone had a voice in the process. It took longer in order to be able to do it, but it was still worth it. >> I would also like to plug that we were not, that people with intellectual disabilities were not included as part of the research team in the first research project, and that was something that the group as a whole brought up as a concern, and