Summary of comments

1. Visual Design and Layout

• Clear and easy to navigate.
• Lovely that you have included pictures of children — very important to me.
• Very clear and stands out.
• The layout is tidy, with headings spaced well and a calm white background that makes the text easy to read.
• The page looks clean and professional, and the APDR diagram is a real strength.
• Clear, colour co-ordination makes it easier to see the different sections.
• Visually pleasing and easy to navigate as it is very clear, not overly cluttered or busy.
• Just right, not too busy.
• Nice photos.
• Rainbows are good visually.
• Good use of graphics, colours and keeping the pages clear and not too busy.
• I like the visuals used.
• I love the use of photographs.
• Simple and clear information, use of some relevant graphics.
• The design is visually calm — no flashing banners or clutter — which is helpful for neurodivergent readers.

Issues / Suggestions:

• It looks very busy; I wasn’t keen on the grey boxing. Lots of information to process.
• The table is quite dense and might overwhelm readers with dyslexia, ADHD, or visual fatigue. Suggest breaking into smaller sections or using collapsible panels.
• Some headings and subheadings blend in visually — stronger contrast or colour variation would help.
• Consider adding icons or small visual cues (e.g., magnifying glass for “assessment”, checklist for “review”) for visual learners.
• Layout is text-heavy with few breaks — short summary boxes or “In short” highlights would help.
• Breadcrumb trail could be more obvious or placed higher for quick navigation.
• Optional extras: Add a simple diagram or flow chart showing the SEN support pathway.
• Add a “What you can do next” box at the bottom, styled in a friendly colour.
• Types of Support page feels cluttered and plain — could be prettier and more appealing.
• Needs to be more user-friendly, not official.
• Consider colour coding levels of support for clarity.

2. Content Clarity and Language

• Everything explained in simple terms, easily understood.
• Informative — not too many words, straight to the point.
• Good overview of SEN support and how it differs from an EHCP.
• Helpful that it explains different types of support in schools and settings.
• Clear expectation that SEN support should be reviewed regularly (three times a year).
• Inclusion of the Assess, Plan, Do, Review (APDR) cycle is excellent.
• Tone is factual and professional but approachable.
• Consistent styling across pages makes it feel part of a clear series.
• Logical order of pages (What SEN support is → How it’s decided → How it’s reviewed).

Things to work on:

• Some abbreviations not clarified; language may not be clear to parents/carers.
• Acronyms and system-specific terms (e.g., QFT, ARP, SEND ASAP Panel, Descriptors of Need) need plain-English definitions or hover explanations.
• Tone feels procedural in places — could be more reassuring and conversational.
• Add a plain-English summary at the start (e.g., “SEN support is extra help a school gives when a child finds learning harder than others”).
• Include guidance on how parents can ask for SEN support and what evidence is useful.
• Add examples of everyday support (e.g., visual timetables, movement breaks).
• Include “What happens next” sections for clarity.
• Provide real-life examples or short case studies.
• Glossary of terms/abbreviations would help.
• Avoid “service land” language — make it parent/carer friendly.
• Add reassurance that parents’ and young people’s views are included at every stage.
• Clarify who uses the Descriptors of Need guide and when.
• Explain what happens in review meetings and who is involved.
• Include timeframes for each stage and reviews.
• Add links to downloadable PDFs for convenience.
• Consider an easy-read version for low literacy or EAL readers.

3. Navigation and Usability

• Print-friendly option and “last updated” details build trust.
• Links for more details are helpful.

Things to work on:

• Not always clear where you are in the journey — add “Step 1 / 2 / 3” indicators.
• Some links don’t work or lead to placeholders.
• Breadcrumb trail could be more prominent.
• Menu content missing on second page.
• Add clear links between related pages (e.g., SEN Support → How decided → Reviewing).
• Include a “Next Steps” or “If you’re worried” box at the end of each page.

4. Accessibility

• Ensure tables are accessible for screen readers (proper <th> headers, simple cells).
• Avoid using colour alone to convey meaning.
• Add alt text to graphics and diagrams.
• Break up long paragraphs; use bullet points for easier scanning.
• Stronger headings for better navigation.
• Add white space between sections for readers with dyslexia or ADHD.
• Provide easy-read or downloadable versions.
• Include captions for diagrams like APDR for screen-reader users.

5. Technical and Functional Issues

• EHCP link on “Reviewing SEN Support” page didn’t work (pages weren’t ready).
• Early years assessment screen link points to old version — needs updating.
• Some links missing or unclear (e.g., click boxes for external documents).

Everything Else

• Positive feedback on tone: inclusive, positive, and reassuring.
• Users appreciate consistency and fairness being mentioned.
• Clear evidence-based explanation of decision-making process is valued.
• Clear wording noted, and good design choices.
• Overall, pages are much easier to navigate than before and give concise information.
• Outdated documents linked (e.g., early years assessment screen).

Actions based on feedback

A full reviewing our content creation processes, adding additional checks around content clarity, tone and accessibility.