[games_access] Blizzard, WoW, and Accessibility Concerns

[Thomas Westin]

Hi,

yes the rich and famous comment was just me dreaming :)

But I don't quite follow about the rest. I'm certain Blizzard and  
others are well aware of the importance of fun? And having a  
consortium is not stopping us from involving end-users. When I made  
the comparison with W3C I didn't intend us to copy their organisation,  
just referred to it as a concept for industry collaboration.

Regarding accessibility and film theatres: I agree but games are of  
course different; you have "serious games" but not "serious film  
theatres", or maybe I have missed something :) - the term "serious" is  
a problem of it's own though but we have to live with it now :)
- as we have discussed many times, non-entertainment applications of  
games demands accessibility

It's great that CEOs listen to the end-users this way and respond, but  
still it's better if it is done pro-actively, so the end users don't  
have to tell them, I think we all can agree on that.

-So why not take the chance now that we have the attention from CEOs  
and COOs to discuss a _proactive_ way to make games as accessible as  
possible, through industry collaboration? Call it something different  
than a consortium if you like, but a bi-lateral, formal organization  
that can put some efforts and dollars into game access is a good thing  
in my mind.

And further, it is not an option between the SIG and a consortium, I  
think both are needed. And as the consortium members need expertise to  
develop accessibility in their games, yes the rich and famous, or at  
least getting paid a little for all our work, could become more than a  
dream.

/Thomas



On 13 feb 2008, at 17.09, d. michelle hinn wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I tend to agree with Jonathan on this one -- that going the W3C  
> route is one that might not work well with regard to gaming. With  
> games we are not just dealing with access standards...we also need  
> to ensure that what is accessible is also "fun." We're also talking  
> about vastly different architecture that companies adopt -- there is  
> no "common language" that all games use (unlike HTML, etc). As  
> Jonathan said -- now we have the consumer voice that we are just  
> starting to get heard by industry. We don't want to lose this voice  
> by taking a radical shift toward moving to a consortium that might  
> be too much of a square peg in a round hole when it comes to talking  
> about entertainment applications. With regard to the film industry  
> (yeah, this example again) there is STILL no agreement as to what  
> MUST be done in movie theatres and we still have the bulk of  
> theatres not complying with what the US has said DOES fall under the  
> Americans with Disabilities act after 7 years of the decision that  
> captioning of sort must happen in theatres as requested.
>
> Also...I really can't see moving toward a consortium resulting in  
> the fame and money in this industry -- has this come true for anyone  
> in the web industry? I can think of one or two people who have  
> benefited fame-wise but I have no idea of their net worth. A few  
> people on my campus are on different W3C WGs and are probably some  
> of the lowest earning academics at the university. Maybe that's  
> different in parts of Europe -- I just know it's a "don't quit your  
> day job" thing in the US. ;)
>
> We're in a bit of a lucky spot at the moment where it's the STORIES  
> of the users that are affecting the CEO's, etc in paying attention  
> to us -- moving to a consortium seems like a move that is one mired  
> in policy and moves us away from being a group that recognizes that  
> each company has their own creative values. I don't know -- just  
> some morning thoughts about starting up a consortium.
>
> Michelle
>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> there's a significant cost in taking the W3C route, end-user  
>> involvement.
>>
>> Corporates have their own agendas, which if they hold in common, it  
>> can be very time consuming to change*.
>> whereas at the moment end-users can directly input to SIG, this  
>> becomes increasingly difficult and unlikely as corporates and  
>> academics take control. at least that is my experience over the  
>> past decade contributing to various W3C WGs.
>>
>> It is true that Ian Jacobs has suggested that including users in  
>> the W3C process** has been discuss, and is under consideration by  
>> the management group. However no timeline has been set for  
>> implementation.
>>
>> Open Source also has this deficiency, software is produced by  
>> 'users' but not the public.
>> consumers have a small amount of control, but people with low  
>> literacy are likely to have little disposable income.
>> A response from Bruce Perens is awaited ~:"
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Jonathan Chetwynd
>> Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet
>>
>> *the formal objection to WCAG2 produced some good publicity, but  
>> very little advance in understanding, in the main limited to a  
>> qualification regarding the needs of people with learning  
>> disabilities.
>>
>> **A talk to CETIS "Putting the User at the Heart of the W3C  
>> Process" with audio and transcript:
>> http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Putting_the_User_at_the_Heart_of_the_W3C_Process 
>> .
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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