Re: EO's Preety script: COGA input needed by 9/15 at 6pm ET

I do not feel we should have the profile of an ADHD child in our script.
There are so many issues with creating a safe space online for children that trying to integrate it into our scripts i think is a mistake.
It will potentially infantilize the ADHD community we are trying to serve. It may minimize the importance of making content legally cognitively accessible.

I understand the intent is to increase the accessibility and the utility of information online for children with ADHD. However, should this be a subset of standards for children? Do we have child personas for other diagnoses or disabilites? 
How does this differ from standards for children? What about the reading level, would that not be the most important aspect of a 13-year-old experience online? How does that reading level affect the ability to use the web? How does the consequence of action figure into the equation? Questions seem to come up such as: How is intent judged by a child, never mind with a diagnosed learning disability or ADHD? For example, would the intent (not the description)  contained in ALT text need to be understood through a 13-year-old’s eyes? 

Overall, there are too many factors in bringing a 13-year-old child into the personas that, I feel, demand a lot of expertise that has not been present in the creation of the current work; specifically, this expertise with diagnosed conditions such as ADHD, in adults and children. 

I do think this may be of disservice to the ADHD and even the cognitive disability population by bringing a child's profile in at this point. 
-John

(I have not put this comment into github or any other channel and not sure it will be effectively heard- but I do have strong concerns about this child persona.)

> On Sep 15, 2022, at 9:15 AM, Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Can we suggest the scenario for lueise we created? It was so much more positive. 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 8:33 AM Julie Rawe <jrawe@understood.org <mailto:jrawe@understood.org>> wrote:
> Hi, folks, this is the first of four scripts with consolidated COGA feedback that we're asking you to review before we send it to EO. 
> 
> Background:
> COGA had a good meeting on Monday with Shadi from EO. He asked us to submit consolidated feedback via Github, instead of asynchronously filling out EO's survey. We agreed to his request.
> 
> To meet EO's 9/26 deadline, COGA has spent several hours at TPAC discussing the 4 EO scripts that involve cognitive and learning disabilities. We will send each of the 4 scripts out as soon as they are ready and will try to give you two days to respond to each one.
> 
> Your input needed by this Thursday at 6pm ET:
> Please review this Preety script <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AvcIlJC11MDBtZi_U2pknWxQrznq5S_p_knc_jjlb2w/edit?usp=sharing> and use margin comments:
> If you have any objections to the changes we’re suggesting in red or to the explanations for these changes, or
> If you think something essential is missing from EO's script and/or our feedback.
> 
> Thanks so much for your flexibility as we hustle to meet EO's very tight deadline, which is based on the need to finish producing this video series by the end of the year or else lose the funding for it.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Julie
> 
> -- 
> Julie Rawe
> Special Projects Editor, Editorial Content, Understood
> E: jrawe@understood.org <mailto:jrawe@understood.org>
> Pronounced Joo-lee Raw (like 'uncooked')
> She | her
> 
> 
> 
> 
>