[games_access] GDC: in retrospect
d. michelle hinn
hinn at uiuc.edu
Wed Mar 14 13:50:26 EDT 2007
Just a quick reply -- we don't see it as *just* a legal
obligation...but it's surprising when we don't get the numbers
BECAUSE it is also a legal obligation for the serious games folks.
Most of us view game accessibility as the next coolest thing ever. :)
I mean, we had the friggin' jedi mind trick on display this year.
Take that nintendo. :D
Yes...yesterday will ill-timed. I was at hospital on Saturday and I
was at hospital again last night for an IV, Robert was so sick he had
to go home, meanwhile the folks from Holland are too sick to move now
that they are back home...yesterday was the wrong time for a
conversation about how unsuccessful we were.
I agree...I see us (or saw us) as having a great success this year.
But it's hard to see it as such when reminded that compared to Halo
4.5 we're in the suck zone. I've been in this for too many years to
think that if we just tweak one thing that miracles will occur. But
we're getting there.
I'll send you more offline to talk about what we have in the works
and for your advise because I know you have been there, Ben. Really
-- if anyone knows, you do!
>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.
>There are no serious games people in this case... it's just me.
>Legal obligation??? Yes that's part of it but I also run games for
>health and I'm amazed at some of the actual applications and games
>that can be made too and further I just think this is a really cool
>thing for games in general. If you want to know what I think my
>email is plastered everywhere and if people want me easily enough my
>AIM is BENSAWYER. Pop me a question at any moment.
>Why you were in the big room may have been a snafu of late
>rearrangement of the schedule -- you were supposed to be in a
>smaller room. You were increased to 60 minutes because I figured
>you had a lot to say and its a panel and thus 45 minutes may have
>been too small. We can certainly work closer to help hone things.
>As far as I'm concerned I will keep booking accessibility sessions
>at all serious games/games for health events regardless of what
>people say or how many show up because eventually it's going to
>settle in. The attendance at Robert's session at Games for Health
>was pretty strong I believe.
>In looking at the posts in general I really think you're all being
>very hard on yourselves. Numbers don't matter if you get the right
>people and build the network further. The numbers will eventually
>follow even if it takes longer then it did for others. I struggled
>for two straight GDCs with 30-40 people.
>I think one of the things you might need to do is figure out how to
>get more attention from some critical people who can help more and
>help you grow the network. Have any of you spent time talking to
>Jamil Moledina at all? If not I'm happy to talk to him more about
>things. GDC has grown now to the point where there may be other
>avenues like a booth on the floor in North Hall that could help you
>much more then a 5th extra session...
>Also as I relayed to Michelle briefly before your panel I'm working
>on a new setup for our Games for Health conference for May 2008 and
>I want to create an entire daylong conference within a conference
>focused on accessibility. I'm working specifically on this idea and
>will be in touch with Michelle shortly on it. It would have its own
>agenda you control, it's own marketing, price for specific entry and
>facilities. I'm working also if we can define it enough within our
>next grant proposal for it to have its own funding. Lots of
>promises but that's the trajectory I'm trying to go on because I
>believe in the work. I really think that through Games for Health
>we can attract a very big crowd for a standalone event. I see this
>as a conference that could be profitable in its own small right and
>eventually have 100+ attendees. I'm crossing my fingers I can
>organize the proper investment for it.
>So please I hope you don't see it just as legal obligation -- there
>are initially some huge concerns there as people could use legal
>hurdles to accessibility to fight serious games in gov't using it as
>a technicality when their objections are otherwise but beyond that I
>and others in the community have much deeper interests in a broad
>range of applications.
>One thing the SIG might want to do is create an industry advisory
>board of people who might help further things a bit more and provide
>advice on how to get in the doors of places you want to get into.
>There are many other things you can do and I'm happy to try and help
>provide ideas and contacts.
>You're not bumping up against failure -- you're bumping up against success.
>games_access mailing list
>games_access at igda.org
More information about the games_access