[games_access] same proposal in multiple tracks
d. michelle hinn
hinn at uiuc.edu
Mon Oct 1 00:32:07 EDT 2007
So I think it's a great proposal but you wanted
more feedback so here it is! :) And it's actually
something for everyone to read because it
concerns all of us!
My main thoughts after looking this over more
closely is that I worry that we might cancel each
other out. So because of the panel, Design might
wonder if they should take a longer version of
one game or a short version of several games. The
second half of your title also mirrors a lot of
our game accessibility overview proposals. I know
that they aren't the same but again...we could
end up hurting one another if not smartly worded
to be as unique as possible. Maybe we need to
move the "why" about accessibility closer to the
end of some of the proposals to emphasize that
"this talk is about how one programs an xyz game"
and "this talk is about how much money you can
make with accessible ABC"
Also, I'm getting a little worried about how many
times we say "why the industry should care"
throughout all the Game Accessibility proposals.
We need to make sure that we don't read as if we
are stacking the deck by accident. So right now
we have about 6 proposals to the design track
that have similar intros about "game
accessibility is important because..." and they
might unfairly see just that and not see the
important differences between them all.
I'm just wondering if, on our 5th year of GDC
proposals, we might have said the same thing too
many time and they might say "well we'll just
take one because they aren't any different from
each other." So we should take some time tomorrow
(I'll get the rest of the proposals up over the
course of the night) to make sure we don't have
too much language that reads exactly the same
way. Perhaps the biggest concern is in the
session overview and concise presentation
presentation sections. This is what gets printed
on the website and in the promo materials. If we
all spend 2/3 of every one of these sections
saying that accessibility is important...people
might say "oh well I went to that one
accessibility talk -- they all sound the same."
So these two sections along with the title are
THE most important parts as far as getting butts
into the seats of our talks.
Michelle
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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