[games_access] Accessible Game Design Initiative, in planning phase now.
d. michelle hinn
hinn at uiuc.edu
Tue Jan 27 23:26:46 EST 2009
Those are good points from everyone -- obviously this is a very
passionate discussion and I'm just going to come in as mediator here.
:)
I personally am a little conflicted because I see far too often
companies starting out with good intentions and then the disability
part drops out and then what was originally going to be
accessible...no longer is. I guess it's that "feature creep" thing,
in part. But we're an old SIG now and perhaps we can help be mentors
to the newer SIGs in order to get the accessibility word out.
Perhaps, Reid, when we get closer to GDC, you could encourage those
in the new SIG to come to the "Accessibility 101" talk so that they
can get a crash course in the specific issues we discuss? And then
they could come to the roundtable and group gathering to continue the
conversation. Not everyone "gets" what it is that we're fighting for
and it's our job to educate. I think that the more designers we can
get into the room, the more powerful this initiative could be.
I'm going to encourage Reid to give things a shot to see how it pans
out. We CAN have a meeting at GDC about it -- we have some free room
space that the IGDA gives for meetings and we might want to do this
with other SIGs if enough people are there and enough progress is
made (or it could kick off more progress). It will be interesting to
see where the workload falls...I think we all know that these things
take much more time from the lead of any one project and it can be a
little crazy making at times. :) That's my main bit of advise to you,
Reid, but you know that I have trouble taking advise about that
myself.
Of course, the problem right now is, we don't have that
"accessibility/disability" auto-include thought process yet in the
industry and we may be years away from that (think about other
electronic media...people are still fighting movie theatres for
captioning!!). But perhaps, eventually, we'll get to the point where
we reach Thomas' Utopia. I'm all in favor for these things no longer
being an issue...but as co-chair of the diversity committee...we
still have GLBT, Women, Minorities and other SIGs and the Women in
Games SIG has been around for a VERY long time and still has a ways
to go. Thomas -- you've known me for so long that you know I have a
dimmer view about the world's response to disability accessibility
but that doesn't mean we can't dream of a day where the SIG serves as
a reminder and a way to get more developers with disabilities
involved in gaming (that's another part of our mission that we often
forget...but it's important!!).
Not trying to discourage at all! And perhaps we'll get some cross SIG
members. This will be important in the near future, as larger SIGs
will get more revenue sharing of IGDA membership costs. So the more
members...the more money we'll have to do more with!
Perhaps, if I may, suggest that we revise the whitepaper to include
the Design SIG and it would help both SIGs. Reid -- has the SIG been
officially approved by the IGDA? I had not yet heard anything about
it on the SIG chair list so when Reid brought it up I wasn't sure the
status.
Also, the Localization SIG chair (also a new SIG!) wants to do
something with us too -- because captioning is an important issue for
them and if THEY can also double the reason for doing it to ease
localization (when games are ported to other regions of the world),
then we all win there too. So maybe we can bring them into the
discussion and we can have a tri-SIG initiative. (Ok...going a little
"Harry Potter" here...tri-wizard initiative?)
Anyway, we have a LOT going on in such a short span of time and it's
exciting. There's a lot of things going on that are exciting here,
other parts of the IGDA, and our partners-in-accessibility like
AbleGamers that are doing some great things to push the accessibility
agenda. If we all give each other a chance, then we will have one
amazing year.
BTW -- the 508 discussion for the AbleGamers piece is heating up.
Thomas and others from other parts of the globe. It would be
FANTASTIC to get you guys involved in this. Basically I know we all
have an opinion as to whether or not games should be required BY LAW
to be accessible. This has been a "hot button" issue for us for a
while and it's time to get that debate out there and discover what
our best advise is going to be for this particular industry! Email me
or Mark for more information!!
Let's keep up the passion and the energy! The way I see it...if we
never had any disagreements, then I'd know that we were just not
supportive of our own message. We all want the same thing in the end
-- more accessible games. Not everyone will have time to be involved
in everything and that's ok. But to take the "service" initiative
going on here in the US with our new president, let's all remember
that whether it's an hour or two a week or much more...get involved!
I think that's a good thing for all of us all over the globe. :)
Michelle
At 10:24 PM +0100 1/27/09, Thomas Westin wrote:
>Reid and Mark,
>
>While I agree with Mark that the design part is equally important
>for this SIG, I do think it is vital that accessibility is not
>treated as something special.
>
>This SIG is only needed as long as accessibility is treated as
>something as 'for disabled'. When designers in general realize that
>we are all disabled in some sense, then accessibility will be a top
>priority in any game design which would be fantastic. I would be
>very happy to see that this SIG wasn't needed!
>
>So I'm encouraging Reid's attempt to break into the design SIG
>pushing accessibility into the mainstream zone where it should be.
>It was actually the reason I got the idea for starting the SIG in
>the first place, and why I turned the the IGDA where all the
>mainstream devs are.
>
>So Reid's effort is right on the spot! However utopian it may seem
>today, most or all accessibility features may be mainstream some
>day. I hope.
>
>/Thomas
>
>
>On 25 jan 2009, at 02.15, Mark Barlet wrote:
>
>>I think "Accessible Game Design" is not the third goal of this SIG
>>but number ONE. I am thinking back to YOUR poster talk, and looking
>>back at all of the talks this group has given at GDC over the years
>>(and all of the proposals we have had rejected), and I think you
>>would be hard pressed to argue that Game design is NOT a
>>fundamental part of the work of this SIG. You state as the number
>>one "Closed Captioning, slow game speed, high contrast graphics
>>rendering" those are all "game design" aspects. ALL of those things
>>fall under "Game Design"... I dare say that what you say is number
>>2, while I am a huge supporter of, is in far less a part of this
>>SIG. Also, I am looking at all the active member of this SIG,
>>including you, and the Chair, and they are all game designers.
>>
>>I think it is a HUGE stretch to say "Accessible Game Design" does
>>not belong in this SIG. So please, if you have time, can you
>>enlighten me on what we have been doing for the last few years that
>>I have been a member, and how I am to catalog the work from the
>>past.
>>
>>Reid, what is really going on here?
>>
>>Mark Barlet
>>
>>On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Reid Kimball
>><<mailto:rkimball at gmail.com>rkimball at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>It appears more explanation is necessary.
>>
>>The Accessible Game Design Initiative takes NOTHING away from the Game
>>Accessibility SIG because it does not focus on helping disabled
>>players. The work of the Game Accessibility SIG is still extremely
>>valuable!
>>
>>I do think the ideas the initiative covers can be beneficial to the
>>disabled, because as I like to say, "games for all". The focus areas I
>>listed, such as "player tailoring" and a "hint system" can be helpful
>>to both able and disabled players.
>>
>>To make absolutely clear, here's what I see coming from this SIG:
>>* Support community for disabled players
>>* Advocate and representative for disabled players
>>* Research projects to help disabled players access more games for the:
>>-- visually affected
>>-- physically affected
>>-- mentally affected
>>-- aurally affected
>>* Share information and assist developers wishing to implement
>>features for disabled players
>>
>>I believe you can approach the goal of game accessibility from
>>three directions:
>>
>>1. Special game features
>>-- Closed Captioning, slow game speed, high contrast graphics rendering
>>
>>2. Alternative controllers
>>-- Switch devices, Quad controllers, controller hacks, voice controls,
>>brain wave controls
>>
>>3. Accessible Game Design
>>-- Players customizing gameplay settings
>>-- Dynamic Difficulty
>>-- Content Navigation system (think VCR allowing rewind, fast forward,
>>skip chapters)
>>-- Hint system
>>
>>It is number three that I think this SIG and the Game Design SIG can
>>collaborate on, however I feel it is more relevant to game design than
>>this SIG.
>>
>>-Reid
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Mark Barlet
>><<mailto:ioo at ablegamers.com>ioo at ablegamers.com> wrote:
>>> So Reid what does that make this SIG? I would think that this would have
>>> been better served to start in our SIG, and invite others... this is like
>>> going to a SIG for Minorities and saying "Let's design a game for disabled
>>> minorities" almost a secondary verb when there is already a primary SIG.
>>>
>>> I think by not letting this come from the GA SIG, and us reaching out to
>>> others, you have undercuts our mission a lot, Not sure that the motive is
>>> here, and I hope you get what you are looking for, but I just
>>>think you have
>>> gone about this in a way that in the end hurts the hard work this SIG has
>>> done.
>>>
>>> Good Luck in your mission, whatever it is...
>>>
>>> Mark Barlet
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>games_access mailing list
>><mailto:games_access at igda.org>games_access at igda.org
>><http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access>http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>games_access mailing list
>><mailto:games_access at igda.org>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist7.pair.net/pipermail/games_access/attachments/20090127/11996deb/attachment.htm>
More information about the games_access
mailing list