[games_access] GDC: in retrospect

[d. michelle hinn]

[Forwarding this from an internal discussion since we now made this 
thing public...]

Ok...so you knew this was coming. Michelle's frustrated and weary comments.

So Sander brought up a few things that came up at the end of the last 
day when things were pretty emotional and, I admit, I was feeling 
really beat up at that point so all I could do was react in a very 
snippy way. Anyway...I want to add some more history behind some of 
these points as I think that they illustrate some additional things 
to think about:

>- Giving our sessions a more identifyable title would be a good 
>thing, let's make them more appealing. If I would not have worked at 
>the Accessibility foundation and had not gotten into this topic, I 
>probably would not have visited one of our sessions (perhaps the 
>Idol out of curiosity, but only because I totally do not like Idol 
>and would like to know what this has to do with GDC). I think giving 
>it a more identifyable name for game designers, they are more likely 
>to enter. I think we are too deeply involved with this stuff and are 
>thinking too seriously.

Well, there are a couple things to think about. I agree on a whole 
but there's more to the story that I should just put out there.

First, the Serious Accessibility for Serious Games Panel -- I'm not 
sure why we had an auditorium nor do I know why it was increased to 
60 minutes (from the proposed 45 minutes). I think the Serious Games 
people like to think that they care more about accessibility because 
they are the ones that have the legal obligation to do so. But in the 
end...we know we barely had people in the room for that session. So 
that's a constant baffling bit for me.

Second, the Mobile Games session -- this was, in my opinion, the most 
engaged session we did with regard to audience participation outside 
of Arcade. Perhaps it was the only one that almost tricked people 
into the room because it was the least "accessible" in the title. The 
session resulted in a lot of contacts for us.

Now...things get tougher...

Third, the Arcade sessions -- we have to keep in mind that due to not 
having TVs, power strips, tables, etc on Day One drove away about 10 
people that were there at 9am but left because we didn't get set up 
until about 9:20. This is where I blame CMP (the GDC conf people). I 
had a long talk with Phoenix from there on the last day and I asked 
why sessions like Arcade and Idol were so delayed due to us not 
having the set up we requested, oh, about 6 months ago. Anyway, those 
people that left on Day One never returned. Day Two was our best as 
we had all the equipment in the room and we were ready to go 10 
minutes before the session started. Day Three was Day One revisited, 
only with us all exhausted and ready for hospital. So I think that 
there were a lot of things going against us.

Fourth, we could have also gone into the hall and gotten people into 
Arcade had anyone thought to take the initiative. But we were tired 
and when push came to shove there was only the same half-dead core 
group doing so much already. This is a point of frustration for me 
because when I was told to better delegate things it was a "duh...too 
late" point and also one of those things where I wonder where people 
were before just after the sessions, offering help. Maybe this is the 
"female" in me to take this personally but it did hurt. It's hard to 
take criticism on this point (and Sander, this isn't what you said to 
me but what I heard from a few others) because this was a year in 
advance planning didn't take into consideration how many SIG people 
would be at GDC and then my getting fired, etc just before. Anyway, 
my point here is that it frustrated me to hear that people said that 
they wanted to help after the fact. I'd prefer if people would come 
forward when I don't ask for help because I realize no one is getting 
paid for this. That's what I have to work out and deal with. Yes, I 
could have done a better job asking for help earlier but I personally 
get to the point where I just do things myself when I see that no one 
is posting a "looking for work" message. Again, this is my issue in 
part but I'm saying it now so that people know.

Fifth...Idol. A year ago this seemed hilarious. The title seemed like 
it would bring people into the room. I didn't hear any differently 
from the SIG. The title could have been changed. But besides 
this...CMP messed things up by not including the names of the 
contestants, not promo-ing it, and doing their usual promo of the 
"official" game design challenge. Why the game design challenge 
couldn't be accessibility instead of a needle and thread as the 
challenge I don't know. We were up against Ralph Koster. We had two 
hours which no doubt added to the "well, I'd rather see two sessions 
than one I'm not sure about" while Zimmerman's session had one hour. 
Why? I don't know. I have no control over what GDC gives us 
session-wise. They do not ask my input, they just tell us "when" and 
"where."

Sixth...Idol and PBS. ABC = Good. PBS = Evil. I think we're all sick 
of PBS by now. I had asked them to leave us alone in no uncertain 
terms from 3 to 4 before our session so we could do things to get 
people in the room and then when the room was open...we didn't have 
all the things CMP said we'd have. Meanwhile...PBS is taking people 
down the hall to interview them, we were down two participants until 
the last second...I nearly had a heart attack. I think no more needs 
to be said here other than we've learned our lesson with how the 
press can really eat into our plans and be completely obnoxious. Why 
there is so much footage of us eating? Who knows? So now we know that 
we need THEM to sign forms saying that they agree to OUR terms as 
well.

>- Ban on the word accessibility (the word was even mentioned in two 
>audio sessions, had nothing to do with our accessibility). For too 
>many people the word accessibility seems to mean something like "the 
>irritating stuff with those publishers".

Well, we talked about this a bit as in calling our sessions "the 
coolest shit ever" and "the session that will wright might be in." We 
can do this but we have to get really clever. GDC accepts our 
sessions because we are "diversity." I think that's why we got onto 
the schedule so much this year. As hard as it is to say...I really 
do. So we use accessibility, they hear diversity, and it's happy for 
everyone...until no one shows up. So we need to pitch this in a way 
that still says diversity but also doesn't say "developers stay 
away." We don't have very long before we pitch for next year's GDC. 
So we have to think of something clever and think of it very soon.

Ok...I'm sorry about the vent but I really needed to get these things 
out there. I don't want us to turn into a SIG that is not about 
accessibility for those with disabilities and I don't want us to lose 
focus on the mainstream game industry because that is what we are 
about. So I worry when I hear things like "refocus the SIG" and 
"change the name." It's a tricky thing to do. And we have to think 
hard about it. And people need to be honest as to whether they are 
going to put in the work behind their words and really be active and 
committed to making a real run at this. As the group leader, I have 
to say that I react with a "and so you will be committed to doing 
this versus just criticizing?" point of view. I know that I do this. 
That's, again, my issue. But knowing what I do about how things have 
been with people helping and then running away forever after a month 
of promises, it gets old.

And please Sander, don't take this as me criticizing you -- it's just 
something I needed to address and you started it. ;)

Michelle