[games_access] Game Accessibility - How to we get there? (Dimitris Grammenos)

[Ian Hamilton]

Elusive business case - it's immensely simple to achieve. Record the cost of feature development, attach analytics to features, compare cost of development to usage and player value. Obviously it only applies to features that are controlled by options and only apples to features that have a significant impact on being able to play, but if all of us push for them in any games work we're associated with then we'll get some useful aggregate data pretty quickly.

Every one of those things (tracking costs, analytics, player value) is already standard practice.

Homogenizing and watering down - Dimitris, I've dropped you an email separately about having a proper chat as I've been putting your universally accessible game design principled into practice (referenced here: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2011/10/something_special_makaton_out_about_universal.html ). I'm not permitted to share stats unfortunately but the end result produced some really quite astonishing statistics proving conclusively that the addition of the options produced something that was massively more popular for the entire audience, rather than diluting it.


There is a balance to be had between number of options and complexity of interface (presets / advanced helps greatly with this), but in general it just means providing a means to remove barriers that cause difficultly for a great many people, disabled or otherwise, and not removing fun or gameplay.


> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:39 +0300
> From: "Dimitris Grammenos" <gramenos at ics.forth.gr>
> Subject: Re: [games_access] Game Accessibility - How to we get there?
> To: "'IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List'"
> 	<games_access at igda.org>
> Message-ID: <001b01cd537d$a7ef55f0$f7ce01d0$@ics.forth.gr>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> First of all let me express my great pleasure of seeing such a vivid
> conversation taking place again in our list!
> 
> Now, I'll try to be brief - honestly.
> 
> 1) Standardising information and symbols related to accessibility  is a good
> thing - But I think using the wheelchair icon is a little bit misleading, as
> well as not very "sexy" from a marketing point of you. Why not using a
> symbol that focuses on the fact that this game has extra capabilities - use
> a highly positive sign? E.g. have you seen all those labels on food products
> that have extra vitamins, minerals, etc? They are full of colorful plus
> signs. I think accessibility capabilities should be advertised similarly.
> For example, you have "Football game" and  "Football game++". The notion is
> that you get more for what you pay. "Play anyway you like" - I guess you get
> the idea. Else, game developers might be afraid that buyers will wrongly
> perceive that their game is targeted to people with specific disabilities.  
> 
> 2) In this respect, I agree with Richard's approach, that if we want to
> "mainstream" accessibility then we need to see it from a game
> features/capabilities perspective and not from a disabilities point of view.
> I believe for example that many people would like to know if a game can be
> played using an alternative controller, if it supports scalable difficulty,
> subtitles, etc. 
> 
> 3) I don't believe that legislation is the answer to game accessibility.
> Obviously, finding that "elusive" business case would be the best. So, one
> thing we can do, and now it seems that we are many, we can try to look for
> it, or collaboratively build it up.
> 
> 4) Ablegames and Gamebase are already doing a great job regarding game
> reviews. I do not know if it would be possible to access mainstream game
> magazines and offer to write for them a condensed version of your
> accessibility reviews using less disability-oriented terminology, so that
> gradually accessibility gets mainstream in practice, but most importantly
> becomes integral part of their readers' "game culture".
> 
> 5) It seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding among people in
> this list that game accessibility is about "homogenizing", "watering down",
> "lowest common denominators", etc. This - to some extent - may be true for
> the "real world" due to physical constraints, but in the digital world it is
> the exact opposite. Game accessibility is about freedom, diversity and
> multiplicity of choices. It is about playing a game the way you like and
> prefer, not about everyone playing the game exactly the same way (what is
> the current situation). It is about adapting to the player. So, unless this
> is completely made clear, then just like in our list, people who are fully
> supporting game accessibility, maybe skeptical about the extent to which it
> can and should be pursued.  If you have some time you can have a look at
> these:
> - Unified Design of Universally Accessible Games (Say What?). URL:
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061207/grammenos_01.shtml
> - The Theory of Parallel Game Universes: A Paradigm Shift in Multiplayer
> Gaming and Game Accessibility. URL:
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060817/grammenos_01.shtml
> - Universally Accessible Games & Parallel Game Universes" (206 slides) PDF
> format(15MB)
> http://www.ics.forth.gr/hci/ua-games/docs/DGrammenos_Universally_Accessible_
> Games_and_Parallel_Game_Universes.pdf
> 
> 
> I'll be back for more :-)
> 
> Dimitris
> 

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist7.pair.net/pipermail/games_access/attachments/20120626/e989ae9d/attachment.htm>