Hi, *quote* What I'd really like, is a clearer definition of 'accessibility,' which I know is being done. I mean, must the game then be accessible to other disabilities, like deaf players, or players with other dissabilities? *quote end*
Yes, 'accessibility' includes other disabilities as well. *quote* ... what I wonder is whether their would actually be a blind person who'd actually sue just because he/she can't play a game. *quote end* Yes, sueing is not easy, at least not in Holland (where I live). Although it is not very likely just one person will start a lawsuit, I can imagine it is much easier when a person together with the backing of an organisation such as the RNIB or a group of blind gamers will start a lawsuit. *quote* I think some sighted people might get the feeling that, because a game has to be made accessible for the blind, they'd somehow think that their standard of game play would be lowered, i.e, blind people can't play difficult or challenging games, or that some of the challenge of the game has been taken away because it had to be modified for blind people. *quote end* There are several approaches to design "a game for the blind", for instance designing original audio games, making an accessible version of a mainstream game or designing a mainstream game with accessibility features that can be turned on and off (also see: http://www.game-accessibility.com/index.php?pagefile=visual). Of course, there are other possibilities as well. The 'equality in accessible games' is actually a problem the field of game accessibility has long been facing. This also has to do with what one considers to be the definition of the term "game accessibility". Does it mean that everyone should be able to control every part of the game (even though the experience might be very different then), or that the experience is equal among players with different abilities (even though the players aren't really playing the exact same game anymore), or both, or... ? For a long time I was of the opinion that, when taking *every* disability into account, it was probably better to make specific games for specific gamers with disabilities. Because the spectrum of disabilities is incredibly huge and varied, I was of the opinion it was impossible to make a single game for this whole group. Think for instance of a game like chess. UA Chess (http://www.ics.forth.gr/hci/ua-games/ua-chess/) was designed so that it is accessible for people with a motoric, hearing and visual disability. But still, this game cannot be played by people with severe learning disabilities, simply because the game mechanics are too difficult for someone who has the mental abilities of a 3 year old. However, the more I got into the subject and after talking with other people about their ideas (including the developers of UA Chess), I too have become more convinced that it might be possible to make games that are accessible for everyone. Although chess cannot be played by someone with a severe learning disability, it is equally unlikely that a person with a severe learning disability will ever want to play chess. I'm currently doing a project for blind people who also have severe learning disabilities so I ground this on my own experiences. Likewise, a person interested in playing chess, probably has the mental capabilities to play chess. Maybe on a very low level, maybe just with 8 pawns and a queen and no other pieces, maybe ?, but still. UA Chess and UA Invaders have been developed with the thought of Universal Accessibility in mind, meaning "access for all" in short. The game is made accessible using parameter, which basically define what type of game is played. So UA Invaders is not only accessible for people with a visual disability using the "blind parameter"- settings, but also for a person with a physical disability using the "one switch parameter"-settings. What is very interesting about this approach, is that it is possible to customize a game for each person individually. So if a person is blind and also can only move one arm, he can still play the game, using both the "blind parameter and one switch parameter"-settings. This way every player has his or her own "game universe". The engine, narrative, character design, etc. of the game remains the same for all players, whereas the actual interface and behaviour of the game is individually tuned. An concept built upon this idea is the concept of "parallel game universes" - meaning that when two players with different abilities play together, the game universes merge together. Although two people can experience each others universe at the same time they experience theirs, they can only perform in their own universe. So: does this mean people play the exact same game? No. Is the experience the same? No. But: do people play equally based upon their abilities? Maybe - if the complete game and its parameters are designed well? And do the players have an equal experience? Maybe... do mainstream gamers all have an equal experience? So is this the ultimate solution? I don't know because this idea was only presented several weeks ago and I'd like to see some test results. However, I do think this idea has great potential, and it is also in line with the field of game accessibility and how most of us at the GA-SIG / GA.com approach the subject: no so much focusing on making every game accessible for everyone, but on making every game *more* accessible for *more* - using features such as closed captions, auto-target options, slow options, etc. *quote* I'm walking with a friend, and this student comes up and starts asking my friend, 'What's he studying?' or even worse, 'How is he today? (...) and accessible games might come right round again to the question about how do sighted people view us? *quote end* On the sighted vs. the blind issue: I am not visually impaired myself but at the foundation where I work we do get a lot of children who can't go to regular schools because of bullies or have to much trouble with the general prejudice-issues that exist in the world, not just vs. "the blind" but more against "the out-of-the-ordinary". The examples you mentioned are unfortunately spot-on. I wouldn't want to turn the subject of game accessibility into an issue of blind vs. sighted. Of course we're dealing with a visually orientated video game industry, but in the same way that you will always meet people who do not (yet) know how behave themselves with a person with a disability, you will also meet many people who do. In that, the game industry is no different. I'd like to quote Reid Kimball, who works for LucasArts as a designer and developed a MOD for Doom 3 with closed captions: *quote* You should have seen the disgusting remarks people made when the idea of close captioning Doom3 was posted on a forum: 1) "I don't know why we dont just shoot these people... put them out of their misery because they are obviously miserable. If it's not that hard, you do it ya twit!" 2) "Because it's not cost efficient? Would you like some cheese with that whine?" 3) "This is one of the stupidest posts ever. FPS games are not made for hearing impaired people. Why? Because subtitles like: "imp is hissing behind you", "fireball sound comming from 3:00 O'Clock", "bullet sound wizzes by your left ear". That would just be dumb. Here's the bottom line. FPS's ARE NOT FOR DEAF PEOPLE. case closed. How can any deaf person effectively play any FPS?? Grow up and stop being a stupid ass baby. " It goes on and on with more of this crap, all from 13 yr olds probably. but hey, Games[CC] sure showed them right? *quote end* Bottom line: everyone has to deal with these kinds of remarks, disability or not. It's certainly not stopping me... Greets, Richard http://www.audiogames.net _______________________________________________ Gamers mailing list .. [email protected] To unsubscribe send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can visit http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org to make any subscription changes via the web.
