Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

This article is a perfect example of why we need to start protecting the difference between "Accessibility" and "Approachability" in games. https://t.co/UA7CACvxo6

This article is a perfect example of why we need to start protecting the difference between "Accessibility" and "Approachability" in games. https://t.co/UA7CACvxo6

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

This article is a perfect example of why we need to start protecting the difference between "Accessibility" and "Approachability" in games. https://t.co/UA7CACvxo6

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

Regardless of what the developers have called them, I fundamentally disagree that the rings are Accessibility features. Some of them may share similarities with options in other games that are also called Accessibility, not all of them are classified correctly.

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

What's the difference? Much smarter people than me have already wrote about the topic, so I'll let you dive into it, but here's my TLDR: Approachability eases players in. Accessibility removes barriers that can't be fixed by "getting good" https://t.co/eB3cSoBQfu

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

For example: Approachability: If I remove The Ring of Timely Assistance, I could eventually learn to manage Torgal's attacks better. Accessibility: I will never be able to read the tiny menu text without moving closer to my TV.

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

Timely Focus sits in a gray area, where it extends a QTE window, which could be argued is an accessibility feature for players with reduced reaction time due to disability. Some people will be able to learn to react faster, but others may never be able to react fast enough.

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

So why does this even matter? I mean, well, words matter for one. It's important that we lean away from this idea that gamers with disabilities are inherently "not good" at games, because typical able-bodied gamers see some "accessibility" features making their game "easier."

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

Removing approachability options from the accessibility options in games can help clear up conversations about whether games should have the options (and whether it was the "developer's vision" 🙄✊🫴).

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

I really don't mind if people argue over whether a game should have difficulty options. I personally think that they are an objectively smart business move, but they are entirely optional.

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

But accessibility options to remove barriers that can't be overcome with practice and skill should never be negotiable. Subtitles, Colorblind options, UI Scaling, Toggles vs Holds, Reducing flashing lights. All of those should be in every AAA game.

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

High contrast environment modes, Audio cues for attacks that are usually broadcast with animations, more robust visual cues to take place of spatial audio. Those are some fantastic extra credit accessibility features. And none of them have to do with difficulty.

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

So please, if you ever talk about accessibility, take a moment to consider whether it's a feature that helps ease a player in, or if removes an unpassable barrier. Using the right word helps keep the conversation focused on the right things.

annafunk

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

And as I pointed out earlier, there will be features that fit into a gray area. If you want to talk about this subject, I trust that you have enough of a sense of nuance to examine those gray areas in good faith, and for the GOOD of the players.

Chadd Nervigg

Posted 3 years ago (Source)

@annafunk Did the devs call these rings “accessibility”, or did that Verge article just call them that? Cause uhhh… these are difficulty options. Which can double as accessibility features in certain very limited ways, as you pointed out. But yeah, there basically aren’t any accessibility… https://t.co/wyyxd8R5Ro

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
This article is a perfect example of why we need to start protecting the difference between "Accessibility" and "Approachability" in games.

https://t.co/UA7CACvxo6 (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522656757547009">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
Regardless of what the developers have called them, I fundamentally disagree that the rings are Accessibility features. Some of them may share similarities with options in other games that are also called Accessibility, not all of them are classified correctly. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522658707931136">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
What's the difference? Much smarter people than me have already wrote about the topic, so I'll let you dive into it, but here's my TLDR:

Approachability eases players in.
Accessibility removes barriers that can't be fixed by "getting good"

https://t.co/eB3cSoBQfu (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522660360478720">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
For example: 
Approachability: If I remove The Ring of Timely Assistance, I could eventually learn to manage Torgal's attacks better.

Accessibility: I will never be able to read the tiny menu text without moving closer to my TV. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522662147235840">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
Timely Focus sits in a gray area, where it extends a QTE window, which could be argued is an accessibility feature for players with reduced reaction time due to disability. Some people will be able to learn to react faster, but others may never be able to react fast enough. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522663841759232">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
So why does this even matter? I mean, well, words matter for one.

It's important that we lean away from this idea that gamers with disabilities are inherently "not good" at games, because typical able-bodied gamers see some "accessibility" features making their game "easier." (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522665443987456">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
Removing approachability options from the accessibility options in games can help clear up conversations about whether games should have the options (and whether it was the "developer's vision" 🙄✊🫴). (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522667255898112">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
I really don't mind if people argue over whether a game should have difficulty options. I personally think that they are an objectively smart business move, but they are entirely optional. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522668883308544">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
But accessibility options to remove barriers that can't be overcome with practice and skill should never be negotiable. Subtitles, Colorblind options, UI Scaling, Toggles vs Holds, Reducing flashing lights. All of those should be in every AAA game. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522670472945664">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
High contrast environment modes, Audio cues for attacks that are usually broadcast with animations, more robust visual cues to take place of spatial audio.

Those are some fantastic extra credit accessibility features. And none of them have to do with difficulty. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522672150642689">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
So please, if you ever talk about accessibility, take a moment to consider whether it's a feature that helps ease a player in, or if removes an unpassable barrier. Using the right word helps keep the conversation focused on the right things. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522673740296192">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
And as I pointed out earlier, there will be features that fit into a gray area. If you want to talk about this subject, I trust that you have enough of a sense of nuance to examine those gray areas in good faith, and for the GOOD of the players. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673522675401236487">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@annafunk Did the devs call these rings “accessibility”, or did that Verge article just call them that? Cause uhhh… these are difficulty options. Which can double as accessibility features in certain very limited ways, as you pointed out. But yeah, there basically aren’t any accessibility… https://t.co/wyyxd8R5Ro (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673544212460236801">Chadd Nervigg</a>)
<hr/>

Tweet

This article is a perfect example of why we need to start protecting the difference between "Accessibility" and "Approachability" in games.

https://t.co/UA7CACvxo6

Regardless of what the developers have called them, I fundamentally disagree that the rings are Accessibility features. Some of them may share similarities with options in other games that are also called Accessibility, not all of them are classified correctly.

What's the difference? Much smarter people than me have already wrote about the topic, so I'll let you dive into it, but here's my TLDR:

Approachability eases players in.
Accessibility removes barriers that can't be fixed by "getting good"

https://t.co/eB3cSoBQfu

For example: 
Approachability: If I remove The Ring of Timely Assistance, I could eventually learn to manage Torgal's attacks better.

Accessibility: I will never be able to read the tiny menu text without moving closer to my TV.

Timely Focus sits in a gray area, where it extends a QTE window, which could be argued is an accessibility feature for players with reduced reaction time due to disability. Some people will be able to learn to react faster, but others may never be able to react fast enough.

So why does this even matter? I mean, well, words matter for one.

It's important that we lean away from this idea that gamers with disabilities are inherently "not good" at games, because typical able-bodied gamers see some "accessibility" features making their game "easier."

Removing approachability options from the accessibility options in games can help clear up conversations about whether games should have the options (and whether it was the "developer's vision" 🙄✊🫴).

I really don't mind if people argue over whether a game should have difficulty options. I personally think that they are an objectively smart business move, but they are entirely optional.

But accessibility options to remove barriers that can't be overcome with practice and skill should never be negotiable. Subtitles, Colorblind options, UI Scaling, Toggles vs Holds, Reducing flashing lights. All of those should be in every AAA game.

High contrast environment modes, Audio cues for attacks that are usually broadcast with animations, more robust visual cues to take place of spatial audio.

Those are some fantastic extra credit accessibility features. And none of them have to do with difficulty.

So please, if you ever talk about accessibility, take a moment to consider whether it's a feature that helps ease a player in, or if removes an unpassable barrier. Using the right word helps keep the conversation focused on the right things.

And as I pointed out earlier, there will be features that fit into a gray area. If you want to talk about this subject, I trust that you have enough of a sense of nuance to examine those gray areas in good faith, and for the GOOD of the players.

@annafunk Did the devs call these rings “accessibility”, or did that Verge article just call them that? Cause uhhh… these are difficulty options. Which can double as accessibility features in certain very limited ways, as you pointed out. But yeah, there basically aren’t any accessibility… https://t.co/wyyxd8R5Ro (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1673544212460236801">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>