Unity: Not Quite So...Unified?

I was not quite sure where to post this, so I'm hoping that the people who are actually in charge of Unity platform development see this post along with the community at large. I am soon to return to college to finish obtaining my baccalaureate degree in computer science with a specialization in game development. One of the courses that I am required to take deals exclusively with the Unity platform. That being the case, I thought it prudent to test and explore access to the program with the assistive technology that I use in my daily life as someone with a visual impairment. I have to admit that I am disheartened, discouraged, and angry to see that once again, those of us who are visually impaired have been forgotten. Unity is absolutely inaccessible to us. A screen reader can't see it. Just because our eyes are broken, that doesn't mean that we don't play games, and it doesn't mean that we can't develop, or help to develop, games that appeal to all. Our brains are not dead, and I'm quite frankly sick of that very attitude that seems to be so commonplace among people with vision. I'm sick of being an afterthought, or even worse, pitied and assumed to be infirm or otherwise irreparably damaged, merely because I don't experience my environment or acquire knowledge by a modality that is considered to be "normal by those in society who have healthy, functioning retinas, optic nerves, and visual cortices. The level of ignorance about blindness is absolutely astounding to me. Ignorance due to a lack of knowledge is one thing. Willful ignorance simply because you have no desire to learn or because you are too lazy to learn, or even worse, you just don't care enough to learn, angers me beyond what words can express. As evidenced by a date of 22 June 2015 at the following URL:
https://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/screen-reader-accessibility
I posit that we no longer have ignorance due to a lack of knowledge in this case. Granted, the feedback section has been changed, and that link redirects you, but the point is that developers have known for four years that blind people are attempting to use this product, and nothing has been done to facilitate that . Now it is simply that those of us who are blind are being ignored, and nothing is being done. There's no excuse for it...none. Screen readers have been around for more than three decades, and Microsoft has provided accessibility guidelines and documentation to assist developers in allowing their software to be seen and interacted with by the screen reader. Lack of vision does not make me an invalid. It does not make me mentally deficient. I consider myself just as capable and intelligent as the person right next to me who has an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20, and I deserve the same access and the same opportunities for success that he or she does. Why is that so hard for people with vision to understand? There seems to be a mentality that those of us who are blind are less intelligent and capable than those with sight, and therefore, we are unable to contribute anything meaningful or worthwhile. That is simply not true. I'm not sure why that belief is still so readily propagated and embraced, given this day and age of technology and the ability to get information on anything at the drop of a hat. Here's a news flash for everyone in the gaming industry: Some of us are avid gamers. We play everything from Atari to Xbox, PS4, Nintendo, and anything in between. And guess what? Some of us even want to develop games as well. The truth is that we're just like anyone else. Some of us are geeks, some aren't. Some of us are highly intelligent, some aren't. Some of us are emotional, others are analytical. We like all sorts of different foods, music, books, movies, and lo and behold, games, just like anyone else with vision. We laugh, we cry, we love. The only real difference between us is the way in which we experience and navigate our world and our daily lives. I'm not sure what it will take for us to be considered as equal to those who have normal vision, but I can guarantee you that it begins with a mindset of your platform's namesake...Unity: A unified change in the way that you perceive us, in the beliefs that you carry. Until you stop looking at us as little more than helpless, dependent children, nothing will improve.

 

I probably won't be too popular with this, but I need to stick to my values, I'm an equal opportunity prick, so I will throw this in.
I understand your pain, and personally I do try to do my work on ways that people equally can enjoy it. I'm also having a healthy vision, if that matters.

But.
What you have dumped on us is just wrong. You close in with a prejudicious stance and from a prejudicial corner.
Actually I heard Unity talking about these kind of things and they care for it. Surprise.
The problem is, that they have a very outdated and admittedly wrong editor base code (and they didn't pay the attention to it that they should have to, no argument there), which not just make it impossible to use it with screen readers, but it does not even support changing font-sizes in the editor properly.
Also surprise: they're working on it. In the 2019 cycle they are and they will (yes, already started) roll out the revamped editor code, which make it possible to use screen readers and to make the editor's UI actually workable in certain circumstances.
So your timing couldn't be worse than this.

My advice is that step back, think this through, we're not here to get you, we're (including Unity) working towards what you think we don't care about: to include everyone. It may be painful for you, I understand it, but please, try to be patient.

I may have 20/20 vision, but I have other problems on other parts of life to fight with, so I understand your pain. Although I do not share your stance that people don't care about you, because we do.

 

I think you've created a hyperbolic issue out of the situation. No one said you are dumb. Some interactions require vision, a screen reader isn't enough to effectively use a tool like Unity, that's pretty much it.

 

@LaneFox,
I am not saying that anyone from this community called me "dumb." I'm saying that the mentality that we are less intelligent than people with sight does exist generally, , and that mentality is a false one that needs to be corrected. I believe that there is also a mentality that we are less capable, and that also factors into the fact that rarely are we included when software is being developed. Despite Microsoft having issued guidelines to assist developers in making their products accessible to us many years ago, developers rarely follow them. They don't even do the simplest of things, like adding basic labels and alt tags to controls. Your post is illustrative of the point I'm trying to make. Your first response is, "you have to have vision to use Unity," instead of thinking outside of the box to try to find inclusive solutions, just as Unity never even considered that we might want to use their product as well, and therefore, never thought about any accessibility. Had they thought of accessibility from day one of the software's development, solutions might have been found. That's my point. We're either an afterthought, or even worse, not thought of at all. And that view is not one of prejudice. It's one borne of multiple experiences in the 40 years I've been alive, and the countless number of software programs and/or web pages that I have seen that are not accessible to screen readers...and the fact that even when improvements could be made, they so often are not, simply because the developer doesn't want to take the time to do it.

 

What led you to the conclusion that this meant people see you as less intelligent? I'm disabled too and people not catering to me has never left me with the impression that they saw me as less intelligent.

 

Can you please format your post correctly for the people that have to read visually?

 

IndomitableHeart: For best results online, try using 3-4 sentences per paragraph. It is hard for most people to read a giant block of text, and that will reduce the amount of feedback from forum members.

 

Unity's screen reader support (specifically the lack thereof) seems to stem from how it handles UI rendering, which seems to put each movable UI element in some sort of separated psuedo-window, which is also why things like nvidia's shadowplay solution doesn't properly capture it unless you're in desktop mode. This actually lends itself to a lot of problems, like focus issues when using multimonitor displays.

We could all complain about the formatting of this post or its contents, or we could recognise that changing Unity to be more accessible would help all of us while also adhering pretty well to the whole democratization of game development thing.

 

Isn't 2019 supposed to have a new UI or something? Will that improve anything or does it still carry-forward all of the same problems as before? I have limited vision myself and have often wished that I could ctrl+ to scale-up the ui and font just like I do in my web browser.

 

It is not a matter of intelligence. Unity is a visual editor. There is actually very little reading involved in the Unity Editor. The Scene View and the Hierarchy are core functionality of the development process with Unity, and are visual representations of the scene being developed. It is not clear to me how these complex features could be implemented using alternative senses, in the same way driving a car or firing a gun can't be implemented any way but visually (unless automated to the point the user no longer is in actual control).

Does that mean someone who can't use these core functions of the editor is less intelligent? Of course not, but a screen reader isn't what is missing.

The Inspector has the most reading involved, but pretty much everything you would use the Inspector for you could alternatively do directly in C# if needed. Are you able to code using a screen reader? Of course coding takes place outside of Unity using whatever is your favorite code editor (default is Visual Studio).

 

This is a very misguided post for a lot of reasons.

1. Screen readers ideally allow people with visual impairments to compensate for things like Unity's lack of a real text sizing option and contrast options. It does this by letting them put things like descriptive text in hierarchy objects and descriptive errors in debug logs.
2. Unity is not a car, do not make car analogies. There are a lot of sensible reasons why you don't want people with severe visual impairments driving a car and they're all related to not getting people killed.
3. Visual Studio has a built-in screen reader assist mode and has for ages. It actually has loads of accessibility options. Microsoft has committed to providing assistive tech like this for over a decade now.

 

How would you expect the Scene View to be usable via a screen reader exactly? That is what I'm comparing to the car. The visual information required to use either.

The risks involved are of course different, but the visual information is actually very similar. I never even implied the risks involved were similar, you're making a straw man.

I'm well aware that VS has accessibility functionality built in. It is even usable by people who are entirely blind. I wasn't asking if it was possible to do so, but if the OP specifically knows how to do it. If he/she does it opens a lot of Unity functionality via code. (It is actually possible to create 1 scene, add 1 GameObject, and add 1 script in the editor, then create the other 99.99999% of your game in VS, and create your builds via command line. But of course the OP needs to know how to code using a screen reader, hence my question)

 

Yes.

https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/04/16/introducing-unity-2019-1/#uielements

 

Visual impairment does not mean "totally blind"

 

Why do you keep arguing against things I haven't claimed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

This isn't a straw man. You can still use the scene view if you have a visual impairment. You can still place things. You can design accessibility around the impairment to get around this.

You can not, however, properly use a screen reader to:

• find things in the hierarchy
• view/change inspector properties
• view the error logs
• all sorts of things in the Unity editor that require you to identify and comprehend text you can not resize or use a screen reader for

Edit: So here's a very simplified version of a fairly severe visual impairment where you can make out objects in the scene view while not being able to make out text. This is assuming that the person with the impairment has issues with visual brightness and contrast, alongside issues focusing.



Windows has a high contrast mode, but it is not universal (for various reasons) and, as such, does not affect the editor. Image effects can be used to make the scene view have a high contrast filter applied, however. This, of course, does not affect the editor view at all. Dark mode in pro/plus does not fair any better.

Edit 2: As I said, this is a simplification. It does not account for things like narrow cones of focus, etc.

 

Visual impairment is a much larger category of people than the OP's self described condition of "Lack of vision". But I'm done arguing in circles here.

 

And you know what? I trust the OP to know their limitations far better than you.

 

Cortana for Unity could solve this problem.

 

It may not be enough to do all activities one might conceivably do with the tools. But there are plenty of activities that this could enable or help with, and there are different types of visual impairment. Just because someone can't do everything doesn't mean we shouldn't enable them to do what they reasonably can.

Also, given how widely adopted Unity is, if they did make sure their UI updates cover this it could help out many people across the industry.

 

One of the advantages of Unity is that it is infinitely extendable. It would be a lot of work, but you could write a system to get Unity to work with screen readers. There might already be something on the asset store that does this already.

Its not a perfect solution, but neither is waiting the five to ten years it will take Unity to get around to fixing the problem.

 

As a programmer, I often go entire days with all my non-coding work involving modifications of data (components on objects in the hierarchy, prefabs, SO's, etc) that doesn't even require looking at the scene view, but does require looking at the scene and project hierarchies, inspectors, and other menus. There's no reason I couldn't do that via audio, if it were possible.

 

Yeah, if you think about game dev as a whole there are plenty of things which need doing which may not require viewing of images at all.

Furthermore, not everyone with vision impairment is blind. There may well be people who can see the Scene and Game views well enough to do things, but who find it difficult or impossible to read text in the Editor.

 

To say this would require "a lot of work" actually ends up being a dramatic understatement. Specifically, you would need to reflect the majority of editor functionality to work in a single panel, which is an undertaking so severe that it would be more work than grabbing the entire screen and running it through an OCR.

edit: not sure why it quoted billy in that

 

I'm not familiar with screen readers, but I would expect that there would be a lot of contextual information that it would not be able to convey very well or at all. A true 'virtual assistant' would be able to deal with this problem, but it would certainly be a huge undertaking.

I can see the OP is frustrated, but instead of venting all over the post it would be great if they could specify clearly what it is that they would like, so that people could get behind them if it is practical.

 

I missed this before, and feel it warrants response in addition to what I already said above.

Yes, people can work around needing to use the Inspector, but there are plenty of cases where that's not practical. For example, if I can't use the Inspector for some reason or another, this has a massive impact on someone's ability to work in teams or on projects where the Inspector is being used, which in turn has an impact on opportunities to gain experience, get work, and so on.

I do agree the ideas like "What can we do if we just don't use the Inspector?" are worth considering, but they're temporary workarounds at best.

Separately, consider that peoples' eyesight tends to degrade during their lifetime. Even people who have good vision now might appreciate some design-level consideration for this kind of thing two or three decades from now.

 

They would like Unity to work with a screen reader, what else is there to specify?

 

Well it wasn't clear to me from that wall of text that all the OP wanted was screen reader compatibility. Could be a tad more concise.

In any case, a company with the resources that Unity have should be able to deal with this problem fairly easily.

 

There were while ago discussions on similar topic, regarding games and accessibility. There were arguments pros and cons of implementing accessibilities features in games, as well as potential cost involved and knowledge required.

As already mentioned by posters here, seams OP have missed major part of information, of what level of disability we talking about. I can only assume, by looking at wall text, that blindness level is severe, that not even realizing, how bad it appears for other readers.

Therefore, I struggle to understand, how game worlds can be built effectively, tested and debug in such conditions. Unless game is mainly focused on text based gameplay. Which is fair enough.

But as already mentioned examples, if I were blind, I would have to give up driving country side with a car as I love to. If I loose legs, I would have to give up mountains climbing, as I love it to. Wheel chair is not a solution here. Etc. I can complain about software's, or mountain tracks, that they are not suitable for my disability. Someone may listen to me. But in the end we use functionalities based on business framework. Someone designed and developed software, or path for use of others, with feasibility calculations, and probably considered Return On Investment in some form. Or held to the budget. Cruel reality, but is world we live in.

My option is then, to look into alternatives. Or,

Sure we can ask, but despite our conditions, we shouldn't shout, or come angry to discussion. Is not healthy for anyone, nor thread itself.

 

It's okay, you don't need to understand though.

 

There aren't alternatives, is the thing. Every game engine out there suffers from fairly severe issues when it comes to accessibility for pretty much any disability, which is a huge failing. The alternative basically ends up being "make your own engine."

 

I put my 2c into that discussion, but I see this differently. That thread was about whether game devs should take the burden of making a game accessible (while threatened by a weirdly ambiguous FCC 'law' that didn't seem to have been conceived with any respect for normal legal procedure).

But Unity are a multi billion dollar company with millions of regular customers, and it seems to me that if there is any kind of standard way of implementing screen reader compatibility it might be worth doing so, and they no doubt have the resources for it.

Having said that, I know nothing about implementing screen reader compatibility, so I don't know exactly how much of a burden that would put on development of the engine.

 

This thread read like:
"Problem I don't have isn't a big deal why are you angry about it, here's my unreasearch hot takes, i'm right! "

Which is strange considering there is a lot of thread about missing feature in unity, this is really just one of them.

This is dumb there is plenty disable moutain climber, and there is continuous innovation in this field that end up benefitting everyone.
https://metro.co.uk/2015/09/29/nepa...-seven-people-that-totally-nailed-it-5413581/

That's why uninformed hot takes is bad and harmful.

 

This may be true indeed. However, I never had to search for alternative engine myself, so there is small chance, there is something somewhere. However, I don't expect with such range of features, as big engines can provide already.

I don't know to be honest, but lumber amazon engine I think, should be closest in such accessibility features, since is relatively newer engine. But I may be here completely wrong.

Yes you are right @Billy4184 regarding law concerns in mentioned thread.

I think, if Unit allow with upcoming update for changing font size, and contrast (for free?) that will be already big step, for improving accessibility.

So fa I haven't been impressed for UI implementation so far, for such bilion $$ high tech company. Not to mention attempt of making accessibility for wider range of devs.

 

@neoshaman, I wouldn't fly to Mount Everest, or other country, if I got mountains at door step. Saying that, climbing is not only walk. As developing is not always only writing, or moving objects.

But yes you got valid point, that some alternatives does exist. Weather they are feasible, or suitable for individuals, that is other matter. Thank you for link however.

 

Just adding my 2p that I agree with the OP, one can feel a certain way. I don't think Unity should be inaccessible to deaf people any more than people with issues with sight.

I think it matters to have a higher quality of accessibility in Unity.

 

It was. JoeC claimed that Scene View is inherently visual, like driving a car. I agree that car and gun analogies for programming are dishonest since they add an aspect of horrible damage for a single mistake. But you argue only against the danger, deliberately ignoring the obvious "inherently visual" argument. Then you focus on laws preventing driving, where we're talking about whether it's possible, not legal.

JoeC posting a link to Wikipedia was a jerk move, but don't lower yourself to that level.

 

I tried to think of another analogy that was similarly visual, but didn't involve using a computer, without a danger aspect. I wasn't able to in the short time I spent writing that line. I believe most visual activities which don't involve a computer screen include some element of danger.

The "jerk move" comment is a fair criticism.

 

One valid question to ask is whether it is reasonable to expect every major game engine to have solid support for visual disabilities. Some applications are especially reliant on visual ability.

For example, how does Adobe Photoshop address this issue? I use that as an example because Photoshop is a widely used application that clearly requires visual ability. Does Photoshop have screen reader support? I honestly don't know.

 

I generally agree that applications should do as much as they can to be as accessible as possible. Certain applications might be in categories that expect a certain amount of visual or audio ability, though.

There are some glaring accessibility issues in Unity that affect all people, though. For example, their design choice to remove/hide scroll bars in the Asset Store is a stupid thing. Scroll bars are useful in many situations. For example, if you use a laptop with a trackpad instead of a mouse with a scroll wheel, then the scroll bar should be wide and easy to click and drag.

The bottom line is I don't think a company that hides a scroll bar is going to be the right company to lead the way on accessibility.

 

It doesn't. The entire Adobe suite is actually notorious for having terrible disability accessibility issues across the board. Not just screen readers.

 

Bad analogy. Photoshop's main and most important aspect is creating/modifying images. Obviously having tools to use by visually impaired person have very low value. Although having ways to enhance their ability to create with it could be awesome (I'm talking about helping people with color blindness, or problems around contrast-problems or low vision), but inherently it's not the best way.
Also, there are other applications in the Adobe family where there is great benefit if they would develoip proper support for people with disability.

Unity on the other hand is not about visuals per say. It's about making games. No, during making a game, you have several tasks, using the 3D editor and visually adjust objects in the scene is just one of them.
But you can adjust data in the inspector, you can have data editor in there (scriptableobjects, anyone?), a lot of stuff which can be done by a visually impaired person easily with the right tools.

So I think, Unity would and will benefit if they improve their UI and make it easier for everyone to use the editor.

 

Bad excuse. What's the excuse for Adobe Audition then?

 

Just came to my mind, what about painting gallery, where abstraction is quite common and colors play crucial part (things nearly impossible to describe in words) ... Unless some smart artists considers color blindness, or even complete vision impairment? Just a rhetorical question.

 

Go on and read the rest of my post.

 

Are you asking if abstract art pieces should be compatible with screen readers?

Seeing how splatters can be valid perl, I don't see why not : http://colinm.org/sigbovik/2019.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_artists#List_of_professional_blind_artists

I know, posting Wikipedia is a jerk move...

 

Nah.

 

I haven't asked specifically for a method. But since I left post deliberately open for interpretations, provided research reference is quite interesting. Not sure if much practical at current state as of yet. May evolve tho.

I think, I allow myself drop some reading, if anyone interested.

Accessibility Basics: Designing for Visual Impairment
https://webdesign.tutsplus.com/arti...cs-designing-for-visual-impairment--cms-27634

Adobe Accessibility
https://www.adobe.com/accessibility.html

 

You'll notice that Adobe's accessibility page is primarily about how to make accessible content using their software, but has little focus on the accessibility of the software itself.