[games_access] Universal game design

[Sandra Uhling]

Hi,

is there a nice overview for "beginner"?

* Universal Design
* Design for all
* Universal Accessible Games

I am wondering if there is a difference between:
Universal Design and Universal Accessible Games?


"Barrier free" is usually associated with PWDs.
"Design for all" does include also seniors and others.

Design for all seems to be the best.
But there is a problem. We cannot make all games accessible to all.
So we need a description that explains the meaning of this term?


Best regards,
Sandra


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: games_access-bounces at igda.org [mailto:games_access-bounces at igda.org] Im
Auftrag von Dimitris Grammenos
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Oktober 2011 17:10
An: 'IGDA Games Accessibility SIG Mailing List'
Betreff: Re: [games_access] Universal game design

> Considering that 'universal design' is a well used accessibility term, you
don't think that 'universal game design' would be appropriate terminology? 

> I'm a bit uncomfortable with the term 'universally accessible game' as
it's not really a realistic message to be sending out.

 

So maybe you should go for “Universal Design for Games” – as you mention
“universal design” is a standard term, so if you put “game” in there it
becomes ambiguous and unrecognizable.

 

Another approach we often use to denote “universal design” is adding “for
all” (i.e., design for all). Thus you could use the term “Games for all”.

 

 

D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: games_access-bounces at igda.org [mailto:games_access-bounces at igda.org]
On Behalf Of Ian Hamilton
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 5:39 PM
To: games_access at igda.org
Subject: Re: [games_access] Universal game design

 

 

Dimitris - while the paper's good it's something simpler in layman's terms
that I'm after, the initial summary page on your site is perfect but the
full academic paper is too much for casual readers to take in.. this is
going to be read by people outside of both the industry and academia.

 

Barrie - yep I agree, it's impossible to have a completely universally
accessible game without it ceasing to come under the definition of a game
(ie. can't be called a game unless it has a challenge, and any challenge
excludes some players), unless you're providing roughly equivalent
experiences but with different mechanics and different challenges, in which
case really it's multiple games anyway. 

 

But if you design using Dimitris' basic principles (open up as many of the
game mechanics as possible, in order to provide a palette of gameplay
elements for people to configure an experience that works best for them)
then you'll end up with something of wider use than only trying to cater for
(or especially retrofit) adaptations for specific types of disability. It is
relatively easy to do as well because the variables already exist, it's just
a question of exposing them. Ie. somewhere in the code you'll have set what
the controls are, what speed enemies move at, what colour the map markers
are, what level the AI is at and so on, so associate a few sliders and
buttons with them to let people choose what's best for their own unique
combination of needs. The only question really is how much you can expose
before it gets unwieldy.

 

That was the idea with our latest games and it has worked really nicely,
hence being asked for links to explain the principle.

 

Tim/Dimitris - bugger, so it's actually 'universally accessible game design'
that I should be talking about, not 'universal game design'. As far as I'm
aware there isn't any consistent definition of universal game design though,
I've even seen it used to refer to coming up with a single all encompassing
game mechanic that includes all genres. Considering that 'universal design'
is a well used accessibility term, you don't think that 'universal game
design' would be appropriate terminology? I'm a bit uncomfortable with the
term 'universally accessible game' as it's not really a realistic message to
be sending out.