Re: I'm kind of concerned about the culture surrounding usability
...you mad, Daigonite? ^_^
I agree with a whole lot of what you're saying. Though I do think that there's a lot of complexity that your post doesn't address (and probably isn't meant to). The point about the language of disability is a really great one. I read a blog the other day that used an old quote calling disabled people "incapacitated" and the blogger said, "I have a real issue with the word 'incapacitated' but other than that..." And I was like, "Why? It's literally the same thing as disabled. In / dis = "not", "capacity / ability" = capability of doing something. I do not have the ability to see. I have a visual disability/incapacity."
But anyway, I really don't have anything helpful to contribute. I think the idea of framing access as a social utility issue and not a moral issue is an interesting angle—it's not one I'd thought about before. I daresay it's a bit colored by your overall worldview, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I fluctuate between optimistic and jaded on this whole issue, so I really don't have much of use to offer—because it would depend on how I'm feeling at the moment.
I will say that there is a minority population of the disabled community which is, unfortunately, the most vocal (or at least it seems that way) that sometimes makes me wonder why anyone bothers going to the effort of making anything accessible, given the way they're treated in the process. So we (meaning the disabled community) aren't always doing ourselves favors in the kind of self-advocacy in which we're engaging. It I'll be totally honest—some days it would be a lot less stressful to just develop for sighted gamers.
Which makes me think of one possible challenge with the "social utility" argument. In order to use this as a reason for people to buy into the principle of equal access, we first have to get them to buy into the innate utility of activities often thought of as non-utilitarian—cultural products like playing games, enjoying Broadway shows, going to the movies, etc. If you say, "Accessibility is a moral right!!!!!" then you can simply say a person should have equal access to these things because it is right. If you say accessibility is a matter of social utility, you first have to be able to show that these activities are inherently useful and beneficial to society. I think that argument can definitely be made, by the way, but it can be a hard sell, and maybe this is part of the reason that people default to the moral position—it gives us fewer steps of persuasion to go through in order to get someone to buy into the overall premise. I don't know, that's just a theory.
I will also say that this is all a matter of perspective. Obviously you've had some pretty negative experiences lately, and it's got you mad, and frustrated, and discouraged. I'm not invalidating that—but that experience is going to color how you perceive the situation as a whole. On the flip side, I had some pretty incredible accessibility-related experiences at GDC, so upon coming home I started to see the whole movement surrounding access to gaming through a very rosy-colored lens. The reality, I'm guessing, is probably a little more messy than either of those two perspectives would allow for.
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
