[games_access] same proposal in multiple tracks

[d. michelle hinn]

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