[games_access] GDC: in retrospect
d. michelle hinn
hinn at uiuc.edu
Tue Mar 13 16:13:33 EDT 2007
[Forwarding this from an internal discussion since we now made this
thing public...]
Ok...so you knew this was coming. Michelle's frustrated and weary comments.
So Sander brought up a few things that came up at the end of the last
day when things were pretty emotional and, I admit, I was feeling
really beat up at that point so all I could do was react in a very
snippy way. Anyway...I want to add some more history behind some of
these points as I think that they illustrate some additional things
to think about:
>- Giving our sessions a more identifyable title would be a good
>thing, let's make them more appealing. If I would not have worked at
>the Accessibility foundation and had not gotten into this topic, I
>probably would not have visited one of our sessions (perhaps the
>Idol out of curiosity, but only because I totally do not like Idol
>and would like to know what this has to do with GDC). I think giving
>it a more identifyable name for game designers, they are more likely
>to enter. I think we are too deeply involved with this stuff and are
>thinking too seriously.
Well, there are a couple things to think about. I agree on a whole
but there's more to the story that I should just put out there.
First, the Serious Accessibility for Serious Games Panel -- I'm not
sure why we had an auditorium nor do I know why it was increased to
60 minutes (from the proposed 45 minutes). I think the Serious Games
people like to think that they care more about accessibility because
they are the ones that have the legal obligation to do so. But in the
end...we know we barely had people in the room for that session. So
that's a constant baffling bit for me.
Second, the Mobile Games session -- this was, in my opinion, the most
engaged session we did with regard to audience participation outside
of Arcade. Perhaps it was the only one that almost tricked people
into the room because it was the least "accessible" in the title. The
session resulted in a lot of contacts for us.
Now...things get tougher...
Third, the Arcade sessions -- we have to keep in mind that due to not
having TVs, power strips, tables, etc on Day One drove away about 10
people that were there at 9am but left because we didn't get set up
until about 9:20. This is where I blame CMP (the GDC conf people). I
had a long talk with Phoenix from there on the last day and I asked
why sessions like Arcade and Idol were so delayed due to us not
having the set up we requested, oh, about 6 months ago. Anyway, those
people that left on Day One never returned. Day Two was our best as
we had all the equipment in the room and we were ready to go 10
minutes before the session started. Day Three was Day One revisited,
only with us all exhausted and ready for hospital. So I think that
there were a lot of things going against us.
Fourth, we could have also gone into the hall and gotten people into
Arcade had anyone thought to take the initiative. But we were tired
and when push came to shove there was only the same half-dead core
group doing so much already. This is a point of frustration for me
because when I was told to better delegate things it was a "duh...too
late" point and also one of those things where I wonder where people
were before just after the sessions, offering help. Maybe this is the
"female" in me to take this personally but it did hurt. It's hard to
take criticism on this point (and Sander, this isn't what you said to
me but what I heard from a few others) because this was a year in
advance planning didn't take into consideration how many SIG people
would be at GDC and then my getting fired, etc just before. Anyway,
my point here is that it frustrated me to hear that people said that
they wanted to help after the fact. I'd prefer if people would come
forward when I don't ask for help because I realize no one is getting
paid for this. That's what I have to work out and deal with. Yes, I
could have done a better job asking for help earlier but I personally
get to the point where I just do things myself when I see that no one
is posting a "looking for work" message. Again, this is my issue in
part but I'm saying it now so that people know.
Fifth...Idol. A year ago this seemed hilarious. The title seemed like
it would bring people into the room. I didn't hear any differently
from the SIG. The title could have been changed. But besides
this...CMP messed things up by not including the names of the
contestants, not promo-ing it, and doing their usual promo of the
"official" game design challenge. Why the game design challenge
couldn't be accessibility instead of a needle and thread as the
challenge I don't know. We were up against Ralph Koster. We had two
hours which no doubt added to the "well, I'd rather see two sessions
than one I'm not sure about" while Zimmerman's session had one hour.
Why? I don't know. I have no control over what GDC gives us
session-wise. They do not ask my input, they just tell us "when" and
"where."
Sixth...Idol and PBS. ABC = Good. PBS = Evil. I think we're all sick
of PBS by now. I had asked them to leave us alone in no uncertain
terms from 3 to 4 before our session so we could do things to get
people in the room and then when the room was open...we didn't have
all the things CMP said we'd have. Meanwhile...PBS is taking people
down the hall to interview them, we were down two participants until
the last second...I nearly had a heart attack. I think no more needs
to be said here other than we've learned our lesson with how the
press can really eat into our plans and be completely obnoxious. Why
there is so much footage of us eating? Who knows? So now we know that
we need THEM to sign forms saying that they agree to OUR terms as
well.
>- Ban on the word accessibility (the word was even mentioned in two
>audio sessions, had nothing to do with our accessibility). For too
>many people the word accessibility seems to mean something like "the
>irritating stuff with those publishers".
Well, we talked about this a bit as in calling our sessions "the
coolest shit ever" and "the session that will wright might be in." We
can do this but we have to get really clever. GDC accepts our
sessions because we are "diversity." I think that's why we got onto
the schedule so much this year. As hard as it is to say...I really
do. So we use accessibility, they hear diversity, and it's happy for
everyone...until no one shows up. So we need to pitch this in a way
that still says diversity but also doesn't say "developers stay
away." We don't have very long before we pitch for next year's GDC.
So we have to think of something clever and think of it very soon.
Ok...I'm sorry about the vent but I really needed to get these things
out there. I don't want us to turn into a SIG that is not about
accessibility for those with disabilities and I don't want us to lose
focus on the mainstream game industry because that is what we are
about. So I worry when I hear things like "refocus the SIG" and
"change the name." It's a tricky thing to do. And we have to think
hard about it. And people need to be honest as to whether they are
going to put in the work behind their words and really be active and
committed to making a real run at this. As the group leader, I have
to say that I react with a "and so you will be committed to doing
this versus just criticizing?" point of view. I know that I do this.
That's, again, my issue. But knowing what I do about how things have
been with people helping and then running away forever after a month
of promises, it gets old.
And please Sander, don't take this as me criticizing you -- it's just
something I needed to address and you started it. ;)
Michelle
More information about the games_access
mailing list