[games_access] same proposal in multiple tracks

Eitan Glinert glinert at MIT.EDU
Mon Oct 1 00:05:18 EDT 2007 

Ok Eelke, I'll take you up on your offer. What do you think of the 
AudiOdyssey proposal? Any feedback?
Thanks,
Eitan
---------------

Title:
AudiOdyssey Postmortem - How (and why!) to Make Accessible Games for Everyone



Track, Format, Theme, Audience Level:
Game Design - 1st, Vision - 2nd
60 Minute Lecture
Technical
Open to all experience levels



Session Overview (50 words):
AudiOdyssey is a downloadable prototype game designed to be usable by both 
sighted and non-sighted audiences. This session covers why industry should 
care about disabled gamers, how to make accessible games that are playable 
by everyone, and looks at what went right and wrong in AudiOdyssey's 
development.



Concise Presentation Description (100 words):
Despite the growing number and demographics of video game players, most 
games are still completely inaccessible to disabled populations. 
AudiOdyssey is a prototype video game designed to be usable by both sighted 
and non-sighted audiences. This session looks at what went right and what 
went wrong in AudiOdyssey's development, why industry should care about 
disabled gamers, and covers how to make games that are accessible yet still 
playable by mainstream audience. The talk includes a live demo of the game.



Intended Audience and Prereqs (40 words):
This talk is focused on design and intended for game designers, producers, 
students and academics. No experience is required.



Session Takeaway (40 words):
- It is possible to make games that are both accessible and still enjoyable 
to mainstream gamers
- There are a large number of disabled people who want accessible games, 
therefore making such games is potentially very profitable



Extended abstract (500 words):

Until very recently gaming has been dominated by young men, with other 
groups comprising a relatively small portion of the market. Over the past 
few years, though, there has been an industry wide push to bring 
traditionally non-gaming demographics into the fold, with concerted 
commercial efforts to make and market games for women, the elderly, and the 
very young. However, one group, the disabled, has consistently been left 
out of such growth, and today there are few accessible games. This is 
curious, as a huge percentage of people suffer from disabilities - 
according to the 2000 US Census, 18.6% of citizens aged 16 to 64 suffer 
from some form of disability.

This is bizarre – how can the industry ignore such a large potential market 
share? Many game developers rationalize this trend by arguing that 
accessible games tend to perform poorly in mainstream audiences, as the 
games are generally inferior to non-accessible productions. The MIT GAMBIT 
games lab doesn’t buy that reasoning. Believing there is a huge demand for 
accessible games, the lab created AudiOdyssey, a prototype game that is 
accessible to BOTH the visually impaired and the sighted mainstream.

AudiOdyssey's development had four research goals, namely:

- Implementing a game design that allows visually impaired and sighted 
users to play the game in the same way, with the same level of challenge, 
and share a common gaming experience.
- Designing online multiplayer that allows for identity masking, at least 
in the sense that users in remote locations should not be aware of the 
visual status of their gaming counterpart.
- Designing alternative control schemes for improved accessibility to the 
visually impaired.
- Creating a fun, engaging game that relies on audio more than visuals to 
simulate an exciting experience.

Given by AudiOdyssey’s project lead, the GDC presentation will be a lively 
discussion covering motivation for why similar games should be created, how 
the research goals for the project were picked, and the experimental game 
development process. The post mortem will review which parts of the process 
worked, which didn't, and why they didn't. Pitfalls in accessible game 
development will be explored thoroughly. The talk will also cover formal 
testing results (taking place in early October), and conclude with a live 
demo of the game and a Q + A session.




Presentation Materials (400 CHARS):
QuickTime, Powerpoint & Projector
Live Demonstration of AudiOdyssey (we will provide laptop and wiimote, we 
only need AV cables)



Past Speaking Engagements (800 CHARS):
"Immune Attack: Teaching Biology in a Video Game", at Games for Health, May 
9th, 2006
"Immune Attack: Teaching Biology in a Video Game", at Games for Health, 
Sept. 29th, 2006
Contact for Games for Health Talks:
Ben Sawyer, bsawyer at dmill.com, Co-Founder of Digital Mill, organizer for 
Serious Games Summits

"Immune Attack: An Educational Video Game", at the National Science 
Foundation, May 31st, 2006
No Contact Info Available

Accepted Talks:
"AudiOdyssey: An Accessible Game for Both Sighted and Non-Sighted Gamers", 
at FuturePlay, Nov 2007
Contact: Dr. Bill Kapralos and Jim Parker, Bill.Kapralos at uoit.ca and 
jparker at ucalgary.ca

Recent CNN article on AudiOdyssey and GAMBIT: 
http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/09/02/video.blind/



At 11:55 PM 9/30/2007, Eelke Folmer wrote:
>Hey Michelle,
>
>Thanks for your elaborate feedback.
>I was just curious what would be the best approach for GDC.
>
>If anyone wants me to go over their proposal let me know.
>
>cheers Eelke
>
>
>On 9/30/07, d. michelle hinn <hinn at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > Just a side -- I'm trying to share as much as I know about the GDC
> > process after having done the proposals for 05, 06, and 07. It's nice
> > to have more people working round the clock with me at the deadline
> > -- I really, really appreciate it and it's so great to have the
> > feeling that we're all one team working together for the same goal.
> > The hardest thing for me has been that it takes a lot of time to
> > advise all while I'm trying to do the other write ups. But that's how
> > we learn as a group!
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> > >Ok, there's a history behind the two audio tracks. The advisory
> > >board for this is the same as it was for Austin and they invited us.
> > >What we found was enormous support from the audio people for the
> > >auditory part. So I'm adding a note at the top of the expanded
> > >abstract to explain why these are split and if they prefer, the two
> > >talks can be put together as they were in Austin.
> > >
> > >Note: Notes are ok in your expanded outline if you are explaining
> > >something weird. Yeah, I know this sounds risky but I don't think
> > >that these two are. Remember -- it's an advisory board selection
> > >rather than a formal review. The rules for this are not the same as
> > >an academic conference. And if you are ax-ed by one track...that's
> > >where it ends. They have too many submissions to bother suggesting
> > >another track, which is why they get pretty specific about what they
> > >are looking for. That's been my experience.
> > >
> > >As for the other two, these are trickier and I know what you are
> > >saying. That's why they need to be as unique as possible. Reid is
> > >proposing a technical talk for programming. The one you and he are
> > >working on is a business track proposal (keep in mind that they will
> > >want to grill you about numbers). But they aren't the same proposals.
> > >
> > >The double audio tracks are also not the same proposals as yours and
> > >Reids -- these are design and "show off" sessions, appealing more to
> > >designers. And they are aimed at some the biggest supporters of GA
> > >-- the Audio People and they are audio design sessions. Believe me
> > >(and Richard would agree) the the Audio talk is WAY different than
> > >your proposals. We've given it already. :) And I think our reviews
> > >from that session suggest that we should do this again at GDC San
> > >Fran (Big GDC) to an audience of even more audio designers.
> > >
> > >So there's no trickery the way I see it by what has happened with
> > >these proposals. I think that they do belong in multiple tracks and
> > >that they AREN'T merely repeats of the same talk. And they shouldn't
> > >be when planning for them if accepted. If in the end the proposals
> > >look exactly the same, then we've done something wrong. Yes, my
> > >experience is that we will probably get about 2-4 of these accepted
> > >(out of 11) so we do need lots of proposals. But I don't think we
> > >are unfairly stacking the deck here.
> > >
> > >Michelle
> > >
> > >>hi,
> > >>
> > >>I'm seeing the same proposal in multiple tracks:
> > >>
> > >>-When Audio IS the game experience: Gamers with Visual Disabilities
> > >>(Richard/Michelle)
> > >>-When Audio IS the game experience: Gamers with Auditory Disabilities
> > >>(Reid/Michelle)
> > >>
> > >>- Selling more games by adding CC (Reid/ Eelke)
> > >>- Creating Dynamic Closed Captioning Systems (Reid)
> > >>
> > >>Its good to be pervasive to increase our chances of acceptance but it
> > >>might also bite us in the back. In my fields of research it is
> > >>generally not a good idea to submit the same proposal to multiple
> > >>tracks. Generally reviewers will review a proposal and if they deem it
> > >>to be suitable for another track they will usually suggest that.
> > >>Submitting the same proposal to multiple tracks is usually considered
> > >>spamming. Michelle do you know for GDC whether proposals are reviewed
> > >>on an individual basis or do they look at who is submitting what to
> > >>which track? I do want us to get as much proposals accepted as
> > >>possible but I suggest we play by the rules.
> > >>
> > >>Cheers Eelke
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> > >>Eelke Folmer                           Assistant Professor
> > >>Department of CS&E/171
> > >>University of Nevada              Reno, Nevada 89557
> > >>Game interaction design        www.helpyouplay.com
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > games_access mailing list
> > games_access at igda.org
> > http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access
> >
>
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eelke Folmer                           Assistant Professor
>Department of CS&E/171
>University of Nevada              Reno, Nevada 89557
>Game interaction design        www.helpyouplay.com
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>_______________________________________________
>games_access mailing list
>games_access at igda.org
>http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access

More information about the games_access mailing list