1 Introduction

The popularity of gaming is rapidly increasing among people with and without disabilities. Recent studies of gamers with disabilities have shown that disability affects the gaming of 91% of survey respondents [1]. Further, only 14% fully agreed that games are accessible for them, while 70% agreed that they would play games more if games were more accessible [1]. Game accessibility can cover multiple aspects, the games themselves, as well as the compatibility of games and different assistive technologies [2].

Assistive technology (AT) is used to overcome barriers and enable participation in society [3, 4]. In the context of gaming, AT is used to enable gamers with disabilities to play in the most convenient way for them and by that enable participating in gaming culture. Assistive technologies in gaming can include both everyday technologies, such as screen readers, and devices specially designed for gaming use, such as custom controllers like the Xbox Adaptive Controller [5], Tobii Eye Tracker [6], and mouth controlled Quadstick [7]. Like any assistive technology, gaming-related assistive technologies can be used by anyone, and not only by people with disabilities.

Assistive technologies are commonly recognized as useful and, for some, necessary to participate in society. However, studies have suggested that the majority of people with disabilities do not use AT in gaming [8]. This discovery is unexpected, yet it indicates the necessity for further investigation into the reasons behind gamers with disabilities not using assistive technology. Different barriers to using AT, such as lack-of-knowledge, high price, and stigma have been identified [8,9,10,11]. Some of these barriers have been identified already over 30 years ago, so why are we still dealing with the same issues? More information is needed on how people with disabilities use assistive technology for gaming, what technologies they use and what are the reasons why people with disabilities do not use assistive technology? Furthermore, previous studies have not explored how people with disabilities find suitable assistive technologies. Hence, this study aims to identify how people with disabilities find assistive technologies and share this information with other gamers with disabilities to help them find suitable devices.

The research questions this study addresses are: (1) Do people with disabilities use assistive technology for gaming? (2) What assistive technology do people with disabilities use for gaming? (3) How do people with disabilities find suitable assistive technology? (4) Why do people with disabilities not use assistive technology for gaming?

This paper first delves into the background of the study, covering the use of AT in general, barriers to such use, and the use of ATs specifically in gaming. Next, in the methods section, we introduce the survey, data analysis, and the participants. The results section presents participants’ background information, how they used assistive technology, an analysis of collected pictures, how people find suitable technologies for gaming, and the reasons for not using ATs in gaming. Finally, this study discusses the findings and concludes, that to give people wider opportunities to find suitable ATs, innovative solutions that make ATs accessible—such as the possibility to loan ATs before purchasing them—need to be developed.

2 Background

The following sections introduce relevant background information related to using assistive technology, and barriers in using them. Additionally, this section will delve into the utilization of assistive technology in a gaming context.

2.1 Assistive technology and barriers for using it

Assistive technologies can be used for various purposes, including mobility, communicating, and the use of computers or other devices among many other. Furthermore, assistive technology can be employed to foster social inclusion and improve the social integration of people with and without disabilities [12]. One way to define assistive technology is as follows: “Assistive technology (AT) refers to services, tools, applications, equipment, and devices that help individuals compensate for disabilities by maintaining, enabling, or improving functional abilities” [13]. Further, assistive technology can be understood as an umbrella term for systems and services related to delivering assistive products and services [14]. Assistive products (AP) can be any product from software to different devices which are used to be participate in different activities [15], in this case, gaming. Assistive technology is used by both people with and without disabilities, for example, elderly people also use different assistive technologies [3]. In fact, it has been estimated that globally, over 2.5 billion people need one or more assistive products, and this number is increasing [14].

The availability of suitable assistive technology for everyday life and gaming enables people with disabilities to become active members of society. However, in 2018 only 10% of the people who needed AT had access to them [14]. There are several barriers which can prevent the access to assistive technology, according to the World Health Organization [14] four primary reasons are: (1) Policy: ATs are not covered by health or welfare schemes, requiring individuals to pay for their own products; (2) Products: The industry is relatively limited and lacks funding; ( 3) Provision: Depending on the country’s income level people may need to use standalone services at multiple locations, national services may not offer the required products, or they may have to rely on donations and charitable services; (4) Personnel: Professionals are not sufficiently educated about different products [14].

However, there are several other potential barriers to accessing assistive products, Boot, et al. [9]. identified a total of 77 barriers from 27 studies focusing on intellectual disabilities. These barriers can be related to factors such as availability and acceptance [10], funding and costs, lack of awareness, inadequate assessment, attitudes, and stigma [9, 11]. These same barriers were already identified in the 90s and possibly even earlier, the technologies are expensive, and people do not know enough about them [11].

Furthermore, there are barriers to the adoption of assistive technology for everyday use, such as concerns about privacy and trust, costs, ease of use, suitability for daily use, stigma, and fear of dependence, especially among elderly individuals [16]. However, we see that these barriers can have an effect on any possible assistive technology user. Utilizing assistive technology often requires not only the user’s knowledge of its usage but also the knowledge of, for example, teachers [17].

2.2 Assistive technology in gaming

Assistive technology should encompass not only the essential activities of daily life but also provide people with disabilities an equal opportunity to choose their hobbies and professions. The use of assistive technology has been tested in various settings, including schools with computer games [18] and with outdoor games [12].

In this study, we define assistive products as non-technical items like tables and pillows, while assistive technology refers more to digital products such as mice, keyboards, and controllers. Additionally, in our analysis, we differentiate the use of assistive software. However, it is important to note that assistive technology is also used as an umbrella term to encompass both technical and non-technical products, as well as software.

In the context of gaming, assistive technology or assistive gaming technology is understood in this study as all technologies that support gaming, whether they are specifically designed for gaming or serve other purposes. Previous research has highlighted that gamers with disabilities commonly use customized controllers, eye gaze tracking, screen readers, and alternative mice for gaming [8, 19].

3 Method

The study was carried out as a survey, which is commonly used to assess attitudes, perceptions, and experiences among a large sample of individuals [20]. Surveys provide access to respondents’ personalized perspectives of their own reality, which is crucial for understanding the gaming experiences of individuals with disabilities. Although interviews could have offered more opportunities for in-depth exploration, qualitative research seldom permits the extensive scope of investigation that surveys allow [21]. In the following sections, we will provide a brief overview of the survey conducted, including information about the participants and the analysis process.

3.1 Survey items

The survey was conducted through Microsoft Forms, from 15.05.2023 to 30.06.2023 in English and in Finnish. The survey was designed with accessibility in mind and was tested with various screen readers. The study was conducted in Finland, according to the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK), and ethical approval is not required for this type of study. The survey was shared in authors social media accounts and distributed to several disability organizations especially operating in Finland via email to ensure broad reach. For example, in X (Formerly Twitter) the survey reached over 7500 impressions.

The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and open-ended inquiries, all formulated in alignment with the research objectives. The survey questions are available in Appendix 1. The questions were developed based on a previous survey, which focused on understanding gaming as a person with a disability in general [1, 8, 22]. That, and previous research, highlighted that people with disabilities used assistive technologies, but research lacked detailed information on the types of devices used and the methods by which people with disabilities found suitable devices. Hence, we formulated our research questions to bridge this knowledge gap and aimed to provide comprehensive insights into the use of assistive technology for gaming among people with disabilities. The research questions of this study aimed to address this gap by providing an answer to the following research questions: (1) Do people with disabilities use assistive technology for gaming? (2) What assistive technology do people with disabilities use for gaming? (3) How do people with disabilities find suitable assistive technology? (4) Why do people with disabilities not use assistive technology for gaming? After these research questions were identified, the survey questions were next crafted through iterative discussions between the authors, to address the research questions.

A preliminary pilot study involving two individuals with disabilities was conducted, which provided valuable insights for refining certain survey questions and their wording. The final version of the survey contained 24 questions, however since the questions differed for participants who used and did not use assistive technology in gaming, the total number of questions answered varied. The survey included 17 background questions covering factors such as age, disability, and country and general questions focusing on assistive technology, which were answered by all the participants. Further, for participants who did not use assistive technology, there were two more detailed questions focusing on the reasons for not using such technology. For participants who used assistive technology, there were seven questions covering aspects such as how long they had used AT, how do they find suitable devices and AT prices.

Finally, we requested the survey participants to send us via separate link pictures from their gaming setups. Participants were asked for permission to use the photos in research purposes, publications, and exhibitions. By collecting pictures, we aimed to analyze if the participants mentioned the same devices shown in the pictures and to identify any additional solutions that were not mentioned in the survey responses. However, the pictures and survey responses were not directly linked together. On average, participants spent 13.14 min completing the survey. The participants were informed that they could end the survey at any time, and participation was completely voluntary.

3.2 Survey participants

The research study’s distribution encompassed numerous disability organizations and rehabilitation centers primarily located in Finland, such as Invalidiliitto ry (The Finnish Association of People with Physical Disabilities), Kuuloliitto ry (Finnish Hearing Association), Kynnys ry (Threshold Association), Näkövammaisten liitto ry (Finnish Federation of the Visually Impaired), Selkäydinvammaiset Akson ry (The Finnish Association of Spinal Cord Injured Akson), Suomen CP-liitto ry (The Finnish CP Association), Suomen Kuurosokeat ry (The Finnish Deafblind Association), Kehitysvammaisten Tukiliitto ry (Inclusion Finland KVTL), Aivoliitto ry (Finnish Brain Association), Kuntoutuskeskus Kankaanpää, Verve Kuntoutus Rokua, and Verve Kuntoutus Lahti. These organizations were contacted via email and requested to disseminate the survey through their communication channels. Additionally, the survey was shared on personal and university-affiliated social media accounts of the authors on X (Formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn. Subsequently, a snowball sampling method was employed to augment the survey responses. In total, 75 responses were collected, of which two were excluded due to incomplete answers.

3.3 Survey data analysis

For collected pictures we performed content analysis, focusing on what kind of solutions and technologies we see. The main analysis for the survey data was conducted using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti version 23) and Microsoft Excel programs. The analysis process began by collecting and combining data from both the English and Finnish versions of the survey. An initial close reading of the data was performed, resulting in the exclusion of two participants.

To facilitate analysis in both ATLAS.ti and Excel, the data was modified and formatted accordingly. Since the data included responses in both Finnish and English, the quantitative responses were translated from Finnish to English at this stage. The quantitative data analysis primarily utilized Excel, while the qualitative data analysis was conducted using ATLAS.ti.

When importing the survey data into ATLAS.ti, key demographic variables (e.g., gender, playing experience, age) were utilized to automatically create document groups that combined answers across demographic groups under one variable (e.g., combining answers from males, females, or non-binary individuals under the variable “gender”). Additionally, the program generated separate documents for each participant and automatically assigned codes to each survey question. Another round of close reading was then conducted to further familiarize the researchers with the material. Data-driven coding was performed, considering different perspectives. For instance, one close reading focused on understanding how the participants discover suitable assistive technologies. During the first round of coding, numerous smaller codes were created, detailing specific websites and services. In subsequent coding rounds, these smaller codes were combined into larger categories. For example, all websites were grouped under a broader category such as “finding information online/googling”. Throughout this process, new and interesting perspectives emerged, leading to additional coding. Finally, the coded data was analyzed using the tools provided by ATLAS.ti, resulting in the identification of various themes.

4 Results

The results section is divided into five subsections. First, the focus is on background information, followed by using assistive technology in gaming, analysis of collected pictures, finding suitable assistive technology, and finally, exploration of reasons for not using assistive technology in gaming.

4.1 Background information

The majority of the survey participants were from Finland (n = 43, 59%). All present countries can be seen in Table 1. The present disability groups were mobility (n = 42), motor (n = 25), neuropsychiatric (n = 13), vision (n = 13), cognitive (n = 10), and hearing (n = 9). As Table 2 shows 47% (n = 34) of the participants had one disability, 41% (n = 30) had two disabilities, and 12% (n = 9) had more than two disabilities. 60% (n = 44) identified as male, 32% (n = 23) as female, 5% (n = 4) as non-binary and 3% (n = 2) preferred not to answer the question. The most present age group was 25–34 years old; the division can be seen in Table 3.

Table 1 Participants by Country (n = 73)
Full size table
Table 2 Participants by disability (n = 73)
Full size table
Table 3 Participants by Age (n = 73)
Full size table

Most participants (58%) were highly experienced gamers, having played digital games for over 20 years, as indicated in Table 4. Additionally, most participants played games at least 6 hours per week, as seen in Table 5. In terms of gaming platforms, the majority (74%, n = 54) was playing with PC, followed by the Nintendo Switch (30%, n = 22) as shown in Table 6. 66% of the participants were playing on more than one platform, 34% were playing only on one platform, and 22% exclusively played only on PC. 90% (n = 66) of participants were playing single player games, while 58% (n = 42) of participants were playing multiplayer games. The most popular game genres were adventure (68%, n = 50), role playing games (62%, n = 45) and strategy games (59%, n = 43), all genres can be seen in Table 7.

Table 4 Participants’ gaming experience in years (n = 73)
Full size table
Table 5 Number of hours the participants spent on gaming per week (n = 73)
Full size table
Table 6 Gaming platforms the participants were using (n = 73)
Full size table
Table 7 Game genres the participants played the most (n = 73)
Full size table

When describing how disability affects gaming, two common perspectives emerged. Some participants described how their disability prevented them from gaming, while others emphasized the lack of accessibility in games. The former perspective was more common, although some participants clearly outlined the accessibility features they used, and did not attribute their disability as the main cause of difficulties in gaming. Notably, the perception that disability is the problem and not the game was significantly more common among the 25–34 age group. Furthermore, participants who had been playing digital games for 5–10 years were more likely to view disability as the problem rather than the game. Participants with hearing disabilities did not primarily perceive themselves as the problem, but instead highlighted the need for accessibility features, such as subtitles.

4.2 Using assistive technology in gaming

Among the participants, 56% (n = 41) were using some assistive technology in gaming. Only 10% (n = 7) of the participants reported using a screen reader for gaming, while 36% (n = 26) reported using some custom controller. Of the 24 participants who specified the controllers they were using, the most popular ones were Quadstick (n = 16), Tobii Eye Tracker (n = 7), and Xbox Adaptive Controller (n = 4). In the open-ended questions people highlighted using (1) assistive technology, such as braille screens, on-screen keyboard, adaptors, and special mouses, (2) assistive products, such as chairs, adjustable tables and glasses that block blue light, and (3) software-based solutions, such as software which allow to remap controller buttons.

Approximately half of the participants had been using assistive technology for a maximum of five years, while the other half had been using AT for longer periods, as shown in Table 8. Most of the participants (66%, n = 27) did not get any financial support for purchasing assistive technology for gaming, 22% (n = 9) were using the same devices for gaming as for other activities, and 12% (n = 5) reported financial support that covered some of the gaming related devices as well. The amount spent for assistive technology for gaming varied, with approximately 20% (n = 8) reported using over 2000€ in total, while 22% (n = 9) reported using under 100€, as can be seen in Table 9.

Table 8 Time using assistive technology in gaming (n = 41)
Full size table
Table 9 Money spent on assistive technology for gaming (n = 41)
Full size table

4.3 Analysis of collected pictures

At the end of the survey, participants were requested to provide pictures of their gaming setups. In total, 10 participants shared pictures. The content analysis of the collected pictures aimed to complement the main analytical focus, which was the survey data.

While some participants sent pictures that included gamers using the devices, the majority only depicted the devices in use. Through the examination of these pictures, we were able to observe a similar diversity in gaming setups as reported in the survey responses. The range of assistive products used varied significantly, with some participants requiring only a few devices, while others had a larger number of different devices. Some individuals used stands or alternative solutions to support their devices, while others positioned the devices directly on the table. Additionally, we noted variations in table and chair adjustments, and some participants were even playing while laying down.

Furthermore, the pictures revealed a spectrum of strategies for accessible gaming, including the utilization of adaptive controllers, as well as the integration of everyday products like pillows and armrests for support. Examples of these diverse gaming setups are presented in Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hands are supported, and the controller is attached to the table

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Different switches help controlling the game

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Different switches and controllers are used

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Quadstick, and different switches and controller types are used

Full size image

4.4 Finding suitable assistive technology

People described various ways to find suitable assistive technologies for them, most participants were using multiple methods to acquire information. The most common method was searching for information online, which included activities such as searching on Google, participating in forum discussions, seeking recommendations from fellow gamers online, and watching videos. Many participants also valued recommendations from others, both online and in real life. However, some participants mentioned that their only method was trial and error, experimenting with different technologies to find what worked for them. It seemed that commonly after searching information online, the next step was trying out the devices themselves, to be sure that they are suitable. In addition, many participants reported finding suitable devices and ways to play games themselves, sometimes in creative ways: “When I play chess online, I also use a wooden chessboard for visually impaired people to better perceive the positions of the pieces.” [translated from Finnish, participant 14, male, 18–24 years old, hearing and vision disabilities].

The ways to find suitable assistive technology were quite similar when finding the suitable devices, the first time and now. However, there were some differences, for the first time, it seemed that gamers were relying mostly on internet searches and different charities. Nowadays, it seems people trust more in other gamers’ recommendations than charities and online search alone.

The common theme was that people need to try out perhaps many different devices before finding the suitable ones however, after they had found the suitable ones, they were happy to be able to play:

“I was diagnosed with acute transverse myelitis when I was twelve years old and have been quadriplegic ever since. Before my illness, I considered myself a gamer, but after, I could not use my hands, so I could not play video games. Watching walkthroughs and watching my friends play was still entertaining, but not the same as when you are experiencing a game yourself. Fortunately, a few years later, I heard about the FPS quadstick, and when I got it, it was a game-changer. All of a sudden, I could play video games again but with my mouth; it took a bit to get used to it at first, but now it is amazing; I can play almost any game I want to play, with some limitations, of course.” [Participant 49, male 18–24 years old, mobility and motor disabilities].

4.5 Not using assistive technology in gaming

Of the participants, 44% (n = 32) were not using assistive technology in gaming: 61% (n = 14) of female respondents reported not using assistive technology for gaming, whereas 36% (n = 16) of male participants reported not using AT. Gender comparisons can be found in Table 10. None of the participants over 65 years old reported using assistive technology (n = 2), and 85% (n = 11) of participants in the 35–44 age group reported not using AT. Age comparisons can be seen in Table 11.

Table 10 Gender comparison, survey participants using assistive technology
Full size table
Table 11 Age comparison, survey participants using assistive technology
Full size table

The most common reason for not using assistive technology in gaming is that people do not need the assistive technology for gaming (75%, n = 24), or at least they do not feel like they need it. Other reasons included lack of knowledge, as some did not know that assistive technology exists (6%, n = 2) and where to get it (22%, n = 7), as well as high prices of the technology (16%, n = 5). These reasons were reflected in the answers to both the multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Lack of knowledge was most prevalent among gamers who had been playing for less than five years or 5–10 years.

5 Discussion

Previous studies [such as 8, 19] presented information on whether gamers with disabilities use assistive technologies, which technologies they use, and the reasons they might not use assistive technologies. The present study aimed to strengthen and further granulate previous results by investigating how people with disabilities find suitable assistive technology for them. Given the speed of technological change, new releases of assistive technology, and especially the unprecedented developments in game accessibility [23] this study provides a needed, updated understanding of ATs in gaming that provide the current state of affairs considering developments that followed previously conducted research.

Most of the participants were using various custom controllers, and some were using screen readers. However, the participants seemed widely to understand what assistive technology is. In the survey conducted, we defined the participants “Assistive technology (AT) refers to services, tools, applications, equipment, and devices that help individuals compensate for disabilities by maintaining, enabling, or improving functional abilities” based on Jenny et al. [13]. Some participants named controllers, but some named for example chairs, pillows, arm rests and blue light blocking glasses amongst different software solutions. We can assume that gamers named the devices they see helpful in gaming. However, since we did not specify or give examples of what can be assistive devices, we cannot be sure if some of the participants were using assistive technologies but did not just think that they are ATs. For example, people might have thought that only different controllers and screen readers are assistive technologies, because we specifically asked whether the participants using those. As it seems that there is a mismatch in understanding what is AT in research and in practice, the research definition would need updating to cover all tools people with disabilities use. In the gaming context, the definition could be as follows: Assistive technology (AT) covers both technical and non-technical solutions outside of games which help individuals with disabilities to play games.

Based on our results, 44% were not using any assistive technologies, which is a significant number of users. In previous research, 58% did not use assistive technology for gaming, which is comparatively larger percentage, which might be due to wider focus of the survey [8]. However, the primary reason for not using assistive technology among most participants was simply not needing it. Additionally, all participants who agreed that games were currently accessible for them did not use or require assistive technologies. In addition, some differences were observed in the use of assistive technology, with females, individuals in the age group of 35–44 years, and those over 65 years old using assistive technologies less frequently.

Two distinct perspectives emerged regarding how participants described the impact of disability on gaming: either they considered themselves to be the problem, or they perceived the game itself as the problem. However, since the survey specifically asked about how disability affects gaming and did not inquire about specific features used, it is unclear whether participants truly believed they were the problem or if the survey question influenced this division. Nevertheless, this division suggests that gamers may adopt either a medical or social perspective when considering disability.

Commonly, it seems that suitable assistive technologies, not for gaming purposes, are found either by the person themselves or with help of health care professionals. In Finland, the process to acquire assistive technologies can be started by the person with a disability themselves, or by health care professionals. Further, before acquiring the technology, the need can be mapped at assistive services of basic health care, at polyclinic specialized medical care or via rehabilitation [24]. Furthermore, people are educated how to use the devices [25].

As it has been pointed out, the high prices of assistive technology might be one barrier for using the technologies [8, 11], which becomes especially an issue, when people with disabilities need to find suitable devices through trial and error. To our knowledge, borrowing and testing gaming-related assistive technologies before making a purchase decision is not currently possible in most countries or communities. Establishing such opportunities could greatly assist gamers with disabilities in finding suitable solutions more easily. Perhaps a similar approach to the acquisition of other assistive technologies in Finland could be applied to gaming-related assistive technology. This would involve professionals assessing the need or individuals themselves identifying the need, followed by a trial period to test the device before making a purchase. The city of Espoo, in Finland, has started taking the steps towards offering possibilities to try out devices by starting out “Assistive Device Lending Library for Gaming - Gaming is for Everyone! - Service Concept” (Pelaamisen apuvälinelainaamo – pelaaminen kuuluu kaikille! - palvelukonsepti) [26].

Furthermore, we need solutions how gamers with disabilities find the assistive technologies in first place. We need to educate the social workers, and other professionals, so that they can advertise the products for people with disabilities. We need systematic information easily available about which devices operate with which platforms and what kinds of users they are most commonly compatible, for both gamers and professionals’ usage. In addition, we need game developers to design their games in a way that allows players to use assistive technology.

To conclude, this study aimed to strengthen and update ongoing research on game accessibility, in general, and ATs in gaming, in particular. It highlighted that, even if people with disabilities know what assistive devices are available and where to obtain them, the only way to ensure the devices are suitable is through trial and error. However, because these devices are expensive, it is nearly impossible for some people to even try them, which then gatekeeps them from gaming, a challenge that many others do not face. Gaming is not only a significant form of entertainment, it is also significant in socialization, learning, and skill development, all of which are integral to the human experience. If we are to ensure equal access to opportunity and equity to society, facilitating access to ATs and gaming is one area where further work is needed.

5.1 Limitations and future research

As with any research, this study is also limited by human error. It is possible that some open-ended questions were interpreted incorrectly, as there was no opportunity to ask participants follow-up questions. Regarding background information, participants were highly experienced gamers who played on various platforms and engaged with a wide range of game genres. Since the survey was titled “Using assistive technology in gaming” it might be that it attracted more participants who use AT rather than people who do not use AT, hence we cannot be sure how representative the results are. In addition, due to the distribution of the survey, we might have attracted more respondents who actively use various technologies in their daily lives. Regardless of our attempts to share the survey and the large number of impressions, we got a limited number of participants to perform a complete comparison between different disabilities and genders, however we see this as a potential future research problem, i.e., how to reach gamers with disabilities and how they are using assistive technology in gaming.

In addition, the gaming platform could have impacted on the used devices. However, the participants did not specify what devices they were using on which platforms. Further studies should delve deeper into this aspect and investigate the compatibility of different assistive technologies with consoles and other gaming devices.

Future research is encouraged to delve deeper into studying and facilitating the compatibility of assistive technologies with different gaming platforms and devices, to make sure that the obtained technologies work with games. We are further in need of understanding what needs gamers with disabilities find unaddressed by the currently available technology. Based on that, we need to develop more targeted solutions – whether through devices or software – that address these needs. Observational studies can also help us understand how gamers with disabilities game, rather than relying on self-reports which may not be fully accurate or complete.

6 Conclusion

Gaming has become increasingly popular, and individuals with disabilities are active participants in the gaming community. However, there remains a lack of accessibility in games, including accessible design, features, and compatibility with various assistive technologies.

The primary objective of this study was to further investigate the use of assistive technology among people with disabilities in gaming, the specific technologies they employ, and the reasons behind non-usage. Additionally, the study aimed to offer insight into how individuals with disabilities generally discover suitable assistive technology. To address these objectives, the study sought to answer the following research questions: (1) Do people with disabilities use assistive technology for gaming? (2) What assistive technology do people with disabilities use for gaming? (3) How do people with disabilities find suitable assistive technology? (4) Why do people with disabilities not use assistive technology for gaming?

Based on the survey data collected, the study revealed that 56% of individuals with disabilities utilize a range of assistive technologies for gaming, including those designed for everyday use as well as devices specifically tailored for gaming purposes. Participants employed various methods to find suitable assistive technologies, with many relying on online resources and placing trust in the experiences shared by other gamers. However, trial and error proved necessary to ensure the devices met their specific needs. For those who did not use assistive technology (44%), it was often because they did not require it for gaming. Nevertheless, barriers such as limited knowledge and high prices of assistive technologies were identified.

To conclude, this study aimed to strengthen and update ongoing research on game accessibility, in general, and ATs in gaming, specifically. It highlighted that, even if people with disabilities know what assistive devices are available and where to obtain them, the only way to ensure the devices are suitable is through trial and error. If we are to ensure equal access to opportunity and equity to society, facilitating access to ATs and gaming is one area where further work is needed.