Plan from reader jobs
Every guide starts with a reader job: starting a dense assignment, scanning a long article, reviewing extension permissions, or explaining local-first privacy to a school or workplace reviewer.
Content quality system
ADHD Reading Editorial Policy
ADHD Reading content should help readers make informed choices about reading workflows, browser permissions, privacy boundaries, and beta product behavior without overstating medical or accessibility claims.
Write with non-medical boundaries
Articles explain reading workflows, accessibility support, and product behavior. They do not diagnose, treat, or replace medical, academic, legal, or workplace accommodation advice.
Review for clarity and risk
Each article records an author, reviewer, update date, review note, key takeaways, and source list so readers can see how the page was checked before publication.
Cite and refresh sources
Blog articles should include visible source lists and BlogPosting citation JSON-LD. Source checks should be repeated when pages are updated, policies change, or product behavior changes.
What our articles should cover
ADHD Reading articles should focus on practical reading support: previews, short reading loops, bionic-style cues, semantic highlights, focus overlays, typography, local-first settings, Chrome extension permissions, and privacy review language for schools or teams.
When an article discusses ADHD, it should stay within educational and assistive-technology boundaries. The content can explain common reading friction and workflow ideas, but it should not promise clinical outcomes or imply that a browser extension replaces a clinician, teacher, therapist, disability services office, or workplace accommodation process.
Sources, reviewers, and update dates
Blog posts should include visible sources, structured citation data, an author, a reviewer, a review note, a publication date, and an update date. Sources should prioritize official documentation, reputable education/accessibility organizations, product documentation, and privacy policy materials when the topic involves extension permissions or data flow.
Reviewer labels currently represent internal editorial review for clarity, privacy posture, and non-medical language. The next content maturity step is to add external expert review for selected high-impact guides and to record source re-check dates for articles that depend on external policies.
Corrections and reader feedback
Corrections should be easy to request and easy to explain. Readers can contact support@adhd-reading.com with a page URL, the sentence or claim in question, and non-sensitive context about the concern.
- Correct factual errors, broken links, outdated product behavior, and overbroad claims promptly after discovery.
- Prefer plain-language clarifications over hidden edits when a change affects privacy, permissions, medical boundaries, or store readiness.
- Invite readers, educators, and reviewers to report content concerns through support@adhd-reading.com without sending confidential page text.