[games_access] games_access Digest, Vol 50, Issue 14

[d. michelle hinn]

I agree with read -- GA is not simply the domain 
of only serious games , only commercial 
entertainment or only rehabilitation games. No 
matter what the purpose the a game is, we see 
opportunities for greater accessibility no matter 
what the context is.

Michelle

>I'm having trouble making the connection between GA and the Serious
>Games Taxonomy. I see GA as a part of any kind of game that allows
>people to access it.
>
>-Reid
>
>On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Matthias Troup
><foreversublime at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>  Hi Samuel,
>>
>>  This may sound strange, but "accessibility" still means "fun and casual" to
>>  me (for now).  Accessibility doesn't specify any benefit different than what
>>  non-accessible games give to the average gamer (by that I partially mean
>>  that "accessibility" shouldn't have some inherent "disabled people can't
>>  have fun" attitude attached towards it).  If it were approached from a
>>  physical therapy angle then accessibility could be lumped into the
>>  medical/health area.  A lot of what I see that comes out of accessible
>>  gaming is simply better design... or perhaps better design makes things more
>>  accessible.
>>
>>  Like you I agree accessibility has its place in the Serious Games world.
>>  Perhaps it has many places - which could be beneficial because that would
>>  simply mean more contacts and a more diversified audience.  If this is the
>>  case let's not look at this as a problem but rather an opportunity.
>>
>>  -Matt
>>
>>
>>  ________________________________
>>>  Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:13:34 +0200
>>>  From: sam at frado.net
>>>  To: games_access at igda.org
>>>  Subject: Re: [games_access] games_access Digest, Vol 50, Issue 14
>>>
>>>  Samuel Franco Domínguez
>>>
>>>
>>>  Game Accesibility in Serious Games Taxonomy.
>>>
>>>
>>>  In this page,
>>>  http://www.seriousgames.org/index2.html
>>>  there is a presentation about Serious Games taxonomy
>>>  http://www.dmill.com/presentations/serious-games-taxonomy-2008.pdf
>>>
>>>  There is nothing about accesibility as a serius game activity.
>>>  I think that accesibility is serious, and it is about games.
>>>  Serious Games is not only about software
>>>  (but accesibility needs software adaptaton) Serious Games is also about
>>>  alternative controlers like haptic controlers for training skills or
>>>  exergaming.
>>>  Haptic is also usefull for sight disabled for example.
>>>  When I think about accesibility I think also about rehabilitation and
>>>  asistive tecnology. I am a rehabilitation doctor so when I can not improve
>>>  or change my patient (nature gives no everything) I try to change the
>>>  things aroud this person. Things are less important than persons.
>>>  Integration of disabled is also Games for Health, accesibility games is
>>>  asistive technology.
>>>
>>>  I have asked Serious Games Iniciative why Accesibility is out of the
>>>  taxonomy they are bulding now. What do you think about this? Do you see
>>>  the relationship between them?
>>>
>>>  When I get that a child with cerebral palsy (with motor and learningn
>>>  disability)
>>>  plays a Oneswitch game this is motor and cognitive rehabilitation, not
>>>  only entertaiment. This is Serious Game, this is Games for Health.
>>>
>>>  If you agree with me please let them know.
>>>  I think that my horrible english could not be a good defense of any idea.
>>>
>>>  Thanks
>_______________________________________________
>games_access mailing list
>games_access at igda.org
>http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access