[games_access] games_access Digest, Vol 101, Issue 14

Fri Jun 22 13:54:55 EDT 2012

>From a legal point of view accessibility specifically refers to disabilities alone (the games industry perspective that it has nothing to do with disability and instead means low barrier to entry doesn't help matters at all).
As far as I can see you can't really have an absolute minimum required standard as no matter how simple and basic the thing involved there will always be some game mechanic that doesn't fit with it.. like a music quiz where some of the questions were about trying to guess what the difficult to hear lyrics are, including subtitles/captions for that would completely break it. There will always be some grounds for exemption.
The problem is that from a developer's point of view when you're just after straight answers/guidance, if things are talked about in terms of absolutes and it turns out there's actually an exception, that then completely invalidates everything. If one thig doesn't apply, then how are you to know which of the others apply? Instead though if there's a basic level which is strongly recommended rather than absolutely required for all games then that is definitely achievable, especially when developers realise that they're already doing a decent chunk of it already. 
Reaching wider audiences, especially those that dont have much competition, can be a powerful argument but only really for indies, who are more willing to take a punt in exchange for the chance to stand out from the crowd. For the bigger players we need some concrete facts and figures to back up the speculation on how much it's potentially worth, and build a proper business case.. but unlike other industries that's easy enough to achieve, just need the right analytics in place.
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:28:12 +0300
> From: "Dimitris Grammenos" <gramenos at ics.forth.gr>
> Subject: Re: [games_access] games_access Digest, Vol 101, Issue 13
> To: "'IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List'"
> 	<games_access at igda.org>
> Message-ID: <001801cd5072$7e5d4cf0$7b17e6d0$@ics.forth.gr>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="UTF-8"
> 
> Hello all (sorry in advance for my lengthy e-mail), 
> 
> I would also like to share some of my thoughts about this subject since I disagree with some of the things mentioned in the conversation.
> 
> ---
> First of all, accessibility is not synonymous to ?people with permanent physical disabilities?  and probably this misconception is the root of most of the problems that we discuss about all of these years. It is not a marginal issue that concerns some niche groups of our society. It is a mainstream issue concerning the majority of people. 
> 
> Probably the historical reason for this misconception is that, in the past video game players constituted a rather coherent closed group with little variation regarding their characteristics such as age, skills, interests, even gender. Accessibility was not much of an issue, mainly because if you faced any accessibility problems, you simply would not become a ?game-player?.  From this point forward, things begun looking like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since most games were created either by ?game-players? or in order to appeal to ?game-players?, even when more people (literally) started coming into play, game designers instead of trying to expand their notion of what is a video game and how people can (or like) to play it, continued reproducing the same recipe that was conceived to be appealing to ?game-players?. And this is the main reason why currently, although game companies have at their disposal highly advanced software and hardware technologies and vast human and mate
>  rial resources, still fail to considerably expand their target markets. 
> 
> Thus, in my opinion,  the biggest mistake of most game development companies is that they try hard to sell more games to the same people, instead of trying to find ways of selling the same games to more people. For example, typically I would not be considered as a person with a particular disability, but still there are several video games (as well as hardware components) with which I (would) face considerable accessibility problems.
> 
> ---
> 
> About the ?reasonable? approach. My main concern is who decides what is reasonable and by which means. For example, there was a time when it was considered reasonable that blind people should be confined to their home. As most of you already know there are people out there that it is reasonable that there is no reason for a person who cannot use his hands to play a video game. Anyway, I will not get this any further?
> 
> ---
> 
> About Ian?s comment that ?a game by definition can't be barrier free (without any barriers it's just a toy or narrative rather than a game)?. I think that there is a misunderstanding here between ?barrier? and ?challenge?. Games need to provide ?challenge? not ?barriers?. What constitutes a challenge may considerably vary for each distinct player and to some extend it is highly correlated with all previous conversations about game difficulty.
> 
> Furthermore, games do not tests skills. Skills are the means that players employ to overcome challenges. In my opinion, games (except in special cases) are mainly meant to provide entertaining experiences. Thus, the means (or skills if you prefer) people employ to achieve that should not be mistaken as their goal. Why should it matter if I play an FPS using Kinect, a mouse, a (virtual) keyboard, on switch, speech commands, mind waves? Or if I play with my eyes open or shut? It is still the same game with the same goal (find the treasure, kill the monsters, steal the cars, ...) 
> 
> ---
> 
> OK I will pause here for now, so that some people may actually read it... 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dimitris
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:13:01 +0100
> From: "Barrie Ellis" <oneswitch at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [games_access] games_access Digest, Vol 101, Issue 13
> To: "IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List"
> 	<games_access at igda.org>
> Message-ID: <E66851336DBE45F08FCA64813806EC00 at OneSwitchPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Dimitris,
> 
> >From my side, I consider a disabled person as someone who can't do something that they want to do. So for me, of course this can mean any one of us 6 billion or so human beings in the world. If that person finds a way to be enabled in doing the thing they want/need to, then in respect of that thing, then they are no longer a disabled person. So in this respect, I'm talking about people who want to play games, but the barriers in the games are disabling them, frequently to an extremely frustrating extent.
> 
> Personally, I fully agree that many more game developers need to broaden their outlook on the market, and how inclusive their games are. I think most people would agree with that too. I just don't pushing that point alone is going to bring about a sea change.
> 
> As for what is reasonable, basic legislation seems very possible to me. This is worth a look US wise: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3101/text. Why not set a standard that games that need subtitles/captions  get it. Why not push for colour-blind friendly design? Why not push for simpler control schemes? Why not push for support for those who can't read? Then point people to extra stuff you can do to help even more people.
> 
> I can't speak for Ian on Barrier-Free, but from my stand-point, a fully barrier-free game may be possible, but only to a very limited point. And that really is an academic/existential argument that won't solve the most pressing problems.
> 
> Barrie
> 
> 

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist7.pair.net/pipermail/games_access/attachments/20120622/33eb0289/attachment.htm>