For a legally blind player, Far Cry 6’s accessibility options are empowering(polygon.com)
polygon.com
For a legally blind player, Far Cry 6’s accessibility options are empowering
https://www.polygon.com/22748526/far-cry-6-accessibility-pc-xbox-one-series-x-ps5-ps4
78 comments
I have an eye condition, I am not fully blind but I have a lot of trouble with text (I use the zoom feature,TTS, and big fonts in my desktop and apps.
What would be super helpful for me would be things like:
1 allow changing fonts and font size, some games use some weird "fantasy" or hand-writing fonts , this are very hard to read so give us the option to use plain Arial font.
2 implement UI scaling so fonts and icons can be larger
3 don't make important ame objects hard to be found, maybe an option to outline things if you press a key, when you have disabilities is always a doubt in your mind that there is something on the screen but you can't see it. This is super annoying in point and click adventure games where you need to sport 1 pixel sized item or some very well hidden object.
4 for games with lot of text like lot of dialog that is not voiced , lot of books,computers or stuff to read I would love if more games support TTS (text to speech), I don't mean include a TTS engine in your game, just send the text to an application , or local port that the user specified and the user can't use it's own TTS program with his preferred settings to listen for the text.
5 For dialog boxes give us the option to set a full opacity background, set the text font family,color and size , for some games I used OCR(Optical Character Recognition ) to read the dialog windows but OCR can fail or take a long time if the font family is a weird gaming font or the dialog background has transparency.
6 If you make a game because you want to make the game (and not because you are learning some cool language or how game engines work - witch is very good you want to learn) try to use existing game engines, this engines will have already some accessibility support or there is enough experience on how to mod things in. So if you want to make a text adventure game use the best tool for the job and not create your own engine.
I am sure some of this would help a lot of people that have smaller eye issues and those would appreciate some of thios options.
What would be super helpful for me would be things like:
1 allow changing fonts and font size, some games use some weird "fantasy" or hand-writing fonts , this are very hard to read so give us the option to use plain Arial font.
2 implement UI scaling so fonts and icons can be larger
3 don't make important ame objects hard to be found, maybe an option to outline things if you press a key, when you have disabilities is always a doubt in your mind that there is something on the screen but you can't see it. This is super annoying in point and click adventure games where you need to sport 1 pixel sized item or some very well hidden object.
4 for games with lot of text like lot of dialog that is not voiced , lot of books,computers or stuff to read I would love if more games support TTS (text to speech), I don't mean include a TTS engine in your game, just send the text to an application , or local port that the user specified and the user can't use it's own TTS program with his preferred settings to listen for the text.
5 For dialog boxes give us the option to set a full opacity background, set the text font family,color and size , for some games I used OCR(Optical Character Recognition ) to read the dialog windows but OCR can fail or take a long time if the font family is a weird gaming font or the dialog background has transparency.
6 If you make a game because you want to make the game (and not because you are learning some cool language or how game engines work - witch is very good you want to learn) try to use existing game engines, this engines will have already some accessibility support or there is enough experience on how to mod things in. So if you want to make a text adventure game use the best tool for the job and not create your own engine.
I am sure some of this would help a lot of people that have smaller eye issues and those would appreciate some of thios options.
I would love if all games let you change the font and font size. I loved Fire Emblem: Three Houses, but god, I’m too nearsighted to deal with text that small.
> I don't mean include a TTS engine in your game, just send the text to an application , or local port that the user specified and the user can't use it's own TTS program with his preferred settings to listen for the text.
How does this kind of thing work? I'm only (passingly) familiar with the “official” accessibility APIs, e.g. IAccessible, AT-SPI2, but these are clearly inadequate; I'm very curious to know how real people use computers.
How does this kind of thing work? I'm only (passingly) familiar with the “official” accessibility APIs, e.g. IAccessible, AT-SPI2, but these are clearly inadequate; I'm very curious to know how real people use computers.
I am not a regular user, what I done is edit open source engine and hack them to call my TTS program/script. For html engines I do a request to localhost on a specific port where I have a script listening. For a C++ engine I modified I used the run process functions to call directly my program, I think first I put the text to be spoken in a text file.
One reason this is so hacky is that because this engines were not meant to do TTS I can get a lot of extra garbage or duplicates so I need to have the text first go through a game specific script to clean it up.
so could you have this implemented:
1 user will input a path to a script/program
2 from the game engine you call that script and send to it the text as an argument , there might be limitations so it might be better alternatives.
My TTS program implements a queue so it is fine if you just dump a lot of text into it, I have keyboard shortcuts to handle skipping/pausing.
The Renpy game engine (python) supports TTS but I edited the tts plugin and replaced their Linux default to my script since I get more features and flexibility.
P.S. I am tempted to try to also get the text from DirectX games, but I am not sure where to start, I am thinking I could intercept some DrawText function and replace it with my own but I am not sure what terms to Google for and if is something that can be done Or if there is a simple way to detect the code that does the dialog boxes in the games and intercept that function.
One reason this is so hacky is that because this engines were not meant to do TTS I can get a lot of extra garbage or duplicates so I need to have the text first go through a game specific script to clean it up.
so could you have this implemented:
1 user will input a path to a script/program
2 from the game engine you call that script and send to it the text as an argument , there might be limitations so it might be better alternatives.
My TTS program implements a queue so it is fine if you just dump a lot of text into it, I have keyboard shortcuts to handle skipping/pausing.
The Renpy game engine (python) supports TTS but I edited the tts plugin and replaced their Linux default to my script since I get more features and flexibility.
P.S. I am tempted to try to also get the text from DirectX games, but I am not sure where to start, I am thinking I could intercept some DrawText function and replace it with my own but I am not sure what terms to Google for and if is something that can be done Or if there is a simple way to detect the code that does the dialog boxes in the games and intercept that function.
For DirectX, I'd be tempted to intercept stuff from the text layout engine. (USP10.DLL, DirectWrite, or HarfBuzz.) Pretty much nothing lays out its own text.
"I think a lot of the lack of accessibility isn't due to unwillingness"
In most case it is because it requires time, effort and knowledge. You're average game dev studi does not have any of that.
In most case it is because it requires time, effort and knowledge. You're average game dev studi does not have any of that.
[deleted]
> You're average game dev studi does not have any of that.
I sort of wonder, reading this, what kind of accessibility regulations exist in Canada (FC6 being developed by Ubisoft Toronto) has for gaming and how it compares to other technology providers, solutions or products?
I sort of wonder, reading this, what kind of accessibility regulations exist in Canada (FC6 being developed by Ubisoft Toronto) has for gaming and how it compares to other technology providers, solutions or products?
The main one is the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and applies to “goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises”.
It's easy to get first hand experience: get a remote mouse and keyboard and then try to perform task on your laptop from 20 meters away.
Hire disabled people to use your app, listen to what they say, integrate their feedback, iterate. That's really what it comes down to. There are AXE tools for testing obvious accessibility issues in websites; but that isn't a perfect replacement for hiring testers
This is exactly my point though - hiring disabled people is simply not an option for most people. If information on meaningful accessibility was as readily available and consumable as learning how to code, I'd bet a lot of money people would be more inclined to make accessible software.
There's a thread[1] over at Egosoft's forums about improving their X4 game for blind players.
I admit I was quite surprised to find blind people playing this game, given the primary activity is flying around in space ships... but it does have trade/build elements and you don't have to fly a ship.
Was very interesting to read about just how they achieved this, and the tweaks needed to make it viable.
[1]: https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=146&t=440905
I admit I was quite surprised to find blind people playing this game, given the primary activity is flying around in space ships... but it does have trade/build elements and you don't have to fly a ship.
Was very interesting to read about just how they achieved this, and the tweaks needed to make it viable.
[1]: https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=146&t=440905
True blindness is very rare.
More often it’s low vision on a scale between poor and true blindness.
Or for some, focusing is painful. (Nerve damage) on a bad day I can see fine. But more then a few seconds can be horrifically painful.
Extra large text helps a lot. Avoiding red / blue mixed colors is a big help.
Or for some, focusing is painful. (Nerve damage) on a bad day I can see fine. But more then a few seconds can be horrifically painful.
Extra large text helps a lot. Avoiding red / blue mixed colors is a big help.
Meanwhile mixing red and blue help a lot with certain eye conditions :(
Which?
If I’m wearing prism glasss then the text floats around.
Blue goes to behind the terminal, red way in front. Purple is in between depending on shade.
Absurdly distracting.
Absurdly distracting.
Various forms of colour blindness can distinguish between red and blue, using red and blue as colour scheme improves things for something like 2 or 3% of the population, there are more people with colour blindness issues in the world than there are linux + mac users! If the game is worth being made for linux and mac, it is also worth having a red+blue colour scheme, and indeed many games have this scheme used by default or as an option.
After a recent playthrough of Privateer (1993) I realized I could almost play unsighted. Reading missions and commodities and dodging asteroids we're the only features truly requiring sight. And with tweaks even those could've been done unseen.
Note, the flying and navigation unsighted would require some preparation though, as selections are not spoken out loud.
Note, the flying and navigation unsighted would require some preparation though, as selections are not spoken out loud.
I wonder how accessible Elite Dangerous is together with hcs voice packs. The game should be mostly accessible with voice and still very atmospheric. Not sure about Combat, but trading and exploration would be possible I am guessing.
I'm told most of the Egosoft QA team is blind.
It's still insane to me that there are games being released that lack even the most basic of accessibility options like customisable control schemes.
It's noticeably an issue for console games, even those made by big profile developers who don't really have any excuse.
It's noticeably an issue for console games, even those made by big profile developers who don't really have any excuse.
In the early 2000s there were many games that allowed you to change up your control scheme and even UI elements. It seems as budgets got larger and games became mainstream those options have been ditched to focus on the wow-factor in games rather than making them accessible to more people.
I assumed it was less about budget and more about the directors and artists refusing to concede control over how their game looks and works.
Kind of like how the Magic Mouse charging port placement is designed to prevent people from using it while charging, since that's "ugly"...
Kind of like how the Magic Mouse charging port placement is designed to prevent people from using it while charging, since that's "ugly"...
I'll jump on the band wagon and echo the same sentiment for Web. Imagine using a screen reader.
My pet peeves is games that require middle clicking and don't let you remap all of the functions of middle click. I have to plug a mouse into my gaming laptop to play them.
One thing that really improved quality of life for me as a southpaw, is the PS4(/5?) feature to remap button assignments system-wide.
WHy? It's a entertaiment business not a governmental service. Developing features that 0.1% of users will ever use, same time can be used for bugfixes that help the 99.9%
I've said this before and I will say it again, accessibility options benefit everyone, not just the 0.1%.
My partner is ESL, she understands spoken English fine when it's slow and precise, but in the fast environments of TV and Games, it's often hard for her to quickly get what they just said. So, subtitles, the accessibility option for the hard of hearing, is beneficial to her.
Similarly, I may want a more casual gaming experience but experience the same story as someone else - but difficulty is subjective. I may want just a larger reticle so I can see better, reduced motion blur and walking bounces so I don't feel sick.
These little options are a relatively simple addition which benefits absolutely everyone
My partner is ESL, she understands spoken English fine when it's slow and precise, but in the fast environments of TV and Games, it's often hard for her to quickly get what they just said. So, subtitles, the accessibility option for the hard of hearing, is beneficial to her.
Similarly, I may want a more casual gaming experience but experience the same story as someone else - but difficulty is subjective. I may want just a larger reticle so I can see better, reduced motion blur and walking bounces so I don't feel sick.
These little options are a relatively simple addition which benefits absolutely everyone
Yes, this is the thing people forget. As I've heard it said: good accessibility design is just good design. The classic real life example is curb ramps, which were mandated for accessibility for disabled people but are useful to everyone.
They don't benefit absolutely everyone; that's hyperbolic language. They /could/ benefit everyone in a situation of varying degrees of severity that that person /could/ possibly be in at one time.
Do you think adding qualifiers makes the point any clearer? I think it just makes it harder to read. Accessibility options in video games do nothing for new born babies or people in a vegetative state, but that doesn't really need to be said.
The point being made was wrong, and the language suggests rhetoric more than reason.
Reason is how you figure out if something meets a criteria. Rhetoric is how you convince people. That's a simple fact of the human mind and not one that can be easily outplayed.
I don’t remember where I saw it, but I recently read that an overwhelming majority of gamers prefer subtitles for cut scenes.
Totally agree with this. Subtitles and a good contrast are very important for me. On many games, with the basic contrast settings, I can't see much.
People think like this all time, until something happens to them. A few years ago I seriously hurt myself in a ski accident. I'm better now, but only then did I notice all the little things that we could do, without really much effort on our part, to make things accesible for other people. I'm not talking about treating anyone special at all, I mean accessible in the most literal sense of the word. To even have a seat at the metaphorical table.
All I can say is that if you were in a similar situation you would just see this differently, which is an obvious thing to say, I know, but I really mean it. Like, you would with every fiber in your body, just see this entire situation completely differently.
Any way, I don't think there's any harm in asking the "why" question, but it is harmful to ask it rhetorically I guess? I'm not saying that's what you were doing, but I mean just generally speaking, to ask the question as if to make a point assuming the answer is already known. It implies the question doesn't need asking, and the answer is obvious. The real truth couldn't be further from that, but it's kind of hard to understand if you can't experience it for yourself.
Also, I really want to just head off any "truth is subjective" type comments, or "your reality vs my reality". It's like, yes, there is always that, but what I mean is if someone suddenly lost their mobility and had to experience a world suddenly inaccessible, they would just understand what I mean in a way that's deeper than petty rhetoric. It just wouldn't make any sense by that point to pretend that this isn't important.
All I can say is that if you were in a similar situation you would just see this differently, which is an obvious thing to say, I know, but I really mean it. Like, you would with every fiber in your body, just see this entire situation completely differently.
Any way, I don't think there's any harm in asking the "why" question, but it is harmful to ask it rhetorically I guess? I'm not saying that's what you were doing, but I mean just generally speaking, to ask the question as if to make a point assuming the answer is already known. It implies the question doesn't need asking, and the answer is obvious. The real truth couldn't be further from that, but it's kind of hard to understand if you can't experience it for yourself.
Also, I really want to just head off any "truth is subjective" type comments, or "your reality vs my reality". It's like, yes, there is always that, but what I mean is if someone suddenly lost their mobility and had to experience a world suddenly inaccessible, they would just understand what I mean in a way that's deeper than petty rhetoric. It just wouldn't make any sense by that point to pretend that this isn't important.
You're getting downvoted, but honestly I feel like this is the elephant in the room of accessibility efforts.
A lot of them just feel like they're catering to a tiny slice of the user base that would probably be better served in some other way. In some cases, they arguably make things worse for everyone else, like WCAG 1.4.1, mandating that your links have ugly underlines just because some people might have trouble reading them. Fun fact: HackerNews's links are noncompliant, and could get them sued in Canada.
A lot of them just feel like they're catering to a tiny slice of the user base that would probably be better served in some other way. In some cases, they arguably make things worse for everyone else, like WCAG 1.4.1, mandating that your links have ugly underlines just because some people might have trouble reading them. Fun fact: HackerNews's links are noncompliant, and could get them sued in Canada.
I mean, that’s one solution to WCAG 1.4.1, but not the only one. Per WebAIM’s recommendations[1] on the matter:
- Color is not used as the sole method of conveying content or distinguishing visual elements.
- Color alone is not used to distinguish links from surrounding text unless the contrast ratio between the link and the surrounding text is at least 3:1 and an additional distinction (e.g., it becomes underlined) is provided when the link is hovered over and receives focus.
Lots of options in there besides just slapping underlines on things. Could be bold where other text isn’t. Could just be a color that stands out enough against your text. Etc.
[1]: https://webaim.org/standards/wcag/checklist
- Color is not used as the sole method of conveying content or distinguishing visual elements.
- Color alone is not used to distinguish links from surrounding text unless the contrast ratio between the link and the surrounding text is at least 3:1 and an additional distinction (e.g., it becomes underlined) is provided when the link is hovered over and receives focus.
Lots of options in there besides just slapping underlines on things. Could be bold where other text isn’t. Could just be a color that stands out enough against your text. Etc.
[1]: https://webaim.org/standards/wcag/checklist
Contrast ratio between the link and the surrounding text is at least 3:1 sounds easy to achieve, but in practice it rules out almost every color, so it's a nonstarter in almost every case; WebAIM actually has a good article showing how few colors actually can hit a 3:1 ratio: https://webaim.org/blog/wcag-2-0-and-link-colors/.
Sure, you could make links bold, but no one does that for a reason: it looks ridiculous.
The thing that I find particularly egregious about that rule about it is how this doesn't even seem like it helps that many people. A screen reader user would necessarily know that an element was a link regardless of color, and even colorblind users are likely to be able to see that the text is lighter, even if they cannot make out the specific color, particularly if the color used isn't red or green.
Sure, you could make links bold, but no one does that for a reason: it looks ridiculous.
The thing that I find particularly egregious about that rule about it is how this doesn't even seem like it helps that many people. A screen reader user would necessarily know that an element was a link regardless of color, and even colorblind users are likely to be able to see that the text is lighter, even if they cannot make out the specific color, particularly if the color used isn't red or green.
"Tiny part" in reality usually ends up being as much as quarter (1/4, 25%) of user population. Just because people aren't completely blind/deaf/disabled doesn't mean they don't benefit from accessibility features.
I think there's a massive difference between having accessibility options and hard-coded accessibility options. I don't like subtitles on my English language TV shows; however, having the option to turn them on doesn't affect my experience at all. Adding text to speech doesn't impact my gameplay either, provided I have the option to turn it off.
Oh I completely agree, I love accessibility options -- what I don't like is when the pursuit of accessibility ends up making the experience worse for users with the default settings.
>mandating that your links have ugly underlines just because some people might have trouble reading them
I hare designers that chose terrible font sizes and terrible color contrast, do you designers use some extra special screens where light gray on white looks readable?
I am wondering if a site with such fancy designs that look smooth and cool could do an experiment and offer a high contrast, big fonts, no animations version then let the user decides. Maybe we could get some data and see what people that use them able sites use, liek Gmail , do people chose themes with low contrast, many animations and cool looking links?
I hope good designers will prevail in the end and get rid of the form over function crowd, where you need perfect vision and some super expensive screen to be able to proeprly use a web page.
I hare designers that chose terrible font sizes and terrible color contrast, do you designers use some extra special screens where light gray on white looks readable?
I am wondering if a site with such fancy designs that look smooth and cool could do an experiment and offer a high contrast, big fonts, no animations version then let the user decides. Maybe we could get some data and see what people that use them able sites use, liek Gmail , do people chose themes with low contrast, many animations and cool looking links?
I hope good designers will prevail in the end and get rid of the form over function crowd, where you need perfect vision and some super expensive screen to be able to proeprly use a web page.
I will always be amazed at how many people can type “because this group is a minority, meeting their needs is unimportant and shouldn't impact the majority” and think they've contributed a novel thought. Your elephant in the room is just basic everyday ableism. You can't even stomach a link being underlined for someone else's benefit lol.
26% of all citizens in the US have some type of disability. [CDC]
7,675,600 US citizens have visual disabilities. [National Federation of the Blind]
3.7% of all US citizens have fine motor skill disabilities. [NIH]
Also, it's the right thing to do to ensure everyone can experience joy.
7,675,600 US citizens have visual disabilities. [National Federation of the Blind]
3.7% of all US citizens have fine motor skill disabilities. [NIH]
Also, it's the right thing to do to ensure everyone can experience joy.
The odds of anyone actually responding to you instead of just demonizing you, condescending to you, or talking past you are very slim, although a couple people have made good faith responses.
Something they haven't said yet is that a lot of accessibility features are already a solved problem, or they're commonplace enough that they seem to be. So a big publisher (which is what your parent was referring to) would be able to get them in at low cost, relative to gigantic overall costs of publishing any AAA game. So it makes sense for them to do it to reach everyone they can. And they know people will write articles like this one and bring them publicity, and if not they'll just astroturf one anyway. The author of that article has had at least one other accessibility-related article published on the gaming web recently, so don't assume they're not just on a press junket.
For all developers, your question is more of a question. Should every single game developed by every single type of developer be "accessible"? It would certainly be nice, but must they? Of course not.
Something they haven't said yet is that a lot of accessibility features are already a solved problem, or they're commonplace enough that they seem to be. So a big publisher (which is what your parent was referring to) would be able to get them in at low cost, relative to gigantic overall costs of publishing any AAA game. So it makes sense for them to do it to reach everyone they can. And they know people will write articles like this one and bring them publicity, and if not they'll just astroturf one anyway. The author of that article has had at least one other accessibility-related article published on the gaming web recently, so don't assume they're not just on a press junket.
For all developers, your question is more of a question. Should every single game developed by every single type of developer be "accessible"? It would certainly be nice, but must they? Of course not.
Accessibility can mean two things: affordances that people need to have an equal experience, but also affordance that people would like to have a more pleasurable experience. And in the entertainment business, people experiencing pleasure tends to be good business.
As noted in many introductions to accessibility, these features help more than just the stereotypical example you may think of when hearing that word. There are many forms of accessibility: lifelong, acquired, temporary, chronic, and situational. Between those 5 forms, these features really help everyone.
It’s all about context, consideration, dignity, but mostly, letting the challenge be the puzzle itself instead of the structure of the scaffolding holding the puzzle in place.
As noted in many introductions to accessibility, these features help more than just the stereotypical example you may think of when hearing that word. There are many forms of accessibility: lifelong, acquired, temporary, chronic, and situational. Between those 5 forms, these features really help everyone.
It’s all about context, consideration, dignity, but mostly, letting the challenge be the puzzle itself instead of the structure of the scaffolding holding the puzzle in place.
As Gen X and Millennials eventually retire[0], there are going to be a ton of people with lots and lots of time on their hands, with vision and hearing and fine motor control mostly ranging between "so-so" and "terrible" (thanks, aging!) who really want to spend some of their now-ample free time playing video games.
[0] Well, I mean, hypothetically these generations might retire in significant numbers around "normal" retirement age, even if the numbers aren't looking so hot for that right now....
[0] Well, I mean, hypothetically these generations might retire in significant numbers around "normal" retirement age, even if the numbers aren't looking so hot for that right now....
Everyone is eventually disabled sometime.
The Last of Us 2 also has some really great accessibility options - from high contrast mode, extra visibility markers, extra audio markers and more.
https://www.polygon.com/2020/7/2/21310396/last-of-us-2-acces...
https://www.polygon.com/2020/7/2/21310396/last-of-us-2-acces...
I first learned about this through Twenty Thousand Hertz, a great podcast about sound that I highly recommend. I don’t think about sound very often, so I find I learn a lot from every episode.
https://www.20k.org/
https://www.20k.org/
It's certainly not as severe as legal-blindness, but colorblind-friendliness is essentially standard now in board games. The yellow cards have a triangle, the red cards have a star, etc.
I think blind people would like a text adventure or a good assisted Dungeon Crawl than Far Cry.
There are really good IF stories out there. No, not Twine, that's just an enhanced gamebook. I meant the stories made against the Z-Machine (v5-8), and maybe the TADS ones.
There are really good IF stories out there. No, not Twine, that's just an enhanced gamebook. I meant the stories made against the Z-Machine (v5-8), and maybe the TADS ones.
Most legally blind people have partial sight and only need some assistance from the software to enjoy the same games their sighted friends enjoy.
Why do you think that?
It is reasonable that blind people will enjoy an experience that is based on hand eye coordination and visual spectacle less.
Following up on this with a recent Tweet[1]
@sightlessKombat: If the game's numbers are accurate, after 28 hours, 14 minutes and 20 seconds... I have completed #TheLastOfUsPartII on Grounded, earning 100% of the trophies... All without any sight whatsoever. Thanks to @Naughty_Dog for the #accessibility features that let me achieve this.
https://twitter.com/sightlessKombat/status/14549208490358620...
@sightlessKombat: If the game's numbers are accurate, after 28 hours, 14 minutes and 20 seconds... I have completed #TheLastOfUsPartII on Grounded, earning 100% of the trophies... All without any sight whatsoever. Thanks to @Naughty_Dog for the #accessibility features that let me achieve this.
https://twitter.com/sightlessKombat/status/14549208490358620...
One of the first rules of decent accessibility is that assumptions will get you in hot water. Asking people what they’d like is usually the best option, then attempting to provide it.
Well, one of the best implementations for the blind it's the scripted Pokemon Crystal for VBA and JAWS, but not every game could be set like that.
What means legally blind? Can one be illegally blind?
Typically this phrase is used for someone who has very little eyesight remaining, but is not completely blind. Many countries have laws prescribing a minimum level of sight below which you are entitled to benefits accorded to blind people (for example, the right to do exams in Braille or orally, or financial compensation towards getting a guide dog in countries where that is part of social healthcare)
An example of this challenge appearing elsewhere: in the US, long-haul effects of COVID have recently moved under the Americans with Disabilities Act umbrella. The problem, however, is there’s not a single easy, testable way to determine if someone has it or not.
> the right to do exams in Braille
Because if someone has a perfect sight he is not allowed to do exams in Braille?
Because if someone has a perfect sight he is not allowed to do exams in Braille?
Whether it is allowed or not is up to the exam's administrator.
The relevant law in the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act, does not require the admin to allow it unless the exam taker provides a letter from a health-care professional asserting a disability and reimburses the admin for any extra costs in accommodating the disability.
The relevant law in the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act, does not require the admin to allow it unless the exam taker provides a letter from a health-care professional asserting a disability and reimburses the admin for any extra costs in accommodating the disability.
You have the right to require accommodations for a disability, you do not have the right to demand the same accommodations just because you would prefer it that way.
Many types accommodations add extra burden or cost on the service provider, so if someone with e.g. perfect sight asks for a vision-related accommodation, they are allowed to refuse.
Many types accommodations add extra burden or cost on the service provider, so if someone with e.g. perfect sight asks for a vision-related accommodation, they are allowed to refuse.
There's an unspoken assumption that acting with a disability plus an accommodation should not produce a greater result than the unaided and non-disabled act. I don't know whether that's fair or not, but I think that's the source of the trouble here.
It probably means that the person's blindness is sufficient enough as to be recognized by the legal system. Just a guess.
Here's an example of legally blind...
I believe 20/200 means you can read only the top letter, E, on vision charts.
Higher Standard Deduction for Blindness
...
1. You can't see better than 20/200 in the
better eye with glasses or contact lenses, or
2. Your field of vision is 20 degrees or less.
I believe 20/200 means you can read only the top letter, E, on vision charts.
20/200 means that a person with that level of vision is able to read something from a 20 foot distance that someone with 20/20 vision would be able to read from 200 feet away.
It depends on the laws of the country. I believe in the USA it means uncorrectable 20/200 or worse vision.
The eye is a remarkably complex organ and thus it can fail in many different ways. There are many people with eye disorders who do not fit the legal definition. Either their condition is correctable (not curable), or their usable vision is above 20/200. Since many conditions are degenerative a person with an eye condition may become legally blind over time.
The eye is a remarkably complex organ and thus it can fail in many different ways. There are many people with eye disorders who do not fit the legal definition. Either their condition is correctable (not curable), or their usable vision is above 20/200. Since many conditions are degenerative a person with an eye condition may become legally blind over time.
It's a specific threshold e.g. 20/200 vision or worse. Some may be able to see to some extent, but it's still bad enough to be considered blind for disability purposes.
One example is having SOME eyesight but not correctable enough to qualify for a driver's license.
Most visually disabled people retain some usable vision. The levels for qualifying for a driver's license are different than the definition of legally blind. For instance, my state requires vision correctable to at least 20/40 in one eye, and a FOV of at least 60 degrees to drive without special bioptic lenses (basically a monocular that attaches to a pair of glasses.) To be classified as legally blind (at least in the United States) you must have vision that cannot be corrected to better than 20/200, or a field of view of less than 20 degrees. It gets complicated because you can be on disability even if you don't meet the definition of "legally blind" if you have vision issues that cause you to be unable to work. This is on a case by case basis and requires a hearing in front of a disability judge.
Yes of course the article is rich with detail - thank you so much for writing this - but to be able to watch a video and hear in real-time "oh, that blood just popped on the screen as a visual effect, but it really makes it more difficult to perceive my environment" would be absolutely priceless commentary.
I think a lot of the lack of accessibility isn't due to unwillingness but instead due to being unsure if what you're doing is actually helpful. I think it's way too easy to try to do something clever and instead making your app/game/whatever harder to use for both people with and without disabilities.
Having that direct insight and the ability to observe firsthand how differently-abled individuals interact with software - both good and bad software - would be monumentally helpful.
I would imagine this already exists to some degree but, at least for me, it's quite hard to find. If anyone has any good recs for this, please let me know.