[games_access] Blizzard, WoW, and Accessibility Concerns
Thomas Westin
thomas at pininteractive.com
Thu Feb 14 18:12:31 EST 2008
Hello Michelle
you know you have my deepest respect for all the work you put into
the SIG and I think it's great what you and Ben has done on the
financial side
I don't want to splinter the group - rather I would see the consortium
thing as an extension to the SIG, a strong partner from which both the
SIG members and the companies can win
Yes I also realise it's a long road before we can get a consortium
become real, but talking to those executives we have contact with is a
good way to plant some seeds for this. I'm not saying we should focus
on this now as a SIG but I'm trying to live up to my part of the
Industry committee, I have so far done efforts with Adobe with the
article I mentioned. Don't worry, although I may sound enthusiastic
I'm also careful about bandwidth as you put it; we must push forward
slowly - hey it's been five years soon and we're still around
pushing :) but setting the goal high helps reaching the moon.
The UML thing (GAIM) is in itself independent of the final
implementation; i.e it's not necessary (for me, at this point) to get
the console companies to have final implementation code; rather they
can choose to use the GAIM (when it's released in a first, public
version) to generate code which they can and must adapt to their
specific platforms - unless of course we get direct access to their
development platform and can code it ourselves - which is hard without
big money or deep, established contacts with the companies involved -
which would also be a benefit from a consortium
Anyhow, I'll stop my dreaming now and get back to work... or sleep
Sweet dreams :)
/Thomas
On 14 feb 2008, at 23.40, d. michelle hinn wrote:
> Just a really quick thing about a financially strong organization --
> that's what I've been working to make the SIG into. A new
> organization puts finances in competition with the SIG at this point
> where we are just now an independent non-profit that's has raised
> over $30k in funding in a VERY short period of time (ie, months) and
> is now open to getting much more in funding. It's not millions at
> this point but it's the first time we've seen any money in the SIG.
> Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I could have been -- we're now
> starting to see money coming in that CAN support projects like this
> AND pay people. Why splinter the group right now into two separate
> groups when we've finally JUST evolved into a more independent group?
>
> Also, we really only have two CEO/COOs attention right now so I
> think we may be jumping the gun a bit here. :) And at this point
> it's end user reports and reactions that is the ONLY thing that is
> getting them into the accessibility group. So I guess I see the
> support of those in positions of power for something that is pro-
> active as a "not-quote-ready-for-prime-time" idea. I mean, yeah, we
> see that it makes sense for companies to go this route but then
> every time we present the idea of doing things BEFORE it becomes a
> "panic reaction" (like in the WoW case) we hear "yeah, but that's
> going to cost money..." The complaints and talk of REAL lawsuits
> from individual players (not the SIG) is what's making people start
> to jump.
>
> The UML issue is a whole other thing -- so far the big three console
> companies don't even have anything that's universal and I don't yet
> see them giving on that (if ever).
>
> I'm not saying that a consortium/group/whatever is a totally bad
> idea -- not at all. It's just a question of -- is this really the
> right time to go down that route independent from the SIG when we've
> just started getting *some* financial support and *some* interest
> from higher ups. We still don't have companies knocking down our
> door but we are now a group that is much more independent than it's
> ever been. I guess I'm thinking that we may shoot ourselves in the
> foot by spinning off something else. And I also am not sure how a
> new group would have a whole bunch of money from the start?
>
> At the end of the day -- we're still a group that's about 10 people
> strong, with only about 4-5 people at the best of times active at
> any one time. So we have to keep that reality in mind. I guess I'm
> not quite sure where the bandwidth is going to come from?
>
> Just some thoughts...
>
> Michelle
>
>> Hello again,
>>
>> just adding a couple of things:
>>
>> On 14 feb 2008, at 09.36, Thomas Westin wrote:
>>
>>> With games we are not just dealing with access standards...we also
>>> need to ensure that what is accessible is also "fun."
>> Just to make clear what I meant so you don't get me wrong: I'm
>> certain you didn't mean that the game industry are unaware of the
>> fun factor, but rather that implementing accessibility takes
>> greater care about not spoiling the content of the game, i.e making
>> it too easy etc. However, that's just part of the challenge, and
>> why we need a financially strong organisation too, which the SIG is
>> not.
>>
>>> We're also talking about vastly different architecture that
>>> companies adopt -- there is no "common language" that all games
>>> use (unlike HTML, etc)
>> Yes I agree, but my efforts with the GAIM is addressing exactly
>> this problem through UML. UML is a common denominator where you can
>> design and code visually and then generate solutions for different
>> languages and architectures. I know, it takes a _lot_ of work to
>> make this work completely automagically, cross-platforms etc,
>> perhaps it never will, but I think it can help a lot in this process.
>>
>> /Thomas
>>
>>
>> On 14 feb 2008, at 09.36, Thomas Westin wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the games_access
mailing list