[games_access] Blog: Top 3 Top 3 and IGDA GASIG AwardsCeremony2008

Thomas Westin thomas at pininteractive.com
Sun Dec 2 09:03:54 EST 2007


we could do something like the "First Pengiun Award" but targetet
towards game accessibility - i.e early adopters of accessibility in
mainstream games e.g Valve could be nominated for Half-life 2 closed-
captioning - the thing should be for including access from the start.

the "first penguin award" is given to pioneers in the game industry -
the very first was given to the founders of Activision

/thomas



2 dec 2007 kl. 13.22 skrev Barrie Ellis:


> Hi Richard,

>

> I understand what you are saying re. the word "Top" - it's a bit

> obvious - but it's catchy and yes it may not be 100% accurate...

> But these lists are more specific to the genres than you give them

> credit. It's not difficult to simplify the controls of a golf,

> driving or pinball game down to less controls, and to make them all

> digital if needed. It's some work - but I don't agree that this is

> much of a stretch. I don't want to ignore blind and visually

> impaired gamers - I personally just don't agree that those

> adjustments you mention are the easiest for non-insiders to fully

> grasp. If you want scalable fonts - you'll equally expect

> everything fundamental to the game to be equally clear - not so

> easy either. The colour-blind aspect can get quite tricky too

> without full and proper advice.

>

> I wouldn't really be expecting main-stream developers to jump in

> with one-switch access for games - but seeing as some iterations of

> Everybody's Golf almost already can be played just by pressing X -

> it didn't seem unreasonable to mention.

>

> I agree we need some kind of IGDA GASIG guidelines - but in lieu of

> that, and in lieu of sitting on my hands... thought this might be

> helpful.

>

> I've also added extra links at the bottom of each Top 3 to link to

> extra help (Game Over, Barriers in Games, Help you Play and us of

> course).

>

> Ideally - this is a basic list that will give developers something

> to think about with those specific genres. Can it hurt?

>

> Barrie

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: AudioGames.net

> To: IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List

> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:54 AM

> Subject: Re: [games_access] Blog: Top 3 Top 3 and IGDA GASIG Awards

> Ceremony2008

>

> Hi,

>

> I got some thoughts about this and it is a bit related to what I

> wrote in my earlier email concerning incoherent information and

> stuff. I'll try to explain the best I can. On first glance I think

> "Excellent! 3 simple key points that developers can easily

> implement and therefore help to make many games a little more

> accessible".

> But on second glance, I think these small Top 3 lists are

> misleading - in the bigger picture of game accessibility. If you

> put it like this to the outside world, it might seem that these

> three features (essentially the same three features repeated over

> three genres) are somehow "the most important" features because of

> the use of the word 'top' (which somehow refers to the option that

> there might be more). I agree that these three would makes many

> games a bit more accessible, but I think there are other features

> that are equally important and would also make many games a bit

> more accessible. I guess these three are mostly targeted towards

> the target group that you work with in real life (gamers with

> physical and learning impairments?) . For 'my' target group (the

> group that I worked with most - gamers with visual impairments)

> none of these 3 features make any difference accessibility-wise.

> Examples of "easy" accessibility features for them would include

> "color-blind accessibility" (no colour-communication OR provide

> alternatives to color-communication), "rescalable fonts",

> "customizable fonts", "customizable contrast", etc. Why wouldn't

> these not be in your list? They would make many games a little more

> accessible and are all very "easy"... ?

>

> But here's another thought about "easy"...

>

> Thing is, I have the feeling that there is no thing such as 'easy

> accessibility'. When I look at this top 3, your second feature

> ("Compatibility with Alternative Controllers") is not "easy" at

> all. It is a lot of work to make a game work with alternative

> controllers, especially when a certain controller has fewer control

> capacity than the controllable functions in the game. Your "easy"

> point 2 is actually my Keypoint 1 [1]. And to make my Keypoint 1

> work, one cannot play without (my) Keypoint 2 (which is partially

> your point 1) AND (my) Keypoint 3 ("Interaction Techniques").

> My point: I think many accessibility features have consequences

> that also need to be dealt with. If you do not communicate this

> fact to developers, I think that's misleading.

>

> I think a list of accessibility features/requirements/design

> guidelines is good. I guess it is possible to rank each feature

> with a "easyness of implementation" (for instance, by looking at

> how much consequences a certain features has - providing a

> customizable font setting in Prince of Persia doesn't have as much

> design consequences as to control Prince of Persia with a single

> switch-controller). I also think that once you do that, you get a

> different Top 3 than you present now.

>

> So...

>

> I think such "easy Top 3" lists are a good idea but should be

> presented slightly different - not as "The Top Of Them All". And

> when it concerns "easy", we have to be honest about how "easy" it

> really is. I think you are doing a great job and am glad with your

> initiative!!!

>

> Best regards,

>

> Richard

>

>

> [1] http://www2.hku.nl/~mosh/ga/gatheoryshort029.doc

>

>

>

> Anyway - I've also set-up a "Top 3 Accessibility Features" section

> for particular game genres: http://gameaccessibility.blogspot.com/

> search/label/Top%203

>

> Pinball, Golf, Driving games covered at present. I'd appreciate

> people's thoughts, and also on any suggestions of companies to

> contact once we have a basic consensus. I realise there's lots of

> things not covered - this is not the point - it's to try and get

> some of the simplest concepts with the lowest potential overheads

> to the people making games (indies, home coders, mainstream -

> anyone!).

>

> This stuff stands on the shoulders of everyone's work so far - so

> please don't think I'm claiming this as my baby. It's not. It's

> ours - so help us to make it useful... Perhaps we should get a

> standard e-mail drafted (with further links for more help as it

> stands presently - e.g. Eelke's design patterns - Game-

> Accessibility.com - our forum? our mailing list and so on....

>

> Enough from me today I think...

>

> Barrie

> www.OneSwitch.org.uk

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> games_access mailing list

> games_access at igda.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access

> _______________________________________________

> games_access mailing list

> games_access at igda.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/games_access/attachments/20071202/e5b2e0e4/attachment.html>


More information about the games_access mailing list