[games_access] Blizzard, WoW, and Accessibility Concerns
d. michelle hinn
hinn at uiuc.edu
Wed Feb 13 11:09:18 EST 2008
I tend to agree with Jonathan on this one -- that going the W3C route
is one that might not work well with regard to gaming. With games we
are not just dealing with access standards...we also need to ensure
that what is accessible is also "fun." We're also talking about
vastly different architecture that companies adopt -- there is no
"common language" that all games use (unlike HTML, etc). As Jonathan
said -- now we have the consumer voice that we are just starting to
get heard by industry. We don't want to lose this voice by taking a
radical shift toward moving to a consortium that might be too much of
a square peg in a round hole when it comes to talking about
entertainment applications. With regard to the film industry (yeah,
this example again) there is STILL no agreement as to what MUST be
done in movie theatres and we still have the bulk of theatres not
complying with what the US has said DOES fall under the Americans
with Disabilities act after 7 years of the decision that captioning
of sort must happen in theatres as requested.
Also...I really can't see moving toward a consortium resulting in the
fame and money in this industry -- has this come true for anyone in
the web industry? I can think of one or two people who have benefited
fame-wise but I have no idea of their net worth. A few people on my
campus are on different W3C WGs and are probably some of the lowest
earning academics at the university. Maybe that's different in parts
of Europe -- I just know it's a "don't quit your day job" thing in
the US. ;)
We're in a bit of a lucky spot at the moment where it's the STORIES
of the users that are affecting the CEO's, etc in paying attention to
us -- moving to a consortium seems like a move that is one mired in
policy and moves us away from being a group that recognizes that each
company has their own creative values. I don't know -- just some
morning thoughts about starting up a consortium.
>there's a significant cost in taking the W3C route, end-user involvement.
>Corporates have their own agendas, which if they hold in common, it
>can be very time consuming to change*.
>whereas at the moment end-users can directly input to SIG, this
>becomes increasingly difficult and unlikely as corporates and
>academics take control. at least that is my experience over the past
>decade contributing to various W3C WGs.
>It is true that Ian Jacobs has suggested that including users in the
>W3C process** has been discuss, and is under consideration by the
>management group. However no timeline has been set for
>Open Source also has this deficiency, software is produced by
>'users' but not the public.
>consumers have a small amount of control, but people with low
>literacy are likely to have little disposable income.
>A response from Bruce Perens is awaited ~:"
>Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet
>*the formal objection to WCAG2 produced some good publicity, but
>very little advance in understanding, in the main limited to a
>qualification regarding the needs of people with learning
>**A talk to CETIS "Putting the User at the Heart of the W3C Process"
>with audio and transcript:
>games_access mailing list
>games_access at igda.org
More information about the games_access