[games_access] MacArthur Chapter (was: Robert's Biography)

[d. michelle hinn]

>Lets back up a bit : )

:) I'm glad that you wrote back -- I was afraid that my raising these 
points for discussion on the list might not translate well (email 
isn't the best way to gauge how others are taking things -- but it's 
all we have!). I definitely had no intention of suggesting that you 
were not on the same team! I just was starting to realize that we are 
starting to face a lot of major issues that need to be sorted out so 
it's best that we all discuss this openly. It's accessibility that we 
are all pushing for but funding agencies and publishers often don't 
see it that way when it comes to IP...that nasty little thing!

>  > Actually you aren't the only academic working on accessibility 
>issues and digital media
>
>Oh dear, I suppose you are referring to my writing this:
>
>'I was surprised to find out that I'm the only one who is directly 
>referring to Accessibility issues, so I'd like to make the best of 
>it.'
>
>So let me rephrase: I was surprised to find out that I'm the only 
>one *within the Macarthur book* who is directly referring to 
>Accessibility issues.
>
>My entire premise for contacting you is that I'm *not* the only 
>academic working on these issues!

Ahhhhh...now I see. Much more clear now.

>  > So I'm wondering how widely the MacArthur foundation went in their search.
>
>Exactly my point. Which is why I extended my reach to this group. I 
>was hoping that my chapter could serve as a gateway towards 
>prominent work in the field - namely yours.
>
>I understand your concerns about ownership - and I should have 
>checked into this up-front. I will now. Please believe me that my 
>goal is not to restrict anyone, but do the little that I can to 
>point the readers to the right direction (your direction). In my 
>mind, this little chapter could even help publicize your upcoming 
>book and create connections with the foundation for further funding 
>and collaborations.
>
>Before we continue, I'll forward your email to my editor and ask for 
>a response in writing in regards to everything you raise here.

Sounds good! I agree that your chapter could indeed be a great thing 
and I'm very excited about it! I just wanted to make sure that 
everything was ok from MacArthur's end since a lot of our work is 
slated to go into the game accessibility book (more later in the 
email!).

>  > So maybe the idea of another group building more forums in yet 
>another place is causing some confusion amongst members of the list.
>
>Re. the MacArthur forum - it was not my intention to fragment your 
>efforts (although I see your point!). Macarthur has gone through 
>great length to invite experts from the fields of education, new 
>media and other sciences into one forum. When they asked me to 
>suggest experts - I sent them your emails. I think you could have 
>contributed a lot to the discussions, and hoped you'd enjoy the 
>multidisciplinary interaction with other experts.

Ah, ok, I see what you are saying now. And I didn't mean to give the 
impression that we would not contribute -- just that we have to think 
about overloading ourselves. Everyone on this list is a free agent 
and can contribute in any way they would like, of course. I agree 
that it would be enjoyable to participate but I guess I was nervous 
that if people didn't join in that it would see that we did not care 
-- quite the opposite. We're just overwhelmed right now so I wanted 
to make sure that you knew that and did not take it with any offense.

>I'm actually not sure what your book is about either.

Ah -- it's a book being published by Charles River Media and is a 
book aimed at game designers/developers and publishers who want to 
make their games accessible. So it's not a research book but more of 
an application book. It's definitely aimed at industry and academic 
game design programs looking for a resource about game accessibility.

>My chapter is part of a series that concentrates on New Media, 
>Learning and Youth. The book that I'm part of deals with digital 
>games and attempts to complexify (is that a word?) the current 
>discussions on how they affect our youth. My particular chapter 
>looks at games from the special-needs perspective - considering all 
>of the above.
>
>When most politicians are concerned with over-exposure of kids to 
>digital-games, I look at lack-of-play due to accessibility issues, 
>and also empowerment that games provide to many children with 
>special needs. I examine how various therapists utilize 
>digital-games to identify problems and hash them out in therapy. I 
>follow kids in wheelchairs that win international game 
>championships. I ask - do digital games provide us with new 
>opportunities in regards to therapy and normalcy? How are they 
>different from traditional games in that respect?
>
>My argument is that they indeed hold potential for unique benefits, 
>but unfortunately this potential is rarely reached due to 
>accessibility issues. Not all games are born the same, and not all 
>could be made accessible. But there's much that could be done to 
>improve the situation. So I describe what the 'fixable' issues are, 
>and provide a game-plan for designers, legislators and gamers 
>towards improving upon this. I advocate to some legislation and 
>corporate-education on the matter. I end the chapter with suggestion 
>for more research (which I could have used), and resources for 
>further reading.
>
>Lastly, I hope to include an appendix for designers - showing a 
>step-by-step adaptation of some games, and by doing so hashing out 
>some of the things I've learned in the past two years.

Ok, I definitely see what you are saying and I usually start most of 
my talks about accessibility asking where OUR politician is pushing 
for game accessibility because inaccessibility results in people 
missing out on something that is so important for our psychological 
well-being.

>So are we working on the same thing? there are probably great 
>similarities, but I think that our works can feed of each other and 
>create a larger buzz. I'm so sorry to hear that your work has been 
>used without permission! I promise that this will never happen here. 
>I will get it in writing before we continue.

No worries -- I'm glad that you have come here and I hope that 
MacArthur is thinking the same thing that we are. I see some overlap 
but I see that in a positive way -- in that perhaps an updated 
version of your chapter could be included in the design book in our 
section on "why accessibility" -- I think it's important to remind 
designers that "hey, you like games -- so do people with disabilities 
so what gives? why aren't you pushing for this?"

Ok, cool -- thanks so much for clearing this up! I'm definitely 
excited to participate in the online discussion forums when I can and 
definitely encourage others too. My only hesitation was the IP 
factor. We just have so many different things going on that it would 
be a shame if a funding agency of publisher claimed complete 
ownership of something that should remain in the public domain as 
much as possible!

So, hey everyone -- I think that this has been a great opportunity to 
talk about this (the legal stuff) and I'm excited about the avenues 
that Amit's chapter could open up for us as a SIG!

Michelle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist7.pair.net/pipermail/games_access/attachments/20061025/39bc4640/attachment.htm>