[games_access] Legislating for Game Accessibility

[John Bannick]

Robert,

That's a great idea!
I'll look for any more common sets of tags.

Thanks,

John

At 12:56 PM 12/20/2007, you wrote:
>You are right John those abbreviations are really simple and straight to the
>point.  It's a start.  Wonder if there are any ADA standard abbreviations
>and they use that could be more recognizable across the universal plane of
>acceptance?  If symbols are already used.
>
>Robert
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: games_access-bounces at igda.org [mailto:games_access-bounces at igda.org]
>On Behalf Of John Bannick
>Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:57 AM
>To: IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [games_access] Legislating for Game Accessibility
>
>Tess,
>
>Interesting you should suggest Accessibility Ratings.
>
>Our small company makes computer games for the casual games market.
>All of these games have a 7-128 Software Accessibility Rating and Age
>Appropriate Rating.
>We post the ratings at the electronic point of purchase and in all our
>literature.
>The Accessibility Ratings aren't perfect by any means, but they're a start.
>(In fact, I'm working on a set of specific accessibilty criteria to back
>the ratings.)
>
>Check out: http://www.7128.com/supportratings.html
>
>John Bannick
>CTO
>7-128 Software
>
>At 07:33 PM 12/19/2007, you wrote:
> >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
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date:
> >12/19/2007 7:37 PM
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1191 - Release Date: 
>12/20/2007 2:14 PM