Supported decision-making (SDM) is a person-centered approach that empowers individuals with disabilities to make their own choices with the help of trusted supporters. Rather than substituting decision-making authority, SDM emphasizes autonomy, dignity, and inclusion in everyday life. This module introduces the principles and practices of SDM, highlighting its legal, ethical, and practical implications. Participants will explore how to implement SDM in ways that respect individual rights and foster independence.

This module explores:

• identifies the need for supported decision-making online,
• identifies issues with supported decision-making that may arise when using the internet for people requiring cognitive accessibility,
• identifies key user needs and ways to address these barriers, and
• suggests possible solutions and areas for further research.

• researchers,
• policy makers, and
• designers, content creators, and developers who want to have a more in-depth understanding of inclusion issues.

This document is part of a set of modules or papers that describe accessibility issues for users with various disabilities that impact cognitive accessibility. See cognitive or learning disabilities issue papers for other modules.

This document is part of a set of related informative publications from the Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force (COGA TF), a joint task force of:

• the Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group (APA WG), and
• the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG WG) of the Web Accessibility Initiative.

Status of This Document

This is an early draft. The task force intends to add more research and discussion and make editorial changes to comply with our style guide, including for citations. Please share your feedback, including any research we should consider adding to this document.

This document is part of a set of modules or papers that describe accessibility issues for users with various disabilities that impact cognitive accessibility. See cognitive or learning disabilities issue papers for other modules.

This document is part of a set of related informative publications from the Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force (COGA TF), a joint task force of:

• the Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group (APA WG), and
• the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG WG) of the Web Accessibility Initiative .

Feedback on any aspect of the document is welcome. The APA and AG Working Groups particularly seek feedback on the following questions:

• Are issues for the included user groups well covered?
• Does the issue paper effectively bridge between research and priorities for new work?
• Should additional user groups be addressed?
• Are there any more research papers we should consider adding to this document?

To comment, file an issue in the W3C coga GitHub repository . You can also send an email to public-coga-comments@w3.org ( comment archive ). Comments are requested by 16 February 2026. In-progress updates to the document may be viewed in the publicly visible editors' draft .

This document was produced by groups operating under the W3C Patent Policy. The group does not expect this document to become a W3C Recommendation. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures (Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force), a public list of any patent disclosures (Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group), and a public list of any patent disclosures (Accessibility Guidelines Working Group) made in connection with the deliverables of each group; these pages also include instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

Introduction / Summary

Supported Decision-Making (SDM) is a model that provides human or technological assistance to a person with a disability making a choice. Supported Decision-Making (SDM) allows individuals with disabilities to make choices about their own lives with support from people they choose.

Features typically include:

• The user remains the decision-maker.
  They are the one making the final choice, not the care giver or a legal guardian. Note that the user may sometimes elect to delegate decision-making in limited circumstances.
• Helpers and support clarify and explain options, helping weigh risks and benefits, or assisting with communication (for example, through alternative and augmented communication, easy-to-understand content, clear format, etc.).
• The support is tailored to the user.
  With supported decision-making (SDM) a person should be able to customize the level and type of support they want and stay in control of their decisions. It respects the person's preferences, even if their decisions are unconventional. For example, a person with dyscalculia may choose for unusual financial decisions to go via a support person. They may change the support person at any time.

Supported decision-making is often not provided on the internet or apps.

This module describes the advantages and risks in providing SDM online. It includes suggestions so that supported digital decision-making can safely allow more people to participate in the digital world while maintaining dignity and autonomy.

There are Technology and digital communication can enable SDM in two main areas:

1. Enabling helpers to support online decisions, by sharing the process involved in high risk decisions.
2. Technology and digital communication can also take some of the role or work involved in supported decision-making. For example, clearly presenting options in a table, and in plain language.

The examples and strategies in this paper may apply to people who are or are not their own guardians. Having a legal guardian does not mean that a person is not able to or interested in using the internet. However, this module is about how to integrate support, often from a helper, whilst enabling the user to stay in control.

Disabilities that may require SDM

Disabilities that may require SDM include:

• cognitive, developmental, intellectual, learning, and specific learning disabilities,
• language and communication disorders,>
• neurodivergence,
• traumatic brain injury,
• age-related cognitive decline,
• mental health disabilities, and
• temporary impairments that affect cognitive function, such as anxiety, illness, effects of medication, treatments such as chemotherapy, and others.

Examples of mental health issues include: Bipolar disorder, low impulse control, psychotic disorders and others.

Target Audience

The target audiences for this document include:

• decision makers, policy makers, and advocates,
• researchers,
• engineers, and solution providers,
• people involved in making technical standards and policies, and
• product designers, managers, designers, and engineers.

Examples of Supported Decision-Making (SDM) Online

Currently, there are some tools for supported decision-making online.

These include:

1. Clear content where risks, benefits, and options are easy to understand and navigate. [coga-usable]
2. Filters to avoid certain types of content that may cause emotional distress, anxiety, or trauma responses for the person using the system.
3. Personalization settings such as those that limit time on social media, and safety and privacy features. Note these can be on the operating system or application level.
4. Supportive tools that help organize and support people and the helpers. There can be apps or just a template. This is well-developed in addiction recovery.

Note, that we have not included parental controls, as such tools typically do not support the dignity and autonomy of adult users with disabilities. However, they may be refactored in a way to be useful in the future.

Customizable supported design-making is when the level of support can change. (It is usually set by the user.) For example, the user can set a desired level of support. They can set it so the helper has view only permissions and receives notifications about high risk activity.

This allows a helper to provide support, but not take control.

More intrusive setting might include:

• Helper consent required for some transaction and/or activities.
• Helper tools for viewing and canceling activities.

This may be appropriate for minor children.

Guardian/Guardianship: Guardianship is not the same as Supported Decision-Making. Guardianship is a legal status where another person makes a decision on behalf of a person with a disability. There are different levels of guardianship. A person can have a guardian for only certain decisions, like healthcare or finances. Note that SDM tools can be used by guardians to involve the individual in decisions as much as possible.

Guardians are also called conservators, conservators, legal representatives, or custodians.

A website or process may include complex documents or require a signature. If a person has a guardian, the guardian will need to sign or review these documents on the person with disability’s behalf. If a person has a formal Supported Decision-Making Agreement or benefits from supported decision-making they may share these types of documents with their helpers or supporters, but will sign or review them themselves.

In some cases guardianship may be too restrictive. When appropriate for an individual, shared decision-making is increasingly used instead of guardianship. This model is becoming increasingly popular for those with cognitive accessibility support.

Other legal Statuses: Other than guardians, a person might have a legal:

• Payee: People who may pay or receive payment on behalf of another person.>
• Power of attorney. People who can make decisions on another person’s behalf in specific situations. For example, you may sign an agreement that says a person can make decisions for you when you are in the hospital.
• Shared signature: A person who provides a second signature for some types of decisions, such as large financial decisions.

Informed consent means a person has and understands all the information they need to make decisions. To give informed consent, a person:

• has access to the information about the situation,
• understands they have a choice,
• understands what they are choosing to do or not to do, and
• is of legal age of consent and is their own legal representative (guardian). [RC-HHS1]

Consent is also a term used when someone is agreeing on behalf of someone who is not their own legal representative.

Informed assent is making sure a person who cannot make legal decisions themselves has and understands all the information they need for a decision their guardian is making on their behalf. To give informed assent, a person:

• understands the decision being made, and
• agrees to the decision made by their legal representative.

Informed assent can be required in many online situations such as:

• agreeing to have medical procedures,
• signing contracts,
• sharing personal data such as health history, financial information, etc.,
• financial agreements, and
• participation in research studies.

Challenges Faced by People Needing Cognitive Accessibility Support and Mental Health Assistance Face When Making Decisions Online

Being online results in many risks to the user that can be reduced via SDM. Some examples of them are:

Informed Consent Online

In many cases online the user “agrees” terms or a situation without being able to understand them or being in a mental position to agree. Nonetheless, it can be difficult or impossible to retract. For informed consent or informed assent there is a basic need for the person to understand the information.

Accessibility of digital formats is also important for both informed consent and informed assent as is enabling the use of assistive technology.

Spending and Emotional Regulation

Cognitive learning and Mental health conditions often impact spending [RC-M1]. Further frustration from difficult interfaces can also cause stress and impair decision-making. When under stress, people can become more impulsive. Research on decision-making under stress shows a change towards fast intuitive decision-making over slow logical or analytical process in making decisions. Emotional regulation may also decrease how people act on line, and make their reactions more extreme. [RC-IG1]

Appropriate Sharing

Cases have been reported where impairments in decision-making and emotional regulation have caused people to share information about family, friends, room mates etc that is personal in nature and violates the subject's privacy.

Longevity of Content and Recovery

Further, people have reported (in response to this paper) that they are afraid of other long-term consequences of posting online. For example, if they post about mental health issues, or if their posts are considered inappropriate or imply health issues, then that can be used against them or to harm them after recovery has started.

Note that even after the user removes the original post, shared version or saved versions may persist.

Safety

The Internet is not always a safe place. Like life off the Internet, everyone is at risk of having crime as part of their online experience. Usually referred to as cybercrime, these activities, including fraud, terrorism, extortion, harassment, and hacking, are perpetrated by several types of criminals. Some legal activities can affect people's safety.

Personal information can be stored and sold to third parties or stolen. This information can be used to hurt the user, including financial or emotional exploitation. See issue paper on safety at Online Safety and Wellbeing (Algorithms and Data)

People with cognitive impairments and elderly individuals are more likely to be targeted by online financial fraud, and when they lose money, it’s a higher amount than average, according to researchers. [RC-CNBC1]

Problems with Current Online Solutions (for Supported Decision-Making (SDM) online)

Although SDM can mitigate many problems facing people with disabilities online, it also creates new problems and issues. These include:

Misuse by the Helper

Unfortunately websites must not assume that helpers are always reliable or honest or have the users’ needs as their main driver.

There can be many helpers - people or organizations that behave in a way that is harmful, illegal, or morally wrong.

In addition, care must be taken that supported decision-making is not applied to restrict people's liberty based on sexism, racism or other factors, and or where the support is not the will of the user. Checks may be necessary on a regular basis to confirm that the supported decision-making is on the request of the user without coercion.

Also individual transactions can be reaffirmed by the user themselves. For example, the user may receive a message that a transaction has happened or been blocked to confirm that consent with this.

Where this can not be achieved, it may be better to not support SDM.

Each case should be evaluated for potential missuses. These may include:

• Sometimes the helper can make decisions that the user does not fully want.
• They may also pressure the user to do what help thinks is a good idea.
• Whenever possible the independent consent of the user should be required, and not just the helper.
• Different support may be required for emergencies or for extremely and unusually @bad desions@ such as long term inappropriate financial decisions or decisions that can put their life at an inappropriate risk.

Misuses by the helper may also seem to be justified in the helpers mind. For example, that helper may pressure the user into purchases or presents that the user would not ordinarily buy if the helper had not pressured them. These can be to the benefit of the helper or daily members. For example, an elderly man buying perfume for his aid, may be considered a sign of misuse.

Informed Consent In SDM Solutions

Informed consent with SDM has a variety of issues. These include:

• The consent to share information with the helper must be informed consent.
• Users may want to change their mind with consent. Can consent easily be removed?
• Does removing consent also mean removing support that is actually needed?
  • Can consent be mapped to services provided? Then people can make decisions about the need for consent and level of service.
• Can consent be broken into levels of need and then progressively disclosed when users activate the next level of need?

For example, site use terms and conditions are required at account set up, but we can have other consent topics when activating a live video session and yet another at the moment they want to have something shipped to them.

This may lighten the load of trying to understand what they are specifically consenting to and there should be a direct relationship to the users’ desired task.

• May need to re-collect consent when the organization changes the way they work or use the information. (Sometimes this is legally required.)

Accessibility of Terms

Efforts should be made to ensure that terms are accessible to all. These include:

• Ensuring that terms are accessible to assistive technologies that read content aloud or produce braille outputs.
• Using plain language so that terms are easily understood by people needing cognitive support.
• Incorporating symbols or other tools that individuals may use to support understanding written content whenever possible.
• Making text accessible for sharing between individuals needing cognitive support and their legal representatives or support persons. These individuals may assist by answering questions or helping to evaluate decision options. This shared access is especially critical during emergencies or periods of impaired health when the person needing support may not be physically close to their helper.

Autonomy

Supported decision-making does not assume the user is under guardianship and they maintain the right to autonomy. They may wish to keep information secret from the helper. There may be specific topics that they wish to maintain autonomy whilst appreciating the help and support on other topics. For example, the user may wish support for grocery shopping but wish for privacy and confidentiality with regards to buying cigarettes.

There may also be times when autonomy is preferable. (However, if the user is under guardianship this may be removed.)

Changing States of the User

The end use may require support at times and autonomy at different times. For example, a user with controlled bipolar disorder may want autonomy most of the time, However, if they do have a manic episode they will require more support before decision-making. (However, they are unlikely to set up the system while in a manic state.) Limits on spending or decision-making scope may enable the user to balance the needs in different cycles.

We are considering adding content in this section on:

• Dignity - At all points the aims must include, maintaining the dignity of the user.
• Reliability and stress - Research other points and add discussion (and sources) on this issue.
• Website support - (Possibly) The main issue is that most websites and apps have no support for SDM. It is unusual for a website to consider the ramifications of SDM in its design or functionality. Exceptions exist, especially in addiction recovery.

Overuse

Consent may be continuously required, and burden the helper. This includes Consent to share information or use cookies.

User Story and User Needs

• As a user with a disability affecting my ability to make choices, I need design that helps me understand my choices and know what the consequences are.
• As a user with a disability affecting my ability to make choices, I need support making decisions that may affect my financial or physical well-being.
• As a user with a disability affecting my ability to make choices, I need to know my autonomy is respected.
• As a user with a disability affecting my ability to make choices, I need to the system to help me stay safe online including from, hackers, bad actors , “helpers” and people I know.

User needs

• As a user with a disability making choices, I need tools that help regulate my emotions to avoid making harmful, irrational, impulsive, or irreversible decisions.
• As a user with a disability making choices, I need tools that help me maintain an appropriate level of information sharing and tools that manage permission levels, transparency, and audit trails.
• As a user with a disability making choices, I need tools to identify specific people who can act on my behalf. These tools need to give me the ability to identify the level of access to my information, sharing my information, and decision-making making each helper is allowed.
• As a user with a disability making choices, I need protection from misuse by helpers with clear role definitions, monitoring tools, and a way to update or revoke roles when appropriate.

1. I need support and explanations for my choices. The advantages or disadvantages are clear to me, and I understand the effects of my choice. For example, when choosing a cheaper airline ticket, you often pay for a meal.
2. I need financial decision-making support like budgeting tools, spending alerts and shared account access to prevent financial issues.
3. I need to understand the language used, including vocabulary, syntax, tense, and other aspects of language.
4. I need images, diagrams, or video clips to help me understand ideas (more than a lot of words).
5. I need support to manage the task, such as letting me know what information I will need (credit card, full address, etc.) before I start.
6. I need to know where I am in the process to avoid disorientation, including what I have done and what my next step will be.
7. I need to spend my energy completing my task. I do not want to waste my energy while I struggle to understand other material, such as special offers or promotions.
8. I need to know how to get human help and manage the process easily.

Principles for Supported Decision-Making

Researchers have identified four dimensions for reasoned and responsible design in decision-making:

1. understanding the nature as well as the risks and benefits of alternatives, [RC-NA1]
2. appreciating and applying the relevant information to one’s self and one’s own situation, [RC-NA1]
3. engaging in consequential and comparative reasoning and manipulating information rationally, [RC-NA1] and
4. expressing a clear and consistent decision. [RC-NA1] Note that a consistent decision will be the same over time. For example, a user with bipolar who wants to make a purchase when manic would also want to make the same purchase when out of the manic phase.

Other projects have emphasized the right to remove consent at any point in a process.

The helper's role is often to enable:

1. understanding and support of consent,
2. balancing short-term impulses or mental state with long-term intentions, and
3. supporting health and financial safety. Note that it needs to be reasonable. People may choose to smoke, eat unhealthy foods etc., that is all within reasonable behavior.

Proposed Solutions / Examples

Supported Decision-Making as a Feature

Supported decision-making [RC-ACLU1] lets the user choose how much help they want from a helper. For example, the user can adjust the support levels, such as:

• helper consent required,
• view only (to give support) with notifications, and
• view and cancellation only.

Supported decision-making (SDM) is a powerful way for businesses and websites to help people stay in control of their choices—especially when making decisions that affect their money, privacy, or well-being. SDM gives users tools to make thoughtful, informed decisions, even if they face challenges with focus, memory, emotional regulation, or pressure from others.

One of the strengths of SDM is that it can be customized by the user. For example, someone might choose a trusted person—called a “helper”—to support them. The user stays in charge and decides how much access that helper has. Some people may want their helper to give advice only. While others may want their helper to be able to cancel a decision or require approval before continuing.

By including supported decision-making features, organizations can create safer, more inclusive digital experiences while building greater trust with their customers.

The following proposed solution aims to allow more users to participate in online activities, support the principles of supported decision whilst making with minimal or no cost to the users dignity or autonomy.

Cognitive Support

A good design can add cognitive support, and help people understand the options,and make the best decision for them. Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities at https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/ has many design patterns that help. For example:

Clear presentation helps decision-making.

Make it easy for the user to see what they hard to know what you are agreeing too - with risks identified and separation of each option:

• using clear and simple language,

• uses aids to comprehension such as graphics and icons,
• avoiding cluttered pages, cognitive overload etc.mention patterns todo with task completion etc., and
• avoiding distractions Use a clear layout, that aids comprehension including good use of chunk and whitespace.

For example, a user may have an impaired short-term / working memory. They can not remember many items at the same time. A clear layout of options can help someone who has a short-term memory can see all the advantages and disadvantages without having to remember them.

A good layout can help users see what options are and make a decision.

This can include using a table or bulleted list, simple language, and good use of color and white space.For example, a clear layout of options can help someone who has a short-term memory can see all the advantages and disadvantages without having to remember them.

Example 1 - Table showing main points for each option before booking

Summary of this hotel option

Example 2 - if / then table

Welcome to our companies job applications page

How to apply

In the above table the user can see clearly what to do. Compare this table to having multiple steps in the same block of text without separation.

For example: Having the text and information without breaking it up!

• If you want to work in programming, write to programing@example.com with a resume and sample code that you wrote. If you want to work in design, write to design@example.com with a resume and sample pages.

Confirming Understanding

Cognitive tests can be added that confirm the user understands what they are agreeing to.

Note that this is not a simple yes or no option. This involves the user demonstrating understanding the terms.

Can I leave at any time?

• Yes - I can opt out at any time.
• No - I can opt out in the next payment cycle (3 times a year) by changing the payments option in the settings.
• No - I can not opt out.

Finance and Spending

Supported Decision Making allows users to consistently make decisions, despite difficulties with emotion regulation and other cognitive, learning and emotional challenges. For example, increased impulsivity, can make it harder to resist the temptation to spend. Businesses can support decision-making online by offering features like:

• Self-Imposed Spending limit (per website or shop, category (food close ect)

• Cooling off period (use cases: mania, resisting pressure from the site or sales team)
• Double confirmation with a helper or support person (helper and/or guardian) under user controlled conditions (such as a dark pattern, possible exploitation or other user agreed scenarios.)

Source: [RC-YLS1]

Legal and Privacy Requirements

All supported decision-making features must follow privacy and consent laws that apply to the type of services they offer and where they operate. In the U.S., this includes national laws like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) [GLBA], which says financial institutions must get permission before sharing a person’s private information. Other laws, like the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA, also known as Regulation E) [EFTA], protect people from unauthorized money transfers. Some state laws have additional rules about how and when consent must be given, especially for banking or healthcare features. In many states, businesses are also required to report suspected financial abuse or exploitation.

Outside the U.S., laws like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [GDPR] set strict rules on how personal data is collected, stored, and shared, and require clear, informed consent.

This document does not provide legal advice, so organizations should check with legal experts to make sure they are meeting all the rules when supporting decision-making.

Social Media and Algorithm-Driven Content

Social media platforms and algorithm-based content feeds can present serious risks to people with cognitive and learning disabilities, especially when decision-making is affected by emotional regulation, impulsivity, or difficulty understanding consequences. Algorithms often promote engaging content that may not be safe or appropriate. Without the right support, these environments can lead to oversharing, impulsive purchases, extended screen time, or exposure to harmful interactions. See …Safety document ref

Some of this section might be better in our Safety document. A review is needed to identify how this content can be included or referenced in both documents.

Supported decision-making that can help people check themselves such as:

• Self-imposed limits such as per website or shop or category (food, clothes etc). Reminder to switch off social media after user preferred time limit is elapsed or automatic switching off of social media after user preferred time is elapsed. This can also work on an operating system level.
• User set, controls for helpers, when appropriate, similar to thoughts discussed in the section for solutions for Finance and Spending.
• Double confirmation for posts, or a cooling off period/ process between writing a post and posting it, where risks to the best interests of the user may be identified.

• Private networks and safe spaces with protective features such as: All members are confirmed as having common criteria, and must maintain confidentiality. Moderators are typically present to reduce risks of inappropriate or unsafe behaviors or posts. This can be a place where people can be themselves without worries of their data being used outside the group, or judgment for their condition.
• Warning or support questions or flows can be added before sharing. For example, safety questions that can be added, with the support of professionals, depending on the user scenario.

Note these features are only suggestions for further research or testing. They may not be effective.

Supported decision-making in the W3C, public private partnerships, and similar organizations.

This section focuses on how the W3C can address SDM, but the same principles and ideas can be adapted to other organizations with similar features such as:

• committee meetings, and

• public participation or feedback etc.

Supported decision-making may benefit current members of the W3C as well as new members, and potential community members.

Some examples of when a guardian, shared decision maker, or support person can be involved may include:

• Joining groups and subgroups,
• Deciding when the person’s full name can be included in public minutes and credits (note: in some locations, the ability to publicize a person’s full name is always the decision of the individual, regardless of guardianship status);
• Supporting an individual in deciding if a personal story should be shared, if it is private, potentially damaging, or if it contains personal health information. Example: a guardian would prevent someone from potentially publishing something that might cause others risk, such as a story about a specific company’s website, personnel, or process.
• Provide administrative, communication, decision-making, or cognitive supports as needed.
• Agree to travel to, or host, a meeting.
• Other tasks identified by the guardian as being affected by guardianship.

Each individual may have unique needs. Some may need only one of these options and may wish to participate independently in all other ways. Others may need more than one of these options.

It should be noted that there is a movement away from guardianship and towards shared decision-making in some places.

For example, some individuals may find W3C processes inaccessible or too challenging or to participate in their current form. This unintentionally leaves some people out of the W3C process, including some needing cognitive accessibility support. Being left out of the process means that the needs of some people needing cognitive accessibility support will be invisible.

Effective participation in the current state of W3C membership may require the support of a shared decision maker or guardian in particular to:

• have the ability to determine when they are safe in online interactions,
• participate in legal agreements/contracts (understand them, legally be able to sign on their own behalf, be sure to follow through with them/adhere to them, etc.), and
• manage complex communications through multiple methods which includes tracking and responding to communications, scheduling time to participate, etc.
  • Example: following a thread through multiple communication channels.
  • Example: Reviewing a document, and understanding the timing of responses, method for filing issues, and the protocol for participating in meetings.
  • Example: finding the status of a current topic, which Working Group is currently addressing it and how, which communication channel/tool contains the information (minutes, Github, task list, working draft).

Some of these individuals may have guardians or support because their disability may impact their ability to:

• understand the impacts of risks (immediate and long-term) around digital and other publications that can include their name and/or personal details,
• understand complex communications such as contracts/agreements for participation,
• determine who to trust in online interactions, and
• independently make decisions related to these risks.

Some information related to challenges experienced accessing digital information is personal. Participation in W3C Working Groups sometimes involves sharing personal challenges experienced. Navigating when and how to share these personal experiences without making a person more vulnerable is a complex process. Some people will need support to navigate this.

Some communities within the disability community are vulnerable to targeted attacks, especially in online interactions. These can include becoming a target of online predators.

• One example: robocalls and phishing attacks targeting older adults with limited computer skills or age-related cognitive issues.
• Another example: in online interactions, when a person’s identity is available through publications (official notes, meeting minutes, use case publications), people they would not encounter in their daily interactions may become aware of them. This can be important if:
  • the person shares personal use cases related to their disability, and
  • the person’s address is findable on the internet.

It should be noted, some very talented individuals are currently unable to fully participate or share at their full capacity, or be a productive member of the working and community groups.

With other options, people who would be otherwise unable to participate can provide valuable input that would improve the web for many. People are more self-directed, self-determined, more effective and successful when they have an opportunity to use the cognitive supports they need.

In addition, agreements such as the Invited Expert Collaborator Application has language that may be of concern in a guardianship situation. [RC-W31]

“W3C may, at its discretion, grant Invited Experts access to Member confidential information, generally based on the level of confidentiality of meeting records and other proceedings described in a group charter. This access includes mailing-lists, website, tools, teleconferences and meetings. W3C seeks to ensure that all Invited Experts in a given W3C Group have the access necessary to enable the group to conduct its work.” (Note this applies to participants in non-public groups). W3C AC Representative language may be one model to consider for how to address guardianship situations or the need for shared decision-making and/or cognitive support, in terms of legal language. This is not the only model or necessarily satisfies all needs, but it is a precedent.

Recommendation in the W3C

Proposed Additional Membership Options

The COGA Task Force recommends that alternative membership options for community group and W3C participation are available. These can include the following options.

Before Applying to be an Invited Expert or Community Member

An opportunity and invitation should be provided for a person considering membership to work with a guardian or shared decision maker to review documents before completing the agreement.

Helping People Participate

A person can choose to have their guardian, or another person they identify, be involved to help with their participation (either as a named member or be a partner in their membership). This can include but is not limited to supporting the person to:

• review content prior to publication, and
• manage their communications with the group.

A person with a guardian can have a liaison-type role for the guardian who approves their participation, and then the individual independently participates. In some cases, guardians may only need to be involved for contract or legal document signatures. For some countries, guardianship may involve authorizing publication of an individual’s name or contains specifically identifying information.

Support Person or Organization is Officially “The Member’s Representative”

A support organization or person can be the member (on behalf of an individual) in order to facilitate participation by an individual that may:

• Prefer or need not to be named, or manage the communications.
• Help facilitate access to meetings and materials. Example: some individuals may not do well with independent use of a computer because they have a disability impacting their judgment but they can and do complete many tasks independently on a computer as long as they are supervised.
  • To ensure their safety, with proper support, they may be able to provide valuable input and ideas for the work of the W3C. An organization can be a supported employment organization, a congregate living facility, or a "self-advocacy" organization.

Example: Fred lives in a group home. The group home is the official member’s representative. Fred is not named in communications or publications.

A Process for Those with Proposed Additional Membership Options

A process should be available for the individual to change their designated support person/organization/guardian

• Example: a person selects a support professional they use regularly, then that person takes a different job.
• Example 2: a person moves from one supported employment organization to another.

Accessibility of digital formats is also important for both informed consent and informed assent.

References

Note that this section needs to be cleaned up and full citations will be added.

Most Citations are the row number in Mental Health Literature Review (Responses)

Unless they have the letters CG when they are the row from coga general research database