[games_access] Game Over - web-mentions
richard at audiogames.net
Tue Apr 24 17:23:11 EDT 2007
By the way, since Terrestrial Invaders allows access to third-party assistive technology, it's probably better to position this on the Design For Games axis....
----- Original Message -----
To: IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [games_access] Game Over - web-mentions
Good addon, Thomas! Your use of the word "dimension" immediately triggered my imagination (too much PhD writing) and I tried to see if I could use what you wrote to make some sort of 2-dimensional model/framework. See below:
Don't know how much sense this makes yet (especially the terms) but if you would consider your dimension for a second, then it would make Reids distinction a quadrant/category (like you kinda said already). So what might be interesting to think about is what the OTHER dimension would be (one of the reasons of doing this sort of thing ;)? In this case I kinda tried to think of a dimension of (accessible) design for games, and design of (accessible) games.
I personally feel that a distinction can be made between games that incidentally/accidentally turn out to be very accessible for certain people, BUT which are also targeted at other audiences (one switch + audio games > mobile gamers for example - which would fall into the general approach/design of games category) and the design of SPECIFIC games FOR SPECIFIC audiences (such as games for the blind). The fact is that the boundary between these can be very blurry, but I guess there is some truth there.
Mmm.... maybe it's better to rotate it like this, so it makes more sense:
Mmm... not yet... oh well.... here's a last one with some game examples in it:
Does this make some sense? Mmm... second thoughts: maybe rotate the model back like in the first pic?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the games_access