Search Unity

  1. Good news ✨ We have more Unite Now videos available for you to watch on-demand! Come check them out and ask our experts any questions!
    Dismiss Notice

FCC / CVAA discussion

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by N1warhead, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    Yes, that is too much to ask. When laws were introduced fit the accessibility of buildings did the government then build employees of accessible buildings for people to copy?

    You will indeed see examples of compliance, but from game developers, not government. For all the talk of indie burden what you're going to see is some AAAs who have no ability to argue unreasonable expense because of the size of their wallet jumping the gun and producing fully compliant systems ahead of when they're required to, going for 100% even in games that were already far through development when Jan 1st hit.

    Those examples can then be learned from and copied. Those companies are essentially shouldering the R&D cost for the rest of the industry.
     
  2. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    Luckily there's a handy article that explains it all for you.

    http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IanHamilton/20190123/334910/Demystifying_CVAA.php

    "Products that have a substantial update after the compliance data become liable. What does “substantial update” mean?

    Substantial means any update that provides a natural opportunity to work on CVAA requirements, which "may include, for example, the redesign of a product model or service, new versions of software, upgrades to existing features or functionalities, significant rebundling or unbundling of product and service packages, or any other significant modification that may require redesign."

    If you’re pushing out a substantial update you need to redo your achievability analysis - "new versions of software or services or new models of equipment must be made accessible unless not achievable and that this burden is not discharged merely by having shown that accessibility is not achievable for a previous version or model."
     
  3. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    The penalties are actually relatively small, the penalty for for small businesses for GDPR breaches (affects anyone storing or processing any personal data of EU citizens, so affects way more indies than CVAA) is €20m ($23m) That cap is removed for larger companies linked only by a percentage of their turnover.
     
  4. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    Christ, I see why I had you on ignore. You might want to stop posting in the thread though as your posts aren't helpful for others to read.
     
    trappist-1 likes this.
  5. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    535
    $1m is an extreme amount. Where do you live?

    Another useless off-topic remark. Please try to be a little more productive.
     
  6. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    Ignoring the rest of the troll post; nobody is being sued. End of.
     
  7. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,244
    And who decides when this is the case?
    Say I put a new playable character into the game. is that a natural opportunity to work on CVAA requirements?
    This part is just a definition of an update.
    What does "significant" mean in this context? Or rather, who decides what "significant" mean in this context?


    Clarity isn't increasing. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
    angrypenguin likes this.
  8. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    6,837
    There seems to be a general impression in this thread that other laws in general are super clear and super defined. That is not the case.
    My statement doesn't really need much context though to be understood, so he was just confirming it was correct.
     
  9. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    535
    A law just enacted this month after a Government furlough. You have no data yet
     
  10. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    535
    what? if it was a new or old game, that was the context I was referring to.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  11. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    About it being necessarily difficult. Took the developer of MUDrammer 1 day, Solara 10 days, Eagle Island an afternoon, Skullgirls a day, crafting Kingdom 4 days (and CK went way beyond the basics).

    Outside of text to speech, some environment based games already have accessible gameplay anyway. There are tournament level mortal Kombat and Street fighter players who can't see at all. People who can't see at all playing Halo, Gears of War, COD, GTA Vice, Forza, Titanfall. Playing to various degrees, though some small tweaks in some of the less accessibke ones would make a big difference to how playable they were.

    However the menus in all of those games are not accessible. People currently have to rely on a blind gamer learning the menu structures by trial and error, writing them all down, then publishing online for others to refer to. That's some grade-A garbage, and that is what UI accessibility can solve.
     
  12. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    There is a clear standard, called WCAG2.0. Adopted for many years all over the world, in many countries' legislation, including the USA for any website or software in federal use.

    DOJ need to get around to officially stating that's the deal for non-federal too.

    But web devs should be following WCAG2.0 anyway. Do that and your chances of someone bringing an ADA lawsuit are zero, in 100% of cases the issues that lawsuits are brought over are covered by WCAG2.0.

    Take the current ADA lawsuit against Beyonce's site, which is brought specifically over lack of text alternatives for images and lack of keyboard access. Then look over at WCAG -

    1.1.1 - provide text alternatives for non text content
    2.2 - make all functionality available from a keyboard


    1.1.1. consists of adding an alt attribute. 2.2 consists of simply managing to not F*** it up, as websites work with a keyboard by default.

    I do not like rent seeking lawsuits at all. However having also working in web for 17 years I have literally zero sympathy for any web developer who is subject to one; website accessibility is not like games, web accessibility is easy, with rock solid standards in place since 2008 that are equally applicable to every website. If you are building a website aren't working to WCAG2.0 AA you aren't doing your job, is that simple.
     
  13. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    Something I think I need to say again in reference to this:

    No developer will ever have a lawsuit brought against them over CVAA. No developer will be subject to claims for damages from consumers. There is no mechanism for those things to happen. Enforcement is exclusively through the FCC.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
    AcidArrow likes this.
  14. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    5,259
    Not a reasonable comparison at all. But in any case I didn't really expect the FCC to start dabbling with Unity (though that might help them see eye to eye with developers). I really think though that at the moment, even if someone would fund such a project, there would be no real way of measuring it to for compliance with the law - which is kind of my point.

    I doubt that AAA examples would really help an indie. They tend to fall off one side of the horse or the other depending on what is the current source of outrage, and since everything is a question of publicity and marketing they are unlikely to represent the middle line.
     
    trappist-1 likes this.
  15. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    You're of course welcome to think whatever you want
     
    trappist-1 likes this.
  16. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    In what way does putting a new character in provide a natural opportunity to rework how your UI parts with text to speech?

    Determination is you making the analysis and FCC making the call on it. TBH I don't care whether you like that or have an opinion on it, I'm just here to explain how it works.

    For clarity please read the article I linked to, in particular read the bits about something called achievability analysis.
     
  17. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    I appreciate your posts here. I agree that there is a fair bit of misunderstanding about how things work.
     
    AcidArrow likes this.
  18. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    This gave me a giggle, at the idea that somehow laws would be written based on the personal opinion of myself and people in a Unity thread, and that the idea of lawmakers writing laws is some scandalous act of taking matters into their own hands.

    As is the case with laws in general the relevant regulatory body (FCC) wrote the text of the legislation, under instruction from congress, through dialogue with industry and disability advocacy groups.

    If you're that interested in the history of the discussion over small businesses it's all publicly available on the FCC website. Look for the full report and order document, it's 302 pages of legalese but it's all in there.

    I disabled the comments. I disabled them because it was a cesspit of abuse. The comment that was the last straw was this one:

    "Are you retarded? Kill yourself. If you're so disabled that you can't manage to kill yourself don't worry, I'll help you"

    So no, it had nothing to do with stifling dissent. There's a lesson in there about making presumptions.
     
  19. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    This is not ADA, this is CVAA. CVAA does not relate to 'public services', it relates to 'advanced communication services', defined as electronic text messaging, voice over IP, communication between VoIP add traditional phone networks, and video conferencing.

    If your game includes any of those things you need to be thinking about CVAA. Opinions on whether those things should be covered are not relevant or helpful, they do not change the fact that they are covered.
     
  20. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    535
    Yell much?

    Now about those $1,000,000.00 fines?? Are they for damages, or just the FCC's pocket?
     
  21. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,244
    You tell me. I don't think it's natural to extort people to make sure some special needs can be catered to but here we are.
    It's entirely dependent on how a govt agency feels that day. Noted.
    I wonder where this defensiveness is coming from.
    You've made that part clear. Multiple times.
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  22. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    Of course, because government agencies famously have no kind of rigorous processes in place and are famous for just acting on how they feel on that day *eyeroll emoji sadly missing*

    Attitudes like that are precisely why laws are created. So if you don't like said laws, blame yourself.

    Voluntarily ensure people's globally agreed rights aren't trampled and there's no need for them to be enforced.

    Source for "globally agreed":

    UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities 2008, since signed up to by nearly every country in the world, which among other things established access to communications tech as a fundamental right of people with disabilities. Though USA were there earlier, enshrining it as a right of US citizens in 1990.

    Countries becoming UNCRPD signatories and ratifying means they've made a commitment to enact local laws to protect those rights, hence why the same comms requirements that are in CVAA (plus more, covering ecommerce / microtransactions) are coming soon in the European Accessibility Act, which will affect all games sold in the European market, though with a small companies exemption. If you want a heads up on which direction legislation around the world will head in, read up on UNCRPD.

    No defensiveness on my part. I did not write CVAA, I have nothing to be defensive over. What there is however is frustration that of all of the many many avenues of discussion this post on this forum is the single one that is dragging on and on, and although some of the discussion is productive and helpful a good chunk of it really is not. Stating that people's opinions have no bearing on how compliance works is not defensiveness, it's fact.

    I am not a member of this community, I am not part of or representing the FCC, I am not representing anyone. I am not paid to be here, I am voluntarily giving up my time, time that should be spent on paid client work instead. I'm literally paying money in lost earnings to be here. I am giving that up to help. To share some of my knowledge and experience to save other people some of work that I've had to put in to acquiring it over the years. That is the single reason why I am here.

    Though sometimes I really do wonder why I bother.

    Stop wasting both of our time by asking then?
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  23. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    535
    my sentiments exactly!

    You are not addressing the core concerns and have been dancing around them the entire time.

    What constitutes as un-reasonable in regards to compliance for small indis and studios - where they would qualify as exempt?

    Who collects the $1,000,000.00 fines? If FCC does, looks just like an extortion scam.

    How will FCC handle game mechanics overlap?

    If there are external solutions, why does the FCC not honor/consider that path? They still requires game devs to deploy completely custom implementation in each engine's runtime.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
    Ne0mega likes this.
  24. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    I really wish there was a block function rather than just ignore, ignore puts a "show ignored content" link on the page that I keep clicking on then immediately regretting. @trappist-1 there's a reason why I put you on ignore. If you're planning on working on multiplayer games go read the 302 page report and order, if you aren't planning on working on multplayer games please just stop.
     
  25. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,244
    Two words: Net neutrality.
    Attitudes like "Don't tell me what to put in my games."? Blame myself for.. what exactly? It's my fault that some people are blind, deaf, mute, poor, vertically impaired? I don't follow.
    Yes, I can tell a disabled's inability to call their doctor through in-game chat is huge issue.
    I didn't ask. You just posted it and tell me to read as if to prove that you're speaking the truth. Its not any clearer in the "demystifying" article. reasonable this, reasonable that, etc.
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  26. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    6,837
    He keeps saying it, but also I'd like to remind everyone that Ian did not write the CVAA and does not represent the FCC, henceforth, there is no need for the accusatory tone I see many of you have.

    We all agree that ideally tiny indies should be exempt.

    But we are not, that is done now and I don't think it can be undone.

    (or, if it can, this thread is not the place that can do that)

    So I think this thread would be better suited to more solid questions about how to actually implement these things, instead of exaggerated hypotheticals and drama that doesn't really help anyone.
     
    ianhamilton_ and Ostwind like this.
  27. trappist-1

    trappist-1

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Posts:
    535
    It's a general discussion and should be kept general. Including implementation strategies, legal aspects and any concerns the community may have.
     
    Ne0mega and FMark92 like this.
  28. FMark92

    FMark92

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Posts:
    1,244
    IDGAF how involved he was with the creation of this thing. He's defending it, that's for sure.
     
    Ne0mega and trappist-1 like this.
  29. BilboBaggin

    BilboBaggin

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Posts:
    4
    It seems to me that this is already overkill. I would not want my problems to be so bulging. Moreover, why do ordinary people have to endure some kind of hardship? Let it be possible to include it additionally and it will be all honest.
     
  30. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    :):):)
     
  31. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    No, you have no idea whether I think CVAA is a good or a bad thing and why or why not. I'm defending truth Vs misconception, that's all. Misconception hurts developers and hurts gamers, nobody gains from it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  32. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    It is not optional, it is required by law. Wishing otherwise is not helpful.

    It has always been optional to make communications functionality accessible to people with disabilities. But communications providers did not do so, resulting in people with disabilities being routinely excluded. Therefore legislation was introduced.

    That's literally the point of laws, they are put in place to force people do things that they are not already voluntarily choosing to do.
     
  33. rasto61

    rasto61

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    328

    I wanted to stay away from this thread, but you often seem to make claims very authoritatively making them look like facts when they often do not make sense.
    If you say a developer will not have a law suit brough against them over CVAA, then what is the point of CVAA?
    Through what methods does the FCC make a developer comply? What if the developer ignores mediation? What if the developer then ignores a fine? What mechanism does the FCC have to collect the fine?
     
    Ne0mega and trappist-1 like this.
  34. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    The point of CVAA is to ensure communications technology is as accessible as reasonably possible.

    If the developer ignores mediation they can be fined. Fines are issued by the FCC, in the form of a forfeiture order. If you fail to pay, it is passed over the DOJ for collection of your outstanding debt. Ending up in court over failure to pay debts is not the same thing as being issued a lawsuit for breaching CVAA.



    Other legislation works very differently to CVAA. The ADA for example does not have a regulatory body or a mediation process. ADA is enforced through lawsuits, by a consumer or group issuing an individual or class action lawsuit against the offending company usually together with a demand for compensation for having their rights infringed. This is precisely the issue being discussed in the thread, the idea of rent-seeking lawyers and clients filing frivolous lawsuits.

    However they cannot file CVAA lawsuits, CVAA lawsuits do not exist. The only two options available to someone enountering a CVAA issue are 1. contact the company directly or 2. file a request for dispute assistance.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  35. rasto61

    rasto61

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Yes I believe the FCC has to go through the DOJ. And if a developer chooses to ignore the fine because in their opinion they were fined unjustly they would very well end up in court. If you end up in court over failure to pay a debt that was a direct impact of the CVAA, there is not much difference from the developer's perspective. So in my opinion saying 'No developer will ever have a lawsuit brought against them over CVAA' can be quite misleading.

    At least there's that. So it isn't possible for people to extort money from developers directly.
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  36. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    You're of course welcome to your opinion. But yes, that's correct, unlike with ADA it is not possible for unscrupulous legal firms to hit developers with serial rentseeking lawsuits.
     
  37. rasto61

    rasto61

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Thanks. I most certainly am.


    So you do not think it's misleading to say 'No developer will ever have a lawsuit brought against them over CVAA' when in fact it's possible to end up in court as a result of CVAA?
     
    Ne0mega and trappist-1 like this.
  38. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,727
    @trappist-1 personal attacks joking or otherwise will not be tolerated, therefore you lost the right to post in this thread.

    This goes for everyone. You can mock the subject or make light of things, but you can't do personal attacks on this forum. So if people wish to argue their points, they have to figure out how to do so without a personal attack.

    @ianhamilton_ You have also veered close to being impolite, but that's understandable given the heated opinons being exchanged.

    All have to somehow attack the data rather than the speaker, thanks all.

    (please don't reply to this mod note)
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
    Ryiah and Ostwind like this.
  39. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    Not at all, because CVAA lawsuits don't exist.

    The concern voiced repeatedly here and elsewhere is that consumers and competitors will file malicious or frivilous lawsuits against them that they cannot afford to fight; I think this is not an unreasonable thing to assume if your knowledge of accessibility legislation extends as far as things you've heard about ADA.

    But it is not a concept that exists with CVAA, so that fact needs to be shouted very loudly, alongside "this only applies to comms funtionality and UI/info needed to navigate to/identify/operate it". Devs have enough to stress about in their lives without stressing over things that don't exist!
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  40. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    I have no idea what they said, but thank you.
     
  41. rasto61

    rasto61

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Well CVAA lawsuits don't exist because CVAA is in effect for games since the beginning of the year.

    I understand the process through which non compliant games are to be reported.
    But you have not explained what, for example, is stopping a major studio from getting people to file complaints with the FCC if they find a title is getting popular but is lacking some accessibility features to burden them with having to deal with the FCC. What if the developers of said title feel they did everything they 'Reasonably' could, but the FCC rules otherwise and the developers can't in their view Reasonably do anything else?
    Do you not see the great potential for abuse?
    (Especially since we have established that 'Reasonable' is not defined anywhere, and the requirements for what it means to be compliant for a specific title are decided on a case by case basis)
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
    Ne0mega likes this.
  42. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    No, CVAA lawsuits do not exist because the enforcement mechanism is to make a request for dispute assistance, not to issue a lawsuit. CVAA is not games industry specific legislation, compliance deadline for most industries was 2012 and in the past 7 years there have been none, because such a thing does not exist.

    1. Because companies do not behave like this, in the past 7 years of CVAA requests for dispute assistance across all those other industries this has not happened
    2. Because of the FCC mediation process, the FCC are a firewall against frivolous action
    3. Because complaints cannot be filed, request for dispute assistance is the first step
    4. Because a request for dispute assistance being filed against a company who are not compliant is not abuse, regardless of motivations.

    It's up to the consumer. If the consumer is willing to put and end to the mediation, that's the end of it. Or they can escalate it to a complaint. A complaint involves a full FCC investigation. If the company disputes the outcome of the investigation, they then have a right of appeal (directly with the FCC, not courts). I don't know too much about the appeals process, presumably the same applies as with the court, where an appeal must be based on new information, not just disagreeing. But no request for dispute assistance has ever progressed beyond mediation to a complaint, let alone gone to appeal.

    No

    Half correct. The criteria that make up "reasonable" are indeed defined, It's a balance of four criteria, the last two are less relevant to games:

    ACHIEVABLE DEFINED.—For purposes of this section and section 718, the term ‘achievable’ means with reasonable effort or expense, as determined by the Commission. In determining whether the requirements of a provision are achievable, the Commission shall consider the following factors: (1) The nature and cost of the steps needed to meet the requirements of this section with respect to the specific equipment or service in question. ‘‘(2) The technical and economic impact on the operation of the manufacturer or provider and on the operation of the specific equipment or service in question, including on the development and deployment of new communications technologies. ‘‘(3) The type of operations of the manufacturer or provider. ‘‘(4) The extent to which the service provider or manufacturer in question offers accessible services or equipment containing varying degrees of functionality and features, and offered at differing price points.

    What constitutes complaint is defined by fixed performance objectives (e.g. must have a mode that works for people who can't see colour). The exact featureset used to address each performance objective may vary from game to game.
     
  43. rasto61

    rasto61

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Yes, they indeed do not. And that is why patent trolls do not exist. And that is also why companies that behave immorally do not exist.

    It also shows shows that you do not understand the nature and the scale of the gaming industry. (There are what 100-1000? companies and or services that were covered by CVAA before 2019. I absolutely do not have the numbers but there are probably that many multiplayer games coming out every day across the major platforms. And most of these are by small time developers who would be unproportionally burdened by having to deal with the FCC if a request for dispute assistance or later a complaint was raised. This provides higher motivation for larger companies to squeeze out competition where neccessary)

    Well the malicious party would follow through with the steps up to a complaint

    But because of the shifting requirements based on how the communication actually works in the game, compliance can take different forms. So a request for dispute assistance can be brought up against a game that is technically compliant given its implementation but not in terms of say another implementation.

    That is precisely what I am talking about. Though I am not talking about a typical consumer. What is stopping a 'Consumer' that is financially motivated by another company to not accept the process of the mediation and escalate this to a complaint?

    I for sure would like to live in your world.

    Ok, the term 'Reasonably' is defined. But it's definition allows for a different interpretation by the developer and by the FCC.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
    Ne0mega and trappist-1 like this.
  44. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    The FCC. The clue is in the name - mediation. It involves three parties. The FCC make the call on what's reasonable.

    Nope.

    Gamer since 1986, messing around with coding since 1988 & modding since 1990, had my first indie game earnings through in 2002. Have since worked on everything from niche developmental games for preschool kids with profound and multiple learning disabilities through to biggest AAAs. I am immensely unappreciative of your words. You're on ignore now.
     
  45. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,801
    There seems to be a misunderstanding here? I said the complexity blows out in the case of games with virtual environments. One of your examples is a text-based MUD. Perhaps this was an assumption on my behalf about what we mean by virtual environments? I mean 3D (or possibly 2D) worlds which the player can move around in and interact with stuff, directly or indirectly.

    Imagine the games in your list, and add Hearthstone, Jalopy, Skyrim, Planetary Annahilation, Broken Sword 3, Yooka-Laylee, Orwell, Republique, all whole-game accessible, including the virtual environments where present. The point isn't that they're necessarily difficult individually, but that they're all different. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, and why my example was...
    The answer to that question is likely to vary between games, so it's going to need some designer attention. In some cases it could tie into existing systems (eg: have a description attached to LOD levels for a 3D model? Could work), in other cases it might not, depending on how the game is implemented. (Edit: And no, we don't (usually) do different implementations of things that appear similar because we're stupid and like to waste resources.)

    Another somewhat more abstract example would be "how do we handle implicit state changes?" That is, where an object has not itself changed, but other game state has changed in a way relevant to that object. Some cases are simple ("you are now close enough to the door you are looking at to open it"), others not at all ("a physics interaction has caused an object of interest to become visible"). Implicit state changes happen very often in some games, and often only a small number of them are of interest, and that might be context sensitive...

    I can imagine a reusable set of components which helps out with common cases (heck, it sounds cool, I'd consider making one myself), but it's going to need to be extensible, some of them are going to need to be configurable, and integration would at least require some thought at the design level. Far more than just "sensible labels". And lets not forget QA...

    My point is that this stuff is possible, but it's not as easy as you seem to think. Thankfully the scope of the CVAA is much smaller than the stuff I'm talking about here.
     
    trappist-1 likes this.
  46. rasto61

    rasto61

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Explains a lot. Thanks.

    I do appologize. But I was confused by the fact that despite your qualifications you often made statements that seemed to ignore the fact that most games are made by small teams while you gave examples of how well AAA studios are doing accessibility (ignoring the reality of the budget and team size differences) or instances where you said something is extremely simple to implement (ignoring that often things are not so simple once you formally lay down all the requirements).

    I'm just trying to ask questions I would like to know definitive answers to. If you are in the need of ignoring so many people in what I thought was mostly a civil discussion, don't you think maybe your approach is slightly off?
    Good day.
     
    Ne0mega likes this.
  47. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    I've already explained this quite a few times and as I said I've spend a really really long time talking things over with you, there needs to be a limit... my cut-off between advice and consultancy is whether it's at the expense of other paid work, and you're way over that cut-off.

    Short version, again: I have not been talking about accessibility of virtual environments, that's a different ballgame. UI accessibility, with the proper framework level support, should not be hard. The examples I gave to you cited the development time involved for UI accessibility. UI accessibility is enough to provide full game accessibility to people who are 100% blind in two circumstances; 1. games that are solely UI based, like Hearthstone and Football Manager, and 2. games that have environments that are accessible through other means, like Killer Instinct and Forza. The examples I gave you covered both of those groups; UI only (e.g. MUDrammer) and environments accessible through other means (e.g. Skullgirls).

    I've also mentioned announcements quite a bit. Announcements are the mechanism by which state changes are communicated. That's the 4th part, remember? Name, role, state, announcements. This is all really well established mature stuff, screenreaders even have priority systems for assigning how rude or polite (i.e. whether to override other things) announcements should be.

    Honestly I'm repeating myself here.

    Accessibility of environments isn't quite as way out there a task as people often assume though. Like I said there are already completely blind people playing killer instinct, mortal kombat, doom, forza, GTAV, COD, all through sound design. Some games to tournament level, others barely enough to get enjoyment out of. Throughout that spectrum it can be surprising to see how small tweaks can make a big difference to how accessible a game is.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  48. rasto61

    rasto61

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    328
    Do you see what those games have in common?
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
    Ne0mega and FMark92 like this.
  49. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,801
    I'm finding this discussion stimulating and thought provoking. If you're not getting what you want out of it then that's the limit, nobody's making you carry on.

    Well, that's specifically what I was talking about. I did keep saying "whole game", over and over. Apologies for not clarifying further earlier.

    While it was in the context of virtual environments, I did directly address this.
     
    Ne0mega, FMark92 and trappist-1 like this.
  50. ianhamilton_

    ianhamilton_

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Posts:
    116
    It isn't getting my client deadline met :)

    I can't keep going over the same stuff again with the same person because it takes up time that I don't have much of, at the expense of other things. So can we draw a line under the UI accessibility stuff now? You should be clear on that now right?

    If you want to chat about making mainstream mechanics blind accessible then cool, it's a bit off-topic but it's interesting stuff.

    For an opener on that I'll pose a question for you (or anyone else who wants to take a shot at answering) - how would you go about making the gameplay of Mortal Kombat X fully accessible to people who have zero usable vision? The questions to consider are:

    • Ignoring what senses the info comes in through, what information to you need to be recieving in order to play the game?
    • What information is communicated by visuals alone?
    • What isn't?
    • How important is any visual only info to being able to play?
    • Is there another way that information could be communicated?
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
unityunity