[games_access] Legislating for Game Accessibility
jbannick at 7128.com
Thu Dec 20 04:57:26 EST 2007
Interesting you should suggest Accessibility Ratings.
Our small company makes computer games for the casual games market.
All of these games have a 7-128 Software Accessibility Rating and Age
We post the ratings at the electronic point of purchase and in all our
The Accessibility Ratings aren't perfect by any means, but they're a start.
(In fact, I'm working on a set of specific accessibilty criteria to back
Check out: http://www.7128.com/supportratings.html
At 07:33 PM 12/19/2007, you wrote:
>On Dec 19, 2007 11:06 AM, Barrie Ellis <barrie.ellis at oneswitch.org.uk> wrote:
> > So if an expectancy of "reasonable adjustments" in commercial software was
> > introduced (which I truly belive will eventually happen) how badly
> would the
> > artistic side of things be affected? What is reasonable is the tricky
> > point... But I didn't see too many shop keepers crying about giving greater
> > access to shoppers with different abilities.
>You're comparing apples and oranges. You can't just bolt a ramp onto
>a game, and call it accessible.
>There are some types of entertainment experiences that are simply
>incompatible with certain disabilities. This is not due to
>insensitivity on the part of the artists, but the very nature of the
>experience. Someone who is vision impaired, but not blind, might
>really enjoy the extra-large picture provided by IMAX movies, while
>someone who is completely blind will get no benefit from the giant
>A lot of audio-only games for blind players are made by small,
>independent developers. Many of them are labors of love. Would you
>force these folks to invest extra time and money to develop a version
>of their game that could be played by deaf players? Would you rob
>them of the time and money that they might have put towards making
>more games for the blind? Legislation can hurt the very people we are
>trying to help.
>I continue to believe that the push for accessibility labeling
>standards is the right approach. This does not mandate accessibility,
>but it does create market pressure, and get companies thinking about
>how they can tick off more checkboxes. I guarantee you, you'd see
>much more widespread coverage for at least the low-hanging fruit (e.g.
>captioning, visual cues for auditory alerts, configurable controls,
>etc.) than you do right now. As it is, it's hard to get companies to
>even remember that some people are left-handed!
>games_access mailing list
>games_access at igda.org
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date:
>12/19/2007 7:37 PM
More information about the games_access