Last year I went around the country talking to self-advocacy groups about Easy Read as part of the Newton Project. I also looked at the kind of technology people were using to get a snapshot of views and preferences.

There were a lot of surprises. Some good, some bad. Some instant, some delayed.

Some surprises were immediate like a breakdown at the side of the road. My poor old car gave up the ghost somewhere on the motorway outside Oldham. I thought it was going to live forever. But no.

I was surprised how much people liked Comic Sans. I was surprised how much people liked different coloured backgrounds. I was surprised how skilled many people were at operating smart TVs - something that's beyond me at times.

The slow-burn surprises

Other surprises took longer to land. They came outside the questionnaire sessions, in the informal time afterwards, sitting around with a cup of tea talking with self-advocates, support workers and group coordinators, many of whom I'd known for a while.

People talked honestly about co-production and how Easy Read work actually happens in the real world of time pressures and limited capacity.

There was a sense that sometimes working on a document from the very beginning was less helpful than quality checking something that someone else had already prepared.

People talked about the amount of work it takes to produce large Easy Read documents from scratch on difficult topics. Topics that often needed extra support and explanation to help people feel safe and comfortable discussing them. This might mean several extra sessions with the group. If a group met once a week or once every two weeks, this could become a lengthy process.

Why quality checking felt better for some groups

People suggested quality checking was quicker. It left the group with more energy and capacity to work on more than one document or topic. People still felt treated as experts. Quality checking could make people feel like skilled technicians, checking the work was OK and making it better if not.

This was a surprise that dawned on me slowly because it goes against the idea that people with learning disabilities should be involved at the beginning and all the way through.

What I think I heard was this: some groups may prefer to pick and choose where they put their time, energy and expertise. For some groups, co-production at the end through quality checking can be just as valid, and sometimes more workable than being involved from the start.

This was one of the things I found myself thinking about between visits.

As I set out again this year in a newer car - one that will live forever - it's still with me: the role of quality checking as a valid form of co-production.

Who knows what other surprises will come up on the road this year.