[games_access] suits about discrimination on the basis of disability?

[Ian Hamilton]

Lobbying and open dialogue can only go so far, you can't reach everyone that way. There's just one bit missing from what you've said, which is the benefit to the wider industry, not just between the parties involved in the action. I've personally dealt with corporations whos legal teams now insist on AA accessibility driven by the possibility of  bad publicity generated through an out of court settlement. Without any cases being brought, legislation has no teeth. Why bother complying if there's zero risk of anything  happening either way? Just see the current state of cookie law over here, although the law has been in place for over a year and the grace deadline has now passed, the general attitude seems to be to just to sit around and wait to see what happens.On a quite different note but still something I personally find pretty interesting is Film Victoria's take on it, straddling between legislation and advocacy - making public game development grants conditional to meeting accessibility criteria. Carrot instead of stick.

-------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:58:01 -0700
> From: "John R. Porter" <jrporter at uw.edu>
> Subject: Re: [games_access] suits about discrimination on the
> 	basisofdisability?
> To: IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List <games_access at igda.org>
> 
> Barrie,
> 
> You're absolutely correct that the DDA (and the ADA on this side of the
> Atlantic) were hugely, and positively, influential developments in the push
> for accessibility. However, it's necessary to point out that your counter
> argument has to do with the efficacy of *legislation*, not *judgments*.
> There's obviously a certain amount of overlap, but they are *not* one and
> the same.
> 
> Positive changes are brought about through legislation because they are
> carefully constructed umbrella statements that are universally applied to
> myriad different entities at the time of their passing. Some entities might
> at first be frustrated by their impositions, but no one feels singled out,
> and more importantly there isn't an air of aggressiveness or negativity to
> them (or at least not much).
> 
> Lawsuits, on the other hand, are *never* received well except by those
> attempting to file them. Sometimes, they can be successful and result in
> very small amounts of positive change, but that change is incredibly
> begrudging and accompanied by a great deal of engendered ill will. The
> resulting attitude of people on the receiving end of a lawsuit tend to be
> "fine, we'll give you exactly what we are forced to, and absolutely nothing
> more."
> 
> Lobbying and open dialogs, while they are of course much slower processes
> that might not have the flash and publicity of legal action, are generally
> practices that produce a more amiable relationship between involved parties
> and results that are most beneficial to everyone involved.
> 
> Now, there are always exceptions (i.e. the cases of overlap). Legal
> judgments that set precedent can be incredibly effective as they produce
> the same type of blanket applicability as legislation. These are few and
> far between, though, and I wouldn't count on them being very common in this
> particular field of concern. Because digital entertainment is already such
> a grey area in the eyes of the law, any judge would be extremely hesitant
> to drop their gavel in such a way that threatened to cause a ripple effect
> throughout the entire game industry.
> 
> -John
> 
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Barrie Ellis <oneswitch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist7.pair.net/pipermail/games_access/attachments/20120624/1ae6b4e7/attachment.htm>