Mathew Dalgleish (University of Wolverhampton)

  PDF Download 

Abstract

Many people with a disability play games despite difficulties in relation to access or quality of experience. Better access is needed, but there has been limited industry interest. For players with motor impairments the focus has been on the controller. Numerous solutions have been developed by third parties, but all are likely unsuitable for at least some users and there remains space for radically alternative angles. Informed by my experiences as a disabled gamer, concepts of affordance and control dimensionality are used to discuss the accessibility implications of controller design from the Magnavox Odyssey to the present. Notions of incidental body-controller fit and precarious accessibility are outlined. I subsequently draw on Lévy’s theory of collective intelligence and example games Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes and Artemis Spaceship Bridge Commander to develop a model that uses asymmetrical roles and diverse input to fit individual abilities and thereby expand participation.

Keywords: disability, controllers, asymmetrical roles, motor impairment, control dimensionality.

 

Introduction

The barriers faced by people with disabilities are often considered in terms of two theoretical models: the medical model and the social model. The medical model of disability locates disability in the mind or body of the individual “patient” and emphasises linear restoration to “normality” (Gough, 2005). This was contested (UPIAS, 1976, pp. 3-4; Locker, 1983, p. 90) and there followed a shift to a social model of disability that posited that people are disabled by the attitudes of society (Shakespeare, 2016). If arguably outdated (Owens, 2014), the social model remains widely adopted.

Under the social model, suitably designed technologies are seen to enable people with disabilities to fulfil their desires to socialise, work, learn and play (Arrigo, 2005; Cobb et al., 2002; Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000); potentially improving independence (Jewell & Atkin, 2013) and quality of life (Arrigo, 2005). As video games have increased in popularity (Statista, 2017), there has been great interest in how video games might benefit players generally (Jackson et al., 2012; Posso, 2016) and people with disabilities specifically. For example, Jiménez, Pulina and Lanfranchi (2015) review how video games can improve the cognitive abilities of players with intellectual disabilities. Elsewhere, Rowland et al. (2016) study how active video games can help improve the fitness of players with lower-limb impairments. There are numerous other examples, but enjoyment remains the main motivation for many players.

The number of players with a disability is significant: there are 215 million players in the US alone and more than 32 million state that they have a disability (Statista, 2018; The Economist, 2017). While many players with disabilities find the types of games they can play limited (Flynn & Lange, 2010; Dolinar & Fels, 2014), there are many other people with disabilities who have been unable to participate at all (Flynn & Lange, 2010). Organisations such as AbleGamers and SpecialEffect strive to improve access, but resources are finite (SpecialEffect, n.d.).

With this background, this paper will now discuss some of the ways that disability and motor impairment specifically can impact participation, including relevant personal experience. Attention will be paid to the often-precarious nature of access given the rapid evolution of video game controllers. Existing work will be critically reviewed, and a new accessibility model developed around asymmetric roles and controllers. This addresses some of the limitations of existing solutions and provides plentiful possibilities for future work.

 

Impairment and the interaction loop

Disabilities and experiences of disability are inherently extremely diverse, but Bierre et al. (2005) propose that four broad types of impairment commonly impact video game players:

• Visual impairment
• Auditory impairment
• Motor impairment
• Cognitive impairment

By contrast, Yuan, Folmer and Harris (2011) focus on the effects of impairment, stating that difficulties typically relate to:

• ability to receive feedback
• ability to determine in-game responses
• ability to provide input using conventional input devices

These can be positioned within a classic human-machine interaction loop (Fig. 1). In short, the user provides control input; the system processes the input and produces an output. This output is passed back to the user at the interface. The user perceives the system output, processes it, and provides further input (Bongers, 2000).

 

Figure 1. The human-machine interaction loop (Bongers, 2000).

 

For reasons that will shortly be apparent, this article will focus on motor impairment and restricted mobility, and the ability to provide input.

While traditional video games are considered sedentary (Lu et al., 2016), they make considerable demands of players in terms of eye-hand and bimanual coordination, dexterity of response and stamina in the hands. These demands meet the abilities of the player at the interface or, more specifically, at the controller. Players with motor impairments can be limited in the type or amount of input they can provide (Yuan, Folmer & Harris, 2011) and standard controllers can therefore be a particular barrier to participation.

 

Affordance and control dimensionality

Two concepts can help us to consider the interaction possibilities of video game controllers and the interaction demands made of players: affordance and control dimensionality (CD). Donald Norman (1988, p. 9) used the term affordance to refer to the actions made possible by an object’s physical form and properties. However, the intangible properties of software limited its tenability and the concept was revised to emphasise a distinction between “real” and “perceived” affordances: actions that are actually possible and actions that users perceive to be possible (Norman, 1999).

A more recent concept and specific to a video game context, CD is a measure of the degree of complexity inherent in a system as a result of its interaction demands and possibilities (Mustaquim & Nyström, 2014). There are two steps (Swain, 2008, pp. 135-138), the first being to assess the primary movement scheme:

• One dimension of movement (left-right) CD = 1
• Two dimensions of movement (left-right, up-down) CD = 2
• Three dimensions of movement (left-right, up-down, in-out) CD = 3

A second step adds additional CDs for each secondary dimension of control:

• For each additional movement dimension: strafe back-forth, accelerate-brake, rewind or fast-forward time, etc. (typically use two buttons) = 1
• For each embedded action: jump, attack, rotate, etc (typically use one button) = 0.5

In isolation, controllers do not have any inherent CD as this is co-dependent on the particular game design, but they do have a (maximum) potential CD.

 

Evolution of the controller

As the affordances (i.e. action possibilities) of controllers have generally increased, so too have their complexity and interaction demands. To this end, the table below (Table 1) shows how the potential CD of a representative selection of controllers has evolved over time.

Name	Year	Directional Control Type	Dimensions of Movement	Buttons	Total CD
Magnavox Odyssey	1972	Two Knobs	2 x 1	0	2
Atari Computer System	1977	Joystick	2	1	2.5
Nintendo Entertainment System	1983	D-pad	2	4	4
Sega Master System	1985	D-pad	2	2	3
Sega Mega Drive	1989	D-Pad	2	4	4
Super Nintendo Entertainment System	1990	D-Pad	2	6	5
Sony PlayStation (initial controller)	1994	D-Pad	2	10	7
Nintendo 64 1	1996	Analogue thumbstick	2	14	9
Sony PlayStation DualShock controller	1997	Dual analogue thumbsticks	2 x 2	17	12.5
Microsoft Xbox	2001	Dual analogue thumbsticks	2 x 2	16	12
Nintendo Wii Remote and Nunchuck	2006	One analogue thumbstick and one 3-D accelerometer per controller	(2 x 2) + (2 x 3)	13	16.5
Microsoft Kinect	2009	Various	Various	Various	–
Sony PlayStation 4	2013	Dual analogue thumbsticks	2 x 2	17	12.5
Nintendo Switch Pro Controller	2017	Dual analogue thumbsticks	2 x 2	14	11
Nintendo Switch Joy Con	2017	One analogue thumbstick and one 3-D accelerometer per side	(2 x 2) + (2 x 3)	14	17

Table 1: CD of a Representative Selection of Video Game Controllers (1972-2017)

At this point it is pertinent to note that some kinds of interface resist classification. Firstly, the potential CDs of interfaces such as the Microsoft Kinect and integrated multitouch interface/platforms such as smartphones and tablets are highly variable and primarily defined by how they are used in the context of individual games: the player can be presented with simple, one-button gameplay or more complex, multi-dimensional interaction. Second, some interfaces feature secondary sensors. For instance, the Kinect features a microphone array, while smartphones and tablets typically contain a microphone, plus a 3-D accelerometer and/or gyroscope. These can be used to replace or supplement more conventional controls but are employed in selected games only. Thirdly, there are new types of interface whose affordances are not yet well understood. For instance, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are only starting to edge into the mainstream (Ahn, Lee, Choi & Jun, 2014).

Nevertheless, particularly relevant to players with motor impairments is the broad correlation between increased potential CD and increased action possibilities, and heavier interaction demands. Not all games use all of the potential CD, but newfound action possibilities are typically soon exploited by game designers; at the cost of increased interaction demands and complexity.

The first controllers were very simple (low CD). The Magnavox Odyssey controller (CD = 2) had one knob for vertical movement and a second for horizontal movement. There were no buttons. The included titles Table Tennis and Ski used only the vertical knob and horizontal knob respectively. These limited affordances resulted in modest interaction demands: ideal for a population only recently introduced to video games.

The Atari Computer System joystick (CD = 2.5) allowed movement in four directions and featured one action button only, but comparatively more sophisticated affordances evolved. For instance, Asteroids enabled the player ship to independently rotate left or right, thrust forward and fire. However, these action possibilities meant that players also needed to coordinate more than one simultaneous action.

The Nintendo Entertainment System controller (CD = 4) replaced the joystick with a four-way directional pad (D-Pad). It also featured two action buttons and two secondary buttons (Diskin, 2004). The D-pad required smaller movements than the Atari joystick and so games designers could demand players provide more nimble and precise input. Additional buttons afforded more varied player actions; at the cost of increased interaction complexity. For example, Punch-Out!! made use of the A and B buttons plus D-pad to punch left and right, but also the Start button to throw an uppercut (u.a., 2017). Similarly, Double Dragon II: The Revenge used a two-button combination to deliver a jump kick (Nintendo, 1990).

A decade on, the small analogue joysticks of the Nintendo 64 (CD = 9) and Sony DualShock (CD = 12.5) controllers had relegated the D-pad to secondary functions only. The twin joysticks of the DualShock (Plunkett, 2011) fell neatly under the thumbs and enabled movement and viewpoint to be decoupled. Running in one direction while aiming in another has become a canonical feature of first-person shooter titles (McMahan, Bowman, Zielinski and Brady, 2012), but poses a significant increase in interaction complexity: the player must not only coordinate two simultaneously 2-D inputs, but also provide input that is proportional and precise, at the same time as operating multiple buttons.

 

Incidental fit and the precariousness of access

If increased CD can produce (or be the result of) extended affordance, an inadvertent consequence of resultantly increased interaction demands is that players with motor impairments like Microsoft employee Solomon Romney can be abruptly excluded. Born without fingers on his left hand, Romney readily adapted to the simple controls of 1980s arcade machines (Stuart, 2018) and played for over a decade. However, the expanded affordances of the PlayStation controller eventually led to unmeetable demands related to extensive use of “chaining” together sequences of button combinations (Stuart, 2018).

My own experiences are similar. Born with transverse hemimelia and bilateral fibular hemimelia, I have no left arm below the elbow except for a thumb-like protuberance on the elbow, and extensive lower limb deformity. Despite this unpromising physicality, I received a NES for my fifth birthday. With no predetermined concept of how to play, I intuitively rested the controller on the floor, then used my left foot to manipulate the D-pad and right hand to operate the buttons. I had no sense that this was unusual.

Over time I moved from the NES to the SNES, to the Sega Dreamcast and finally on to PlayStations 1 to 4. The evolution of the controller prompted my interactions to slowly develop into the comparatively more conventional style I use today (Fig. 2). The flexibility and open-endedness of these interfaces arguably facilitated this serendipitous fit: the controller did not prescribe exactly how it must be used but could instead (inadvertently) support varied bodily affordances and interaction styles.

 

Figure 2. The current interaction style of the author: left thumb at elbow joint operates left analogue stick and D-Pad, right hand operates right analogue stick and all buttons.

 

If such instances of incidental fit between unconventional bodily affordances and standard controllers are rarely mentioned in a video game context, there are antecedents elsewhere, notably in music; another domain that requires complex real-time control. Examples include pianist Paul Wittgenstein and guitarist Django Reinhardt (Dalgleish, 2014).

There is nonetheless a fundamental difference between the two domains: traditional musical instruments have evolved extremely slowly (Fletcher & Rossing, 1991: v-vi), but video games and their controllers have evolved very rapidly (Bhardwaj, 2017): relatively suddenly, players can find interaction demands unmeetable. Like Romney (Stuart, 2018), my own exclusion came unexpectedly. It related to the shift from handheld to gestural controllers. The innovative Wii remote was unproblematic in itself; the problem lay in that most games required concurrent use of a Nunchuck (second controller). While more conventional controllers can be held – if not necessarily operated – by one hand, this combination assumed that the player could both hold and operate one controller in each hand: a seemingly inconsequential difference that essentially precluded my participation.

The success of the Wii inspired related approaches. Most notably, Microsoft developed the Kinect; a camera and infrared-based motion controller for the Xbox 360 that promised whole body interaction without a physical controller (Zhang, 2012). However, it soon became apparent that the Kinect could not map its skeleton model onto my body: I had to return to using a more conventional controller only. The irony is that Nintendo and Microsoft intended these systems to broaden participation (Ulicsak, Wright & Crammer, 2009; Chen, Li, Ngo & Sun, 2011). Instead, their narrow and inflexible schemes of allowable interactions effectively disempowered one subset of possible users in order to empower another.

 

Related work: adapted controllers and new designs

Examples similar to the above have rarely been considered in prior literature. Instead, efforts to increase the accessibility of video games for players with motor impairments have tended to focus on three aspects:

• Remapping of controls in software
• Hardware modifications to standard controllers
• Development of new/alternative controllers

Remapping refers to the ability of software to flexibly redistribute controls in order to suit particular player abilities and preferences. Game Accessibility Guidelines state that: “Many people […] benefit greatly from being able to move essential controls into positions that they are able to reach more easily” (Game Accessibility, u.d.). For instance, professional Street Fighter player BrolyLegs (Street Fighter, 2016) remaps controls in order to play using his face. If the ability to remap controls is implemented, a range of different mappings can be quickly tested, at little or no cost. However, remapping alone may be insufficient for some needs and is rarely implemented on consoles (Game Accessibility, u.d.).

Modifications to standard controllers have been aided by the spread of Maker culture. They vary considerably in their complexity. At one end of a continuum are modest changes to controls to make them easier to grip or press. For instance, Caleb Kraft has presented a relatively simple, modular design for 3-D printed joystick that can broadly increase controller accessibility (Kraft, 2015a), as well as modified thumbstick buttons for a player with muscular dystrophy (Kraft, 2014). Other modifications are more complex. For example, the Single Handed Gaming Controllers for Accessibility Use project by Ben Heck (u.d.) extensively modifies standard controllers to enable one-handed operation.

While modifications to standard controllers can be useful for some players they have some limitations. For instance, they can be difficult to produce in larger numbers. As Caleb Kraft (2015b) comments: “The biggest issue that I run into is time. I simply can’t keep up with the requests.” Another issue for adapted controllers is that they can be difficult to sell as they are usually informal (and relatively untested) modifications of a commercial device (Iacopetti, Fanucci, Roncella, Giusti & Scebba, 2008).

With the Nintendo Hands Free controller for the NES a rare exception (Plunkett, 2009), the main manufacturers have shown limited interest in accessible controllers. Instead, new, accessibility-focussed controller designs have typically come from third parties. Quadstick (u.d.) have produced three controllers aimed at quadriplegic players and featuring combinations of spatial, pressure and “sip/puff” sensors, and head-operated joysticks. At the other end of the body, Gyorgy Levay and team developed the Game Enhancing Augmented Reality controller; a padded device operated by the feet (Cragg, 2016).

More flexible, modular approaches have been proposed by Iacopetti et al. (2008) and, most recently, Microsoft. The Microsoft Adaptive Controller is informed by its earlier Xbox Elite controller: a professional esports controller adopted by some players with limited mobility (Stark & Sarkar, 2018). The Adaptive Controller is not aimed at a specific disability but provides a flexible hub for additional input devices (Microsoft, 2018; Englard, 2018). Released in late 2018, its customisability has the potential to meet the needs of disparate players, without the sometimes-prohibitive costs of bespoke production.

Entirely new classes of controls continue to emerge, and some have been applied to a video game accessibility context. For instance, Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) emerged in the early 1970s (Vidal, 1973), but more refined, widely available and lower cost designs have appeared only in the last decade. As BCIs – primarily using electroencephalographic signals – have become more readily available, they have been used as video game controllers (Ahn, Lee, Choi & Jun, 2014). Researchers have also started to explore the potential of BCIs for disabled gamers (Maby et al., 2012), but they remain nascent and beyond further coverage in this paper.

 

Asymmetrical roles and asymmetrical controllers

This article has identified numerous ideas and developments around controllers and accessibility. All are likely imperfect to at least some people and universal accessibility is probably unachievable (Barlet & Spohn, 2012; Vanderheiden & Henry, 2003). As such, alongside additional considerations such as cost, the need for setup help and hard-to-predict individual preferences, it is surely fruitful to continue to explore multiple directions.

While attempts to make games more accessible to players with motor impairments have focussed on controllers and mappings, game mechanics have also been considered. For example, Barlet and Spohn (2012) discuss the power of adaptive difficulty. More generally, the social mechanics of multiplayer games have been deliberated (Quandt & Kröger, 2013; Siitonen, 2007), but standard controllers are usually assumed. There also remains scant consideration of how multiplayer experiences can inform controller design; or how they might inform the interface for motor impaired players.

A rare exception is a user-selectable Xbox One feature called Copilot. This links two controllers so that they can be used as one, in order to provide assistance as needed (Englard, 2018). The Copilot model can be criticised on at least three grounds. First, the pilot-co-pilot relationship has an inbuilt power dynamic; the pilot player is beholden to a “better” player for help. Second, all other aspects of the game remain identical to the single player version: the potentials of multiple players are not explored. Third, social isolation is an issue for many people with disabilities (Scope, 2017), but Copilot allows for cooperation in-person only; it does not exploit the social potentials of the internet.

A less restrictive basis is provided by Pierre Lévy (1997, p.13) and the notion of collective intelligence: “a form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills.” Proposed at a more utopian time for the internet, collective intelligence posits a shift from human-machine interaction to collaborative human-human interactions. Particularly relevant for its implicit embrace of diversity is the assertion that: “No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity” (Lévy, 1997, p.13); a notion reinforced by the statement: “Before we can mobilize skills, we have to identify them. And to do so, we have to recognize them in all their diversity” (Lévy, 1997, p.13).

Lévy (1997) already intends “intelligence” to refer to a duality; not only the construction of ideas but also the construction of people (i.e. society) (p. 10). Perhaps it can be extended further still, to account for how brain-centric views of cognition have been increasingly challenged by embodiment: the notion that the body is needed for intelligence (Pfeifer & Bongard, 2007, xvii). Related, Paul Dourish (2001) has proposed embodiment as a foundation for human-machine interaction. If this shift can be accepted, it is possible to reframe Lévy’s statement to conceive a model of interaction whereby no-one can do everything, but everyone can do something.

An example of this kind of asymmetric collaborative play in a musical context is Harmony Space: a multi-user system created by Simon Holland (1993) that enables collaborative roles to be split in numerous ways. For instance, non-traditional roles such as steering the root note, changes to key, chord size and inversions, can be distributed across one or more players. Many pieces of music require only two or three roles, but interplay can still deliver rich sequences. A more recent version of Harmony Space (Bouwer, Holland & Dalgleish, 2013) also expands the variety of controller types that can be used, from dance mats to MIDI foot pedals. This added flexibility enables players to choose the most appropriate controller for their selected role and abilities.

There are also examples of video games that make use of asymmetrical roles. For instance, Gandolfi (2018) explores how players use asymmetrical roles to develop cooperative and computational thinking in the online multiplayer games Overwatch, For Honor and Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Siege. However, these are not aimed at players with a disability and the expectation is for all players to use a similar controller.

More useful in an accessibility context are Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes (KTNE) and Artemis Spaceship Bridge Commander (ASBC). KTNE features one player as the Defuser and one or more other players as Experts. The Defuser must diffuse a bomb before time runs out but must be guided by the Experts. The Experts have access to the instructions but cannot see or interact with the bomb directly. Controller options for the Defuser include keyboard and mouse, touchscreen and gamepads, and the Experts and Defuser communicate verbally, in person or online. A number of design decisions help to increase the game’s accessibility. First, players are able to select from two roles that are equally vital but highly asymmetric in their interaction demands. Second, the Defuser role supports several different input devices, and these may further increase the diversity of compatible bodily affordances. Third, a “free play” mode enables the countdown timer to be adjusted; useful if a player requires extended time to provide input.

ASBC requires multiple (ideally six) players, and at least one Microsoft Windows computer. The six available roles are highly asymmetric in the skills and abilities they require for players to succeed (Justin, 2013). While the Captain must use a Windows machine, mobile devices can be used for the other roles if desired. Regardless of the devices used, inter-player voice communication is the primary way to coordinate complex ship operations.

A strength of both titles is that while roles are highly asymmetrical, fundamental principles such as reward, goals, challenge and meaningful play (Barrett, Swain, Gatzidis & Mecheraoui, 2016) are maintained. While ASBC is more restrictive in some respects than KTNE, its more extensive roles also allow for more extended differentiation in role requirements and interaction demands. That all but the player in the Captain role can choose from mobile, laptop or desktop platforms enables players to use a wide variety of devices and to customise interaction to suit individual requirements.

The “asymmetrical roles and asymmetrical controllers” (ARAC) model exhibited by KTNE and ASBC is still to be formally tested in the context of games and disability. Indeed, there are few if any documented cases of informal use. Nevertheless, the asymmetrical roles and asymmetrical controllers can be seen to oppose the notion of “parallel game universes” developed by Grammenos, Savidis and Stephanidis (2009). This aims to create subspaces of differential difficulty in order for both players with and without impairments to play cooperatively or against each other in a way that provides equivalency of difficulty (Grammenos et al., 2009). However, in order to achieve a balance, the player with impairments is provided with a simplified and arguably lesser version of the “full” experience.

Rather than segregate players with disabilities by placing them in exclusive sub-sections that provide “cut-down” versions of the canonical experience in an attempt to manage challenge and difficulty, the ARAC model has all players – impaired or otherwise – play in the same space. Players also all engage in the same tasks (there are no simplified iterations) but do so from different perspectives. More specifically, players can adopt different roles and input modalities that best suit their individual abilities. For instance, players with motor impairments might use voice input to direct the actions of other players or use physical input devices in non-real-time (i.e. less temporally-critical) roles.

 

Conclusions and future work

This paper has outlined the evolving nature of developments around video games and accessibility, highlighted some current limitations, and outlined the ARAC model as a potential solution to some of these issues. A particular problem for any accessibility model is a persistent lack of adoption, seemingly as a result of apathy on the part of industry. This apathy is likely at least partly financially motivated in that, despite the apparent size of the market, prior developments have tended to be one-offs: bespoke adaptations or entirely bespoke designs for individual players. These are usually relatively costly and require specialised expertise to develop but have few of the economies of large-scale production and limited mainstream potential. The ARAC model has promise in this respect: rather than craft one-off controllers to adapt titles that would ordinarily be inaccessible, ARAC improves accessibility by making diversity of roles and input a fundamental tenet of game design.

From an accessibility perspective, it is important that a wide variety of input devices are supported so that players can try out and mix-and-match different combinations until individually optimised solutions are found. Moreover, asymmetrical roles inherently imply the use of a range of input devices: different roles have different affordances and interaction demands, that in turn imply particular types of input. Although controllers are often treated as generically interchangeable, KTNE already demonstrates how matching of game mechanics and input modalities can produce gameplay that is original and accessible.

It is important to note that this does not necessarily mean simple or simplistic gameplay. Although, as in Harmony Space (Holland, 1993), individual roles may have modest interaction demands (i.e. low CD), heterogeneous but well-coordinated combinations of players can adeptly complete very complex tasks: as is also the case with complex problems in the real-world (Kirschner, Paas, Kirschner and Janssen (2011)).

If roles can already be seen to suggest some types of controller over others, matches between controllers and unconventional bodily affordances remain poorly understood. For instance, if simpler (low CD) controllers can allow for more flexibility of use and may therefore accommodate diverse users, it is not yet clear how to predict matches between bodies and controllers new or old, bespoke or mass-produced. Thus, trial and error remain a necessity for most motor impaired players and disabled players more broadly. As such, there is still much to be done. Pertinent future directions include:

• Identification of additional games that have the potential to be case studies, and to study their player-game relationships longitudinally and preferably in-the-wild so that issues can be understood in situ.
• Exploration of particular aspects within the broader ARAC model to enable more certainty in implementation and leading to guidelines for game designers and the design of new games. For instance:
  • development of a framework for assessing the likely fit between (old and new) controllers and diverse user needs;
  • examination of how to best match player roles to a variety of interfaces.

• Development of interfaces that reflect how the effects of disability can change over time (even day to day) and adjust their response accordingly (i.e. adaptive interfaces).
• Education of games industry staff, particularly those with strategic responsibilities, in order to increase awareness of accessibility issues. This may be crucial if accessibility is to be “designed in” to games from the outset of their development.

 

References

Ahn, M., Lee, M., Choi, J. & Jun, S.C. (2014). A review of brain-computer interface games and an opinion survey from researchers, developers and users. Sensors, 14(8), pp. 14601-14633.

Arrigo, M. (2005). E-learning accessibility for blind students. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multimedia and ICTs in Education – m-ICTE2005.

Barlet, M.C. & Spohn, S.D. (2012). Includification: a practical guide to game accessibility. Retrieved from https://www.includification.com/AbleGamers_Includification.pdf

Barrett, N., Swain, I., Gatzidis, C., & Mecheraoui, C. (2016). The use and effect of video game design theory in the creation of game-based systems for upper limb stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 3, pp. 1-16.

Bhardwaj, R. (2017). The ergonomic development of video game controllers. Journal of Ergonomics, 7(209).

Bierre, K., Chetwynd, J., Ellis, B., Hinn, D.M., Ludi, S. and Westin, T. (2005). Game not over: accessibility issues in video games. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.

Bongers, B. (2000). Physical interfaces in the electronic arts: interaction theory and interfacing techniques for real-time performance. In M. Wanderley & M. Battier (Eds.), Trends in Gestural Control of Music. Paris, France: IRCAM.

Bouwer, A., Holland, S. and Dalgleish, M. (2013). Song Walker Harmony Space: embodied interaction design for complex musical skills. In: S. Holland, K. Wilkie, P. Mulholland, & A. Seago (Eds.), Music and Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 207-221). London, UK: Springer.

Chen, C., Li, G., Ngo, P., & Sun, C. (2011). Motion sensing technology. Management of Technology, e103(2011).

Cobb, S., Beardon, L., Eastgate, R., Glover, T., Kerr, S., Neale, H. (…) Wilson, J. (2002). Applied virtual environments to support learning of social interaction skills in users with Asperger’s syndrome. Digital Creativity, 13(1), pp. 11-22.

Cragg, O. (2016). ‘Handi-capable’ video game controller lets disabled gamers play without hands. International Business Times, 24th June 2016. Retrieved from https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/handi-capable-video-game-controller-lets-disabled-gamers-play-without-hands-1567256

Dalgleish, M. (2014). Reconsidering process: bringing thoughtfulness to the design of digital musical instruments for disabled users. In Proceedings of INTER-FACE: International Conference on Live Interfaces.

Diskin, P. (2004). Nintendo Entertainment System documentation. Retrieved from http://nesdev.com/NESDoc.pdf

Dolinar, G. & Fels, D.I. (2014). Mobility games ideation. In Proceedings of the 2014 University of Guelph Accessibility Conference.

Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Englard, K. (2018). Microsoft has created the most accessible gaming controller ever made. Retrieved from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3kvx7/microsoft-adaptive-controller

Fletcher, N.H. & Rossing, T. D. (1991). The physics of musical instruments. New York, NY: Springer.

Flynn, S.M. & Lange, B.M. (2010). Games for rehabilitation, the voice of players. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality & Associated Technologies.

Game Accessibility (u.d.). Game accessibility guidelines. Retrieved from http://gameaccessibilityguidelines.com/allow-controls-to-be-remapped-reconfigured/

Gandolfi, E. (2018). You have got a (different) friend in me: asymmetrical roles in gaming as potential ambassadors of computational and cooperative thinking. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(3), pp. 128-145.

Gough, A. (2005). Body/Mine: a chaos narrative of cyborg subjectivities and liminal experiences. Women’s Studies, 34(3/4), pp. 249-64.

Grammenos, D., Savidis, A., & Stephanidis, C. (2009). Designing universally accessible games. ACM Computer Entertainment, 7(1).

Hasselbring, T. S. & Glaser, C. H. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), pp. 102-122.

Heck, B. (u.d.). Single handed Xbox One controllers. Retrieved from https://www.benheck.com/controllers

Holland, S. (1993). Learning about harmony with Harmony Space: an overview. In M. Smith, A. Smaill, & G. Wiggins (Eds.), Proceedings of a Workshop held as part of AI-ED 93, World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Edinburgh, Scotland, 25 August 1993 (pp. 24-40). London, UK: Springer.

Iacopetti, F., Fanucci, L., Roncella, R., Giusti, D., & Scebba, A. (2008). Game console controller interface for people with disability. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS-2008).

Jackson, L.A., Witt, E.A., Games, A.I, Fitzgerald, H.E., von Eye, A., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Information technology use and creativity: findings from the Children and Technology project. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), pp. 370-376.

Jewell, S. & Atkin, R. (2013). Enabling technology report. London, UK: Royal College of Art.

Jiménez, M.R., Pulina, F., & Lanfranchi, S. (2015). Video games and intellectual disabilities: a literature review. Life Span and Disability, 18(2), pp. 147-165.

Justin (2013). Beginner’s guide to Artemis: Spaceship Bridge Simulator. Retrieved from https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=180128089

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P., & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), pp. 587-599.

Kraft, C. (2014). Modifying an Xbox One controller thumbsticks for muscular dystrophy. Retrieved from https://makezine.com/projects/modifying-an-xbox-one-controller-thumbsticks-for-muscular-dystrophy

Kraft, C. (2015a). Level up: these 3D printed thumbsticks help the disabled play Xbox. Retrieved from https://makezine.com/2015/01/30/level-up-these-3d-printed-thumbsticks-help-the-disabled-play-xbox/

Kraft, C. (2015b). Modifying Xbox controllers for gamers with disabilities: Ben Heck shows how. Retrieved from https://makezine.com/2015/12/14/modifying-xbox-controllers-for-gamers-with-disabilities-ben-heck-shows-how/

Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Locker, D. (1983). Disability and disadvantage. London, UK: Tavistock.

Lu, A.S., Baranowski, T., Hong, S.L., Buday, R., Thompson, D., Beltran, A., & Chen, T.A. (2016). The narrative impact of active video games on physical activity among children: a feasibility study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(10).

Maby, E., Perrin, M., Bertrand, O., Sanchez, G. & Mattout, J. (2012). BCI could make old two-player games even more fun: a proof of concept with “Connect Four”. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2012, pp. 1-8.

McMahan, R.P., Bowman, D. A., Zielinski, D.J., & Brady, R.B. (2012). Evaluating display fidelity and interaction fidelity in a virtual reality game. IIEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, 18(4), pp. 626-633.

Microsoft (2018). Xbox Adaptive Controller. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/p/xbox-adaptive-controller/8nsdbhz1n3d8

Mustaquim, M. & Nyström, T. (2014). Video game control dimensionality analysis. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interactive Entertainment (IE2014).

Nintendo (1990). Double Dragon II game pak instructions. Retrieved from https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NACHE.pdf

Norman, D.A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Norman, D.A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), pp. 38-43.

Owens, J. (2015). Exploring the critiques of the social model of disability: the transformative possibility of Arendt’s notion of power. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37(3), pp. 385-403.

Pfeifer, R. & Bongard, J. (2007). How the body shapes the way we think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Plunkett, L. (2009). The disabled-friendly NES controller from the 1980s. Retrieved from https://kotaku.com/5241760/the-disabled-friendly-nes-controller-from-the-1980s

Plunkett, L. (2011). The evolution of the PlayStation control pad. Retrieved from https://kotaku.com/5816069/the-evolution-of-the-playstation-control-pad/

Posso, A. (2016). Internet usage and educational outcomes among 15-year-old Australian students. International Journal of Communication, 10(2016), pp 3851-3876.

Quadstick (u.d.). Quadstick: a game controller for quadriplegics. Retrieved from http://www.quadstick.com/contact/

Quandt, T. & Kröger, S. (2013). Multiplayer: the social aspects of digital gaming. London, UK: Routledge.

Rowland, J.L., Malone, L.A., Fidopiastis, C.M., Padalabalanarayanan, S., Thirumalai, M., & Rimmer, J.H. (2016) Perspectives on active video gaming as a new frontier in accessible physical activity for youth with physical disabilities. Physical Therapy, 96(4), pp. 521-532.

Scope (2017). Nearly half of disabled people chronically lonely. Retrieved from https://www.scope.org.uk/press-releases/nearly-half-of-disabled-people-chronically-lonely

Shakespeare, T. (2016). The social model of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 266-273). New York, NY: Routledge.

Siitonen, M. (2007). Social interaction in online multiplayer communities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

SpecialEffect (n.d.). Can we help? Retrieved from https://www.specialeffect.org.uk/can-we-help

Stark, C. & Sarkar, S. (2018). Microsoft’s new Xbox controller is designed entirely for players with disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.polygon.com/2018/5/17/17363528/xbox-adaptive-controller-disability-accessible

Statista (2017). Number of active video gamers worldwide from 2014 to 2021 (in millions). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/748044/number-video-gamers-world/

Statista (2018). Penetration rate of gamers among the general population in the United States from 2013 to 2018. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/748835/us-gamers-penetration-rate/

Stuart, K. (2018). How gamers with disabilities shaped the Microsoft Adaptive Controller. Retrieved from https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-05-20-how-gamers-with-disabilities-shaped-the-microsoft-adaptive-controller

Swain, C. (2008). Master metrics: the science behind the art of game design. In K. Isbister & N. Schaffer (Eds.), Game usability: advancing the player experience (pp. 119-140). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

The Economist (2017). Games for people with disabilities. The Economist, 30 September 2017. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2017/09/30/games-for-people-with-disabilities

u.a. (2017). Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out!!/getting started. Retrieved from https://strategywiki.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson%27s_Punch-Out!!/Getting_Started

Ulicsak, M., Wright, M., & Crammer, S. (2009). Gaming in families: A literature review. Slough, UK: Futurelab at National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.

UPIAS (1975). Fundamental principles of disability. London, UK: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.

Vanderheiden, G.C. & Henry, S.L. (2003). Designing flexible, accessible interfaces that are more usable by everyone. Proceedings of the 2003 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2018).

Vidal, J.J. (1973). Toward direct brain-computer communication. Annual Review of Biophysics and Bioengineering, 2(1), pp. 157-80.

Yuan, B., Folmer, E., & Harris, F.C. (2011). Game accessibility: a survey. Universal Access in the Information Society, 10(1), pp. 81-100.

Zhang, Z. (2012). Microsoft Kinect sensor and its effect. IEEE MultiMedia Magazine, 19(2), pp. 4-10.

 

A/V Material

Street Fighter (Street Fighter). (2016). BrolyLegs: The Fighter. [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MYSgy4QMw&feature=youtu.be

 

Ludography

Artemis Spaceship Bridge Commander, Incandescent Workshop, United States, 2010.

Asteroids, Atari, United States, 1981.

Double Dragon II: The Revenge, Technōs Japan, Japan, 1990.

Family Ski, Namco Bandai, Japan, 2008.

G1 Jockey, Koei Tecmo, Japan, 2008.

Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, Steel Crate Games, Canada, 2015.

Punch Out!!, Nintendo, Japan, 1990.

Ski, Magnavox, United States, 1972.

Table Tennis, Magnavox, United States, 1972.

 

Author’s Info:

Mathew Dalgleish

University of Wolverhampton

m.dalgleish2@wlv.ac.uk

Luca Imbriani (School of Design, Politecnico di Milano), Ilaria Mariani (ImagisLab, Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano), Maresa Bertolo (ImagisLab, Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano)

  PDF Download 

Abstract

This paper explores the need for a competitive game for sighted and blind players alike, its effectiveness in fighting prejudices and how it can contribute and facilitate the inclusion of people with visual disability, when played by heterogeneous groups of players. The first part presents the state of the art about competitive games for blind and low vision users. Focusing on the typologies of games already on the market, and on the apparent lack of fast-paced multiplayer games, it shows a current space for research and development. Then, we present WaTa Fight!, a competitive casual party game that can be used by sighted and blind players alike, outlining its development, from its concept to its design and testing – conducted via focus groups and survey. Finally, we discuss the results obtained in terms of the game’s effectiveness in addressing the visual impairment topic and in fostering integration.

Keywords: Visual impairment, Inclusion, Competition, Party game, Mobile game.

 

Introduction. The market and a promising empty spot

In between the 19th and 20th century, the queen Carmen-Sylva of Romania aimed to create a town for blind people only. The queen thought this proposal would improve the life of those who are blind, as she identified this condition with the inability of living a complete life in the society (Alliegro, 1991, p. 13).

Such a line of thought was by no means an exception. For example, in 1865 the newly born Kingdom of Italy, with the article 340 of the Civil Code, placed blind and deaf citizens under the legal guardianship of tutors, aggravating their condition of deprivation. Today, most of the States’ legislation in the matter of disability recognizes the importance of the integration of individuals with special needs in the society (Mangiatordi, 2017, pp. 19-20; p. 45; Istat, 2013), but a significant part of the media still uses old tropes to depict disability, often including damaging stereotypes as many pop media portray blind and low vision people as incapable of behaving normally (Barnes, 1992). The cartoon series Mr. Magoo is a well-known, evident example of such tendency: in each episode the old man reveals himself incapable of understanding any dangerous situation he faces, prevailing out of pure luck. This stereotype, done for comedic effects, is so damaging for the blind and low vision communities that they protested upon the theatrical release of the live action Mr. Magoo movie in 1997 (Maurer, 1997).

The problem with the media depiction of disability is often related to its exclusiveness: the person with disability is represented as different from the supposed normality and hence detached from the society (Barnes, 1992, p.19). In order to expose the socio-cultural bias and truly integrate individuals with disability into our society, it is necessary to fight prejudices by creating heterogeneous communities and reducing those social barriers to their everyday activities (d’Allonzo, 2008, pp. 52-61).

Among the various media, games also dealt with individuals with special needs and their issues in such areas as single- to multi-player, from audio games to board games and video games. The interest of the community in this subject has expanded over the years, as more researchers investigate different forms of gaming and playing. On the one side the academy shows specific interest towards education and learning (Gandolfi et al., 2016); on the other, the community of practice (especially indie companies) designs games that place non-impaired people into someone else’ shoes (Blind Arena Tournament, 2017; Perception, 2017; Footsteps, 2016; Blindfield, 2016).

As the games for the social change field of practice and literature demonstrate, games can be a way to inform and persuade the general public in a cause (Bogost, 2007; Kaufman & Flanagan, 2015; Bertolo & Mariani, 2014; Mariani, 2016). So far, except for a few examples, games for social change tend to rarely be competitive, but rather individual. This limits interaction and exchange with other players. Challenging such trend, the attention has been drawn on competitive online games as sources of thrilling interaction and deep engagement.

Indeed, community creation and bonding are key components of successful competitive online games as in those actions are often sensationalized to widen the community with an audience of spectators (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017; Gandolfi, 2016; Cheung & Huang, 2011). Therefore, competitive gaming may be a way to fight the prejudices about the inability of blind and low vision people, helping the process of integration.

In this scenario, mobile gaming accounts as one of the most promising frontiers and flourishing branches of the game market (of which it represents about 50%), confirming a double-digit growth since the launch of the first smartphone in 2007 (Newzoo, 2018). The worldwide distribution of mobile devices, their extensive and growing accessibility (affordable prices, user-friendly interface, and a good usability in general), alongside with the improvement of the communication infrastructures, and the abundance of titles in the app stores platforms nurtured a healthy and promising environment.

Surfing between game studies and design research, this article investigates how a game can address the issue of blindness or impaired vision through a game aimed at fostering social inclusion and comprehension. From the analysis of games for blind and low-vision players on digital devices, the article describes the design process of a competitive audio game prototype, including the tests for evaluating its usability, playability, and effectiveness in helping the integration of people who are blind or have low-vision. WaTa Fight! is the outcome of a MSc thesis conducted at Politecnico di Milano, School and Department of Design, and it belongs to a broader research addressing the topic of social change in general, and social inclusion and communitarian comprehension more specifically, held in ImagisLab research group by Maresa Bertolo, Ilaria Mariani, and students. As other thesis researches developed in ImagisLab, the work presented here has been structured as (1) a phase of literature review and case studies analysis; (2) a design phase of the prototype conducted as an iterative process; and (3) testing with end-users, enquiring the game both as an interactive product and a communicative system able to deploy meaning through its gameplay.

 

Competitive games for blind and low vision players

The decision to develop a competitive game depends on the market analysis. As related pieces of information could not be found in literature, the research methodically examines the titles collected in the Audiogames.net database aiming at a better understanding of the genres of audio games in use. Among the several online databases and repositories of games suitable for blind players, Audiogames.net stands for being cross-platform, presenting titles for PC and mobile devices alike, and unlike most of the other similar services, for being independent of any development company. Moreover, Audiogames.net offers an indexation of the titles that facilitates the market analysis process. In the initial research phase, each game category in the archive has been listed, ruminating on the size of the group and the attributes of the content. To further represent the site content and nurture the analysis process, the games have been grouped into specific clusters that classify the experience offered by the audio games listed (fig. 1).

A line of reasoning that is transversal to the clusters identified, the games on Audiogames.net resulted to be mostly narrative and slow paced, often shaped as online multiplayer text-based games, in the fashion of Multi-User Dungeons. Further diving into the analysis, it emerged that the repository does not include any case of competitive, multiplayer, fast-paced, audio-based game; such vacuum emerged as a potential space for design. Therefore, it has been conceived as a game concept that adheres to the identified needs and fills a design space with interesting untapped possibilities. To maximize mutual exchange and encourage socialization, it has been designed as a party game: quick to play, with easy-to-grasp rules, based on soft skills such as agility and concentration, and with a special focus on the interaction between players. In addition, it has been conceived “for players”, regardless of their ability to see.

 

Figure 1. The 648 games on audiogames.net categorized into clusters.

 

Wata Fight! An inclusive competitive party game

Targeting individuals who are both sighted and visually impaired dictates special requirements. On the ground of the competitive audio-based game WaTa Fight! there is the study of video games and games directed to the general public as well as of interfaces for users who are visually impaired. Considering the aforementioned reasons for conceiving a casual party gaming with competitive elements, the main sources of inspirations were the series of Nintendo party games 123 Switch (2017). These mini-games characterized by short matches focus on the speed and precision of the participant’s movements, with almost no use of graphics. Considering the market, the target(s) and the intent of soliciting integration and dialogue, the game and its gameplay do not pivot around visual elements. In the game, players must perform actions faster or more precisely than their opponents to gain points. Moreover, the narrative itself relies on a strong metaphor that subtly enhances the game meaning, without stressing its topic (Kaufman & Flanagan, 2015; Mariani, 2016).

 

Figure 2. WaTa Fight! in action

Narrative and gameplay

WaTa Fight! is a competitive casual game where players are Ninjas that battle for glory in a Great Martial Art Tournament. As Ninjas hiding ability is legendary, no one can see them. In a match, two players face each other by tapping on a smartphone screen faster than the opponent in order to perform an attack. To fight, each player uses a smartphone in landscape position, held between the hands, with the screen facing the opponent, equalizing a player with and without visual disability.

On the smartphone screen, there are only two large buttons, named Wa and Ta respectively (fig. 2). The two Ninjas fight by pressing them to attack the opponent with a Wa or a Ta move, or even both to perform a WaTa attack: a powerful move combining the two base ones. According to the command pressed, the smartphone shouts the ongoing attack, giving the opponent the possibility to parry by quickly tapping the same attack on her/his smartphone.

 

Figure 3. Wa and Ta buttons on the screen.

 

According to the fictional world of reference, Ninjas are epic fighters, and as such, they can be wounded only in the Honor. Players start with 3 Honor Points. Each successful attack performed steals 2 Honor Points to the opponent; however, the opponent may parry, blocking the attack effect and stealing back 1 Honor Point. The match ends after a set time, and the winner is the contestant with the highest Honor score.

As only two players participate in each match, other people are encouraged to spectate the action, even disturbing the players’ actions with their voices. To this end, it is also possible, but optional, to connect the game to a computer screen or a smart TV to visualize a leaderboard displaying the current game statuses.

 

Towards a “comfortable” interface

Focusing on the visual and interactive aspects, the game touch-based interface required several sessions of reflections and field experimentation. It was loosely inspired by BrailleTouch ² (Frey, Southern & Romero, 2011), a mobile texting application for blind and low-vision users. Developed by a team from Georgia Tech, this Braille-like texting app uses a six-button wireframe on a landscape positioned smartphone to simulate the structure of the Braille writing system and support visually impaired people to easily type on a screen, without even looking at it.

The game prototype was originally conceived with an eight-button interface, with 4 buttons on each side of the screen. However, still in the early concept phase, the studies in literature (Frey, Southern & Romero, 2011) led to the reduction of the number of buttons – initially from 8 to 6, as in the case study mentioned above. However, timely early tests with end-users called for a further simplification of the structure. Blind and low-vision persons proficient in Braille, as well as sighted persons participated to a set of very early tests consisting of tapping on the screen to complete some series, interacting with a different amount of buttons. Testers were asked to interact with two interfaces: the first had 4 buttons, the second had 6. The results were key in terms of design, defining how many buttons players were able to “comfortably manage” in the meanwhile, as well as their degree of feeling at their ease in using the button-based interface. All the players tested the four-button version without experiencing awkwardness or discomfort. On the other hand, all players but one stated that they felt “uncomfortable” in managing six buttons, being reluctant even to try such wireframe version of the interface, envisioning the interaction as distressful and unpleasant. The six-button interface was perceived as complex and also “scary” by some of the playtesters that asserted that the mere request made them feel distressed. Based on this feedback and subsequent analysis, the first and current playable prototype of the game uses only two buttons, one for each side of the device (fig. 2). The decision was due to the typology of game (party game) and to the time necessary to get adjusted to four potential combinations and their feedback. The analysis took into consideration that individuals with low-vision or who are blind cannot take a look at an explanation screen, but rather have to hear the voice tutorial. In essence, explaining how to use 4 buttons plus their combinations requires a certain amount of time, and significant attention for memorizing the sequences and their meaning. Because WaTa Fight! is a party game directed toward a casual audience, a fast learning curve is optimal and an audio-based learning process is more methodical and slow (Rashtian in Nasar & Evans-Cowley, 2007, p. 45).

 

Testing with end users. Research methodology

Since its early prototype phase, the game was tested in its effectiveness as a communication system with social aims as well as in its playability both in terms of user experience (UX) and user interface (UI), considering its peculiar, mixed audience.

 

Structure of the enquiry

To understand and assess the effectiveness of the directions and the conceptualization of the game, independently of their ability or disability to see, players have been qualitatively investigated employing a set of specifically designed tools (Mariani, 2016):

• observed through a real-time rapid ethnography (Millen, 2000);
• recorded for an in-depth follow-up analysis of UX and UI;
• asked to fill a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires³. Because of the players, it has been shaped as regular questions with the scale printed on paper for sighted playtesters, or as speak-aloud questions with tactile scales for the sight-impaired ones;
• and later involved in focus groups with semi-structured questions to further unpack specific topics of relevance.

The playtests, held in three sessions, involved a total amount of 14 players (m: 6; f: 8), of which 9 individuals were sighted, and 6 players were legally blind. In this phase the involvement of blind and low-vision end-users was pivotal to verify the usability and playability of the game in primis (as explained above), but also its ability to trigger social integration among the players, independently of their visual ability. To ensure an optimal experience and the inclusion of the final audience, the focus groups were organized with and supported by the Unione Italiana Ciechi e Ipovedenti (the Italian Blind and Low Vision Association) of Novara. The field tests occurred from May to June 2018, as shown in fig. 3. Each playtest and the focus groups have been recorded and shot to capture the full event, aiming at a follow-up in-depth analysis; in parallel, the researcher in charge of the observation conducted rapid ethnographies.

 

Figure 4. A visualization of the three playtests made stating the number of participants, their gender, sight condition and the tools used at the encounter.

The first version of the game has been playtested on May 2018 and involved 5 attendants, all males and legally blind, from 20 to 45 years old. Because of the nature and timing of this investigation that occurred in the very early stage of the design phase, this playtest mainly consisted into a field experimentation about players’ ability to press different number of buttons and interact with them through time. As a result, this first playtest, as described above, resulted to be more a usability study than a real analysis on the game effectiveness in prompting social integration. As suggested in the literature (Mariani, 2016, p. 79) each playtest was followed by a questionnaire and then a focus group (with semi-structured questions), whose tone was kept conversational and relaxed in order to stimulate the participants to express themselves freely, encouraging the discussion potentially beneficial for the research.

 

Sections of the questionnaire

The questionnaire consists of a series of VAS evaluating the experience on specific topics. The questions are arranged in the following sections:

• user profiling;
• analysis of the perceived feelings;
• significant traits of the game;
• particular aspects of the experience.

Apart from the profiling set, each question is meant to assess the effectiveness of the game in pursuing design goals, both in terms of UX and UI.

 

Topics of the focus group

A set of questions of the focus group is tailored to investigate the interaction with the interface, the feelings aroused under stressful conditions (fast-pace matches), and the resulting state of mind, considering the presence of several players on site with different visual ability. To sum up, the questions cover:

• competition and the experience of general pleasurability;
• social interactions (with players as well as with non players observing the game and interacting with those who play);
• possible emergent experiences.

Then, further questions regard and expand the following topics, which provide detailed knowledge about specific aspects of the game:

• the game duration;
• the possibility of playing again with friends;
• the experience as a spectator during other players’ matches.

The game duration is linked to the functioning of the game flow and the difficulty curve, or the experience fun factor, as the time perception of a player changes in accordance to its immersion in the game activities (Rockholz, 2014). The possibility to play the game with friends allows to better comprehend the quality of the experience and possible feelings of empowerment. Finally, the last point analyzes the experience from the perspective of the game spectator, namely of the one who observes the player, rather than the player itself, and the game communication possibilities of such users.

 

Results

This paragraph outlines the results coming from the questionnaires and the focus groups conducted during three sessions of playtesting ⁴. The first playtest was made with six legally blind participants. Among them, only one had some video-game experience, while most of the participants had at least occasionally played board games with the help of sighted friends – most notably Taboo, Clue, and Monopoly. Significantly, none of the participants declared any interest in playing with the smartphone in their everyday life, but they all stated to have good computer skills and to be interested in technology. That said, the first field experimentation was conducted with a wireframe interface, mainly serving as a usability test, aiming at understanding the players’ attitude towards the game, as well as their mood and feelings. Despite the still prototypal phase, the data defined the number of buttons players felt comfortable handling at the same time, and suggested a good level of emotive participation. The game length was perceived differently by those who won and those who lost; appropriate amount of time was perceived by winning players, and too short was perceived by the losing ones. However, speaking of pleasurability, the game was unanimously perceived as enjoyable and pleasant: rules were considered as easy to understand and remember, and the gameplay provided entertainment and recreation. These results confirmed what observed via ethnography, regarding the general mood and feeling.

Game Master: Would you like someone else to try the game?

P: YES [in unison]

F: YES [in unison]

G: YES [in unison]

F: [continuing] Yes, … honestly, I would make some of my sighted friends try it…[thinking aloud]

G: …To beat them up [completing the other one sentence]

The answer provided by F was a sort of thinking aloud process that underlined the desire to share the experience with someone else. However, what seems key is the fact of being allowed to play with a sighted person, without disadvantages of any sort. On the opposite, as stressed by G, who kind of completed F’s thought, this game almost becomes a way to “beat them up”. As if the fact of being visually impaired, for once, is giving an advantage, rather than being a handicap or a limitation. In these terms, WaTa Fight! turned out to facilitate interaction and social gatherings, overcoming the frequent issue due to visual disability. That is because to be good at this game is not important to be able to see, but to have reflexes, memory, and readiness.

Then, the participants of the focus groups claimed they also enjoyed the experience as game spectators. a data that seems in line with what was observed. However, spectators’ attitude and behaviour varied depending of the composition of the group. The spectatorship of a match with a mixed audience turned out more aggressive and “present” than that involving only non sight-impaired players. The playtest with just legally blind players saw the participants stand in silence, listening to the game audio in order to better understand the match status, whispering each other the score after each move: blind spectators cannot see the score, and therefore their observation is more centered around memory efforts. Playtests with mixed audiences were more effective in facilitating interaction and, above all, integration – that is further nurtured by the fact of going through a shared, meaningful, hands-on experience. It is also worth adding that the level of participation and interaction has varied according to the character, disposition and charisma of the players involved, and in consequence to the atmosphere that has been created. This serves to underline how the nature of the personalities involved has strongly influenced the perception of the game, in terms of experience.

The second and third playtest encounters were held in June and July 2018. One involved sighted participants only (n: 3 m and 4 f; age range: 22-32), the other mixed legally blind (n: 3 m; age range: 25-32) and sighted ones (n: 2 f; age range: 26-28). All but one considered themselves expert gamers, and 3 out of 5 affirmed to have at least some information about visual impairment. The two sighted playtesters evaluated the experience as positive and pleasurable. The only exception was a participant who won all the matches, and defined the game “too easy” – it has to be said that the player was highly coordinated and fast.

The game narrative and the tone of voice, in general, were unanimously considered fitting to the project goals. Choosing the fictional world of Ninjas contributed in terms of meaning making: the game activities gained indeed meaning because of the narrative context within they were set. As a matter of fact, screaming attacks as Wa and Ta and WaTa was not perceived as awkward or embarrassing. In parallel, also the game aesthetic has been appreciated and commented as a further trigger for enjoying the game, stimulating more playful interactions.

In parallel, remarkable information emerged as regarding the topic of sociability, showing encouraging results from both sighted and blind playtesters: all the participants stated that the game nurtured sociality, helping them to release some inhibitions in bonding with each other. However, the direct observation of the matches of the last playtest with 7, mixed participants (n: 3 m; 4 f) revealed that the sighted attendants were more active than the visually impaired counterpart, and prone to actively distract the opponents. Most of the participants attempted to disturb the game tickling and poking the other players to make them fail. When asked, the playtesters explained such behavior as resulting from a general discomfort using sound-based disturb attempt: the touch sense was therefore considered the more effective in the task.

Covering the game ability to convey meanings and nurture mutual comprehension, and hence its effectiveness as a communication system able to facilitate the integration of visually impaired people, WaTa Fight! seems promising. 16 playtesters on 18 stated they felt a general sense of openness towards the topic of integration after the game experience.

 

Conclusions and future developments

Nonetheless, the game is still in a prototype stage, with only the core gameplay implemented. A more complete product is needed in order to to proceed with the experimentation and in order to determine a complete idea of the full possibilities offered by the game. However, it is still possible to take stock from what we observed up to date. Even in a prototypal state and with a small test sample, the results are encouraging.

First of all, the information collected during the observation, as the general understanding of technology, the dynamics generated, and the basic gaming experience of the participants reinforced the initial idea of choosing a situated party game for mobile devices.

Data from the focus groups and the survey indicates that the participants have shown signs of openness and sympathy toward the theme and the other group members. The most effective and satisfying results were collected when the game was played by both blind and sighted players. In particular, the reaction of blind players is meaningful. They showed a clear interest in playing the game again, especially with sighted opponents, underlining the game high potentialities for facilitating inclusion and integration of people with vision impairment in groups of sighted individuals. Matter of factly, the game resulted an effective means for stimulating experiences that turned into constructive discussion and comprehension. It prompted players and spectators to talk about disabilities because of the constraints it imposed on the in-game actions through their mechanics and aesthetics. Games can use procedurality (Bogost, 2007; Sicart, 2011; Mariani, 2016), mechanics and also a fictional world to simulate disabilities, giving players an understanding of the difficulties encountered by a segment of the population.

The results are consistent with what corroborated by both literature (Gandolfi et al., 2016) and field research that suggest that games can be of help explaining disability. They are especially aligned with the social approach promoted by the WHO that sees the disability as a quality of the interaction between people with special needs and an environment that restrains them in pursuing personal goals (WHO, 2011). This game shifts attention from the commonly primary sense, sight, becoming easy or difficult independently of the ability to see, but relying only on coordination. Consequently, and for obvious reasons, it is not suitable for certain types of motor disabilities, on which however we have not carried out any test.

Then, because of the target, a key element is that the game should be available on an easy-to-use platform, using a user-friendly interface able to smooth as much as possible the interactions and lessen the visual imbalances among players.

 

Acknowledgements

We would like to express deep gratitude to Giuseppe Laganà and the Unione Ciechi e Ipovedenti of Novara, for their support and patience in helping with the game testing. Our grateful thanks are also extended to Francesco Venco for his guidance in making the game infrastructure and for his useful critiques during research work. We are very grateful to Gianluca Poma for the support.  We thank Vittorio Silini for giving his voice to the game prototype, the sound designer Marius Arcioni for the music of the project, and the video maker Giulia Emma Nocerino for her help in documenting the playtests.

 

References

Alliegro, M. (2016). L’educazione dei ciechi. Storia, concetti, metodi. Ronciglione: Armando.

Barnes, C. (1992). Disabling imagery and the media: An exploration of the principles for media representations of disabled people. London: BCODP.

Bertolo, M., & Mariani, I. (2014). Game design. Gioco e giocare tra teoria e progetto. Milan: Pearson.

Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames, Cambridge/London: MIT Press.

Cheung, G., & Huang, J. (2011, May). Starcraft from the stands: Understanding the game spectator. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 763-772). ACM.

D’Alonzo, L. (2008). L’Integrazione del disabile. Radici e prospettive educative. Brescia: La Scuola.

Frey, B., Southern, C., & Romero, M. (2011). Brailletouch: mobile texting for the visually impaired. International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 19-25). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Gandolfi, E., Ferdig, R. E., Bedesem, P., & Lu, C. C. (Eds) (2016). Mobile learning and Special Education. ID&A Interaction Design & Architecture(S), 28.

Gandolfi, E. (2016). To watch or to play, it is in the game: The game culture on Twitch.tv among performers, plays and audiences. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 8(1), 63-82.

Hamari, J., & Sjöblom, M. (2017). What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet research, 27(2), 211-232.

Istat (2013). Anno scolastico 2012-2013. Integrazione degli alunni con disabilità nelle scuole primarie di secondarie di primo grado statali e non statali. Retrieved from: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/107277

Kaufman, G., & Flanagan, M. (2015). A psychologically “embedded” approach to designing games for prosocial causes. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(3). Retrieved from: https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4343

Mangiatordi, A. (2017). Didattica senza barriere. Universal design, tecnologie e risorse sostenibili. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. Retrieved from http://www.edizioniets.com/Priv_File_Libro/3244.pdf

Mariani, I. (2016). Meaningful Negative Experiences within Games for Social Change (Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico di Milano, Milan). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10589/117855

Maurer, M. (1997). Of Mr. Magoo, Disney, and the National Federation of the Blind. Retrieved from: https://nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm98/bm980202.htm

Millen, D. R. (2000). Rapid ethnography: time deepening strategies for HCI field research. In DIS ’00 Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, (pp. 280-286). ACM.

Nasar, J., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2007). Universal Design And Visitability. Columbus: The John Glenn School of Public Affairs. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/universaldesignv00nasa

Newzoo (2018, 03 30). Mobile Revenues Account for More Than 50% of the Global Games Market as It Reaches $137.9 Billion in 2018. Retrieved from https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/global-games-market-reaches-137-9-billion-in-2018-mobile-games-take-half

Parlamento del Regno D’Italia (1865). Codice Civile Libro I/ Delle persone, Titolo X: Della maggiore età, della interdizione e della inabilitazione (Artt. 323-342).

Rockholz, W. (2014, 04 18). 10 Insightful Playtest Questions [Web log message]. Retrieved from https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/WesleyRockholz/20140418/215819/10_Insightful_Playtest_Questions.php

Sicart, M. (2011). Against procedurality. Game Studies, 11(3), 209. Retrived from http://gamestudies.org/1103/articles/sicart_ap

WHO (2011), World Report on Disabilities 2011, WHO Library Cataloguing-in-publication Data. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf

 

Ludography

123 Swich, Nintendo, Japan, 2017

Blind Arena Tournament, Rising PIxel, Italy, 2017

Blindfield, SIlent Panda, A. Oostdijk, W. McMain, V. Andreasen, M. Klaus, Erbridge, UK, 2016

Footsteps, Minitrope, Germany, 2016

Perception, The Deep End Games, USA, 2017

 

Author’s Info:

Luca Imbriani
School of Design, Politecnico of Milan
iohimbro@gmail.com

 

Ilaria Mariani
ImagisLab, Department of Design, Politecnico of Milan
ilaria1.mariani@polimi.it

 

Maresa Bertolo
ImagisLab, Department of Design, Politecnico of Milan
maresa.bertolo@polimi.it

Enrico Gandolfi (Kent State University), Kaybeth Calabria (Franciscan University of Steubenville), Richard E. Ferdig (Kent State University)

  PDF Download 

 

There are two disparate ways to describe the relationship between digital games and special needs (i.e., physical, cognitive and even socio-cultural conditions than require specific interventions in everyday life routines, learning activities, and general accessibility). On one hand, it can be argued that the sector is becoming more inclusive. For instance, assistive technologies are gaining a foothold in the game industry with innovative hardware (e.g., the Microsoft Adaptive Controller), focused efforts of researchers and practitioners (e.g., the IGDA game accessibility interest group or the Games For Health conferences), increased customization interfaces and input systems (e.g., those offered in the games Overwatch or Uncharted 4), and focused funding initiatives (e.g., AbleGamers Charity and Special Effect).Conversely, one could also argue that the concerns of individuals with special needs represent an overlooked area. For example, toxicity and disruptive behaviors across game audiences (e.g., “Gamergate” see Mortesen, 2016) represent additional sources of biases, games are not accessible to all players, and the literature about special needs and gaming is scarce (with the notable exceptions of Carr, 2014; Champlin, 2014; Ledder, 2015). Additional research is required to respond to these opposing perspective as well as to further impact policy and practice. There are least four reasons to justify such a claim.

 

1. Video games are at the forefront of technological adoption (Duggan, 2015). Given their ubiquity, they are ideal testing grounds for problematizing current interactive affordances and patterns and developing new and more inclusive solutions.
2. Video games and interactive media shape society and culture (Ferdig, 2018). They convey representations, ideologies, biases, and viewpoints. Gamers and game developers take a stand that is not as neutral as it may appear at first glance (Gandolfi & Ferdig, 2018). Shedding light on how the medium deals with the issues faced by individuals with special needs becomes crucial for understanding and perhaps changing social perspectives (from reiterating stereotypes to suggesting alternative perspectives).
3. The combination of technical and cultural perspectives can effectively support two leading approaches to individuals with special needs – i.e., the social model (Bickenbacha, Chatterji, Badley, & Üstünet al., 1999) and the cultural lens (Wolbring, 2008; Campbell, 2009). The former refers to efforts aimed at making society more inclusive (equal possibilities, no barriers), while the latter addresses prejudices and constructed ideas of normality and abnormality. By combining these two foci, analyzing digital entertainment may become an ideal battleground for reflecting on disability and difference while promoting the development of proactive initiatives.
4. Videogames can potentially support special education and learners with disabilities, from improving physical and social skills to facilitating communication and self-organization (e.g., Saridaki, Gouscos, & Meimaris, 2016).

 

The goal of this special issue is to provide insights and guidelines for realizing and responding to this potential. The five articles collected address several aspects of the interplay between digital games and individuals with special needs. Aside from their topical differences, these contributions seem to share an underlying value given to the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the world of gamers. The authors also collectively recognize the fact that games should be created with affordances that allow for universal access.
In his article on inclusive interfaces, Dalgliesh effectively expresses this viewpoint: “notions of incidental body-controller fit and precarious accessibility are outlined to develop a model that uses asymmetrical roles and diverse input to fit individual abilities and thereby expand participation”. Dalgliesh also recognizes the dignity of the human person in creating games where individuals can participate as equals; no one wants to be the unequal partner who is helped along in a childish manner. Dalgleish argues:

 

While roles are highly asymmetrical, fundamental principles such as reward, goals, challenge and meaningful play … are maintained… Rather than segregate impaired players by placing them in exclusive sub-sections that provide “cut-down” versions of the canonical experience in an attempt to manage challenge and difficulty, the ARAC model has all players – impaired or otherwise – play in the same space.

 

This is especially relevant in online and shared play, where social interactions and exchanges are relevant and support the whole gaming experience. Imbriani and colleagues claim that “community creation and bonding are key components of successful competitive online games as in those actions are often sensationalized to widen the community with an audience of spectators”. According to Schrier, a “learning community can help to encourage connections among disparate groups, as well as encourage a sense of belonging and inclusion in a game community, which may contribute to empathy, perspective-taking, learning, and positive exposure to others’ backgrounds and cultures, and greater self-efficacy and social support….games that support intergroup cooperation may reduce bias, particularly in multiplayer games online”.
Accessibility issues remain a priority to address, and four articles directly deal with this topic from different angles and perspectives. Plothe advocates that the construction of games should begin with the idea of universal design, thus limiting the retrofitting of games. Dalgleish’s article is characterized by an emphasis on game controllers as a bearer of inclusions/exclusion for players with disabilities. Vercellone, Shelestak, Dhaher and Clements uncover how haptic technology may make a difference in providing more inclusive interactive experiences. Imbriani, Mariani, and Bertolo focus on how inclusive game mechanics can entail a shared ground between sighted and players who are visually impaired. The authors seem to share the belief that accessibility-related developments can positively impact cultural, empathic, and learning outcomes.
Indeed, the intrinsic work of creating virtual realities in game-like environments could have the potential for increasing awareness of negative bias and improving social interactions and mutual understanding. This opportunity emerges in all the five articles, most notably in Schrier’s article:

Some games may help to immerse people into virtual worlds and new roles and identities […], which may encourage consideration of others’ experiences, feelings, and perspectives […] . Games may help people express and experiment with their own identities and others’ identities […], and may enable people to communicate and interact with people from other cultures, with other types of needs, and with different types of experiences.”

This collection draws from different disciplines (e.g., educational technology, computer science, games studies, design, and biology). As such, the articles provide a variegated array of implications, spanning pedagogical strategies, game design suggestions, and technical insights. Such a wide scope is fundamental for addressing the interplay between video games and special needs in its entire complexity and richness.
In addition to the research presented in this special issue, there are four next steps to continue to support work in this area.

 

1. Game analyses often emphasize representation and aesthetics (e.g., Carr, 2014; Lynch et al., 2016). This refers to the interactive component of the medium, from rules to heuristics; these features are not neutral but rather they can communicate specific biases and schemes (Gandolfi & Sciannamblo, 2018). There is also value in exploring ludic mechanics and media environments. This would include studies of online platforms like Twitch.tv, Steam, and Reddit, where gaming communities gather and debate. For instance, Twitch.tv is strongly supporting streamers with special needs in collaboration with the association AbleGamers, but it has been the stage of toxic behaviours against players who are disabled (see the case of Adam “Lo0p” Bahriz, a legally blind and deaf streamer who was bullied by his own game mates during a live match of Counter Strike: GO) (Jackson, 2017).
2. Aside from some exceptions (e.g., see https://spedapps.kent.edu/ for mobile games and the article by Vercellone et al. in this special issue), the study of video games for special education is nascent. More research is needed that specifically spans different disabilities, genres, and pedagogies. Mainstream games should be investigated targeting their instructional potential and affordances, which can be relevant due to their popularity.
3. Researchers in this special issue studied digital gaming and its ability to foster empathy and perspective-taking (see Imbriani et al.; Schrier). Research should capitalize on this work to further explore affective, emotional, and cultural outcomes related to special needs.
4. Technology companies and scholars should partner in research and development efforts to further explore assistive technologies for gaming. Despite some early efforts and contributions by authors in this special issue, the field is lacking accessible software and hardware.

 

We conclude this special issue by thanking the contributing authors as well as the reviewers who spent significant time during the review process providing suggestions and insights. Finally, we are very grateful to the associate editors of GAME, who have supported this special issue and its cause since the beginning.

 

References

Bickenbacha, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., & Üstün, T.B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science & Medicine, 48(9), 1173-1187.

Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Carr, D. (2014). Ability, Disability and Dead Space. GameStudies, 14(2). Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/1402/articles/carr

Champlin, A. (2014). Playing with Feelings: Porn, Emotion, and Disability in Katawa Shoujo. Well Played, 3(2), 63-81.

Duggan, M. (2015). Gaming and Gamers. Pew Research Center: Internet. Science & Tech. Retrieved December, 3, 2018.

Ferdig, R.E. (2018). Society, Culture, and Technology: Ten Lessons For Educators, Developers, And Digital Scientists. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.

Gandolfi, E., & Ferdig, R.E. (2018). Scratching the coding surface: tackling algorithms for inclusion and learning. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(5), 368-378.

Gandolfi, E., & Sciannamblo, M. (2018). Unfolding female quiet in wargames: gender bias in Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain from representation to gameplay. Feminist Media Studies, 1-17.

Jackson, G. (2017). Disabled Streamer Receives Hundreds In Donations After Bullies Kick Him From Match. Kotaku. Retrieved from https://kotaku.com/disabled-streamer-receives-hundreds-in-donations-after-1794507360

Ledder, S. (2015). “Evolve today!”: Human Enhancement Technologies in the BioShock universe. In L. Cuddy (Ed.), BioShock and Philosophy (pp. 150-160). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lynch, T., Tompkins, J. E., van Driel, I. I., & Fritz, N. (2016). Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 564–584.

Mortensen, T. E. (2016). Anger, Fear, and Games: The Long Event of# GamerGate. Games and
Culture, 13(8), 787-806.

Saridaki, M., Gouscos. D., & Meimaris, M. G. (2009). Digital Games-Based Learning for Students with Intellectual Disability. In T. Connolly, M. Stansfield, & L. Boyle (Eds.) Games-Based Learning Advancements for Multi-Sensory Human Computer Interfaces: Techniques and Effective Practices (pp. 304-325). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Wolfbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51, 252-258.

Authors’ Info

Enrico Gandolfi
egandol1@kent.edu
Research Center for Educational Technology, Kent State University

 

Kaybeth Calabria
kcalabria@franciscan.edu
Franciscan University of Steubenville

 

Richard E. Ferdig
rferdig@kent.edu
Research Center for Educational Technology, Kent State University

 

Issue 7, 2018 – Digital Games for Special Needs; Special Needs for Digital Games

Edited by E. Gandolfi, K. Calabria, R.E. Ferdig

 

Summary

Vol. 1 – Journal (peer-reviewed)

Index
vol. 1, 2017 – Journal (peer-reviewed)

• E. Gandolfi, K. Calabria, R.E. Ferdig – Introduction
• M. Dalgleish – There are no universal interfaces: how asymmetrical roles and asymmetrical controllers can increase access diversity
• L. Imbriani, I. Mariani, M. Bertolo – WaTa Fight! How situated multiplayer competitive gaming can facilitate the inclusion of low vision and blind players
• T. Plothe – The Whose View of Hue?: Disability adaptability for color blindness in the digital game Hue
• K. Schrier – Reducing Bias Through Gaming
• B. Vercellone, J. Shelestak, Y. Dhaher, R. Clements – Haptic Interfaces for Individuals with Visual Impairments