I'm glad to have this option to test out social media posts/etc. for screen-reader compatibility.

This is so helpful! I'm going to save this guide for sure in order to make alt-text for work I do that involves visuals.

I found this visual really handy as someone that uses a lot of visual communication. I know I can be more conscious of this in future work.

-I'm really interested in learning more about using alt-text effectively. Later in the video, I learned a lot more about what screen readers can do and how you can punctuate/format text to be screen reader accessible. "CamelCase" was new to me.

I had heard wheelchair user rather than wheelchair bound before, and accessible rather than "handicapped,". Saying mobility aid is generally new to me.

I appreciate the breakdown of the difference between awareness and inclusion. Awareness without action is definitely performative.

-Again, no correct verbiage- I find it jarring that a professor would correct her on her own self-reference and choice to identify as disabled. I think including this personal story makes it more clear to me, a non-disabled person- that ableism may show up as talking over people.

I liked that they included the nuance that person-first language vs. identity first language should be confirmed with the disabled individual first. There is no catch all preference for how people would prefer to be referred too, and I agree that it's ideal to ask people to share what they are more comfortable with.

I hadn't heard of the meedical vs. social model of disability before. The issues with the medical model were familiar to me from previous classes, but I wasn't aware of this way of thinking about them/comparing them to the social model alternative. I think it’s a good way to prompt people to think about societal treatment of people with disabilities.

She adds a bit more interesting, engaging information than the bare minimum necessary to explain the concept. I think that can help engage audiences by giving them details about spike proteins, and giving a visual for them, and explaining what they do. In some cases, if adding extra details is done poorly, it would muddy her point. But here, it adds credibility to the science behind the vaccine and keeps interest by pointing out a pretty unique characteristic of viruses.

One possible issue I noticed is that she doesn't address many people's fear of even a "little bit of the bad guy". When I have seen people expressing fear of vaccines, a lot of it comes from the understandably confusing idea that injecting a "small amount" of a disease is used to prevent that same disease. Many people find this contradictory, so I think it would be really helpful if she also clarified that vaccines are not an injection of just a small dose of COVID. I think there needs to be explicit clarification that the mRNA isn't dangerous.

I like that Dr. Tolson introduces MRNA early on, but doesn't try to explain it all right away. If the audience already has questions/a lack of info about vaccines-its reasonable to assume that mRNA is an overwhelming topic as well. The fact that she mentions it up front it allows viewers an introduction,without bombarding audiences with technical info about what it is. The following story portion, and tying back into mrna at the end, lets viewers naturally absorb the information she is sharing.

I LOVE that she is creating characters, and explaining in a story-telling format. It's so much easier to follow the concept when it's presented with characters and a story to keep the information connected.

I appreciate that she acknowledges the audience's worries/doubts about not wanting to sound silly. She acknowledges that this topic is confusing, and hard for many people to trust. This builds a positive connection with her audience, allowing anyone watching to feel more open to recieving new information.