[games_access] Legislating for Game Accessibility

[Thomas Westin]

We should also differentiate between independent developers with low  
or no budgets, and games made with multimillion dollar budgets

Perhaps by saying that some percentage of the profit for _successful_  
games  reserved for making sequels of the game _more_ accessible,  
based on game genre; then the publisher takes little or no risk, since  
it's self-funded development and more disabled gamers can play the  
popular games.

/thomas

On 20 dec 2007, at 09.00, Barrie Ellis wrote:

> I'm not 100% on either side of this fence - but the phrase  
> "reasonable adjustments" doesn't ask for universal accessibility  
> anyway. That said, your "rob them of time and money" does sound like  
> some of the protests shop keepers were making pre "Disability  
> Discrimination Act". I think slowly people get used to these concepts.
>
> How could "reasonble adjustments" be made reasonable with video  
> games. I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I just don't think it's  
> anywhere near as frightening as some people seem to think it is.
>
> Barrie
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tess Snider" <this at malkyne.org>
> To: "IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List"  
> <games_access at igda.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [games_access] Legislating for Game Accessibility
>
>
>> On Dec 19, 2007 11:06 AM, Barrie Ellis  
>> <barrie.ellis at oneswitch.org.uk> wrote:
>>> So if an expectancy of "reasonable adjustments" in commercial  
>>> software was
>>> introduced (which I truly belive will eventually happen) how badly  
>>> would the
>>> artistic side of things be affected? What is reasonable is the  
>>> tricky
>>> point... But I didn't see too many shop keepers crying about  
>>> giving greater
>>> access to shoppers with different abilities.
>>
>> You're comparing apples and oranges.  You can't just bolt a ramp onto
>> a game, and call it accessible.
>>
>> There are some types of entertainment experiences that are simply
>> incompatible with certain disabilities.  This is not due to
>> insensitivity on the part of the artists, but the very nature of the
>> experience.  Someone who is vision impaired, but not blind, might
>> really enjoy the extra-large picture provided by IMAX movies, while
>> someone who is completely blind will get no benefit from the giant
>> screen.
>>
>> A lot of audio-only games for blind players are made by small,
>> independent developers.  Many of them are labors of love.  Would you
>> force these folks to invest extra time and money to develop a version
>> of their game that could be played by deaf players?  Would you rob
>> them of the time and money that they might have put towards making
>> more games for the blind?  Legislation can hurt the very people we  
>> are
>> trying to help.
>>
>> I continue to believe that the push for accessibility labeling
>> standards is the right approach.  This does not mandate  
>> accessibility,
>> but it does create market pressure, and get companies thinking about
>> how they can tick off more checkboxes.  I guarantee you, you'd see
>> much more widespread coverage for at least the low-hanging fruit  
>> (e.g.
>> captioning, visual cues for auditory alerts, configurable controls,
>> etc.) than you do right now.  As it is, it's hard to get companies to
>> even remember that some people are left-handed!
>>
>> Tess
>> _______________________________________________
>> games_access mailing list
>> games_access at igda.org
>> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> games_access mailing list
> games_access at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access