International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction

UAHCI 2015: Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to Learning, Health and Well-Being pp 547-554 | Cite as

Designing Accessible Games with the VERITAS Framework: Lessons Learned from Game Designers

  • Michael James Scott
  • Fotios Spyridonis
  • Gheorghita Ghinea
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9177)

Abstract

Testing is important to improve accessibility. However, within the serious games area, this can sometimes rely on minimal testing with the use of heuristics and external assistive devices, with limited input from impaired users. Efficiency would be improved if designers could readily evaluate their designs with the assistance of virtual users. The VERITAS framework simulates and presents data on the impact of a virtual user’s impairments; thus, facilitating a more efficient approach to inclusive design. This article reports insights into the use of the framework by 31 evaluators from the serious games field. A log-file analysis highlights key areas of concern, which are then further explored through a questionnaire. The findings suggest that the background knowledge of designers should be considered in order to improve acceptance and usability. Specifically, by addressing challenges comprehending interface elements, following the simulation workflow, and reacting to feedback.

Keywords

Accessibility Universal design Inclusion Games Simulations VERITAS framework Designers 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper forms part of the VERITAS Project which was funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme (FP7) (Grant Agreement # 247765 FP7-ICT-2009.7.2). All sites involved in the study received ethical approval from both their regional ethics committee as well as the EU VERITAS ethics committee.

References

  1. 1.
    Yuan, B., Folmer, B., Harris Jr., F.C.: Game Accessibility: A Survey. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 10(1), 81–100 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Union: Report of the Inclusive Communications (INCOM) Subgroup of the Communications Committee (COCOM) (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barbotte, E., Guillemin, F., Chau, N.: Prevalence of impairments, disabilities, handicaps and quality of life in the general population: a review of recent literature. Bull. World Health Organ. 79(11), 1047–1055 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scott, M.J., Ghinea, G., Hamilton, I.: Promoting inclusive design practice at the global game jam: a pilot evaluation. In: Proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education, pp. 1076–1079. IEEE Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott, M.J., Ghinea, G.: Promoting game accessibility: experiencing an induction on inclusive design practice at the global games jam. In: Proceedings of the Inaurgural Workshop on the Global Games Jam, pp. 17–20. SASDG, Santa Cruz (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J., Harrison, L.-A., Robinson, P.: Towards a practical inclusive design approach. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Universal Usability, pp. 42–52, ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, Y.S., Yi, J.S., Law, C.M., Jacko, J.A.: Are universal design resources designed for designers? In: Proceedings of the 8th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 87–94. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Law, C.M., Yi, J.S, Choi, Y.S., Jacko, J.A.: Are disability access guidelines designed for designers? Do They Need To Be? In: Proceedings of the 18th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, pp. 357–360. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stephanidis, C., Akoumianakis, D.: Universal design: towards universal access in the information society. In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 499–500. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spyridonis, F., Moschonas, P., Touliou, K., Tsakiris, A., Ghinea, G.: Designing accessible ICT products and services: the VERITAS accessibility testing platform. In: Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 113–116. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability inspection methods. In: Proceedings of the International ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 413–414. ACM, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gould, J.D., Lewis, C.: Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28(3), 300–311 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen, J.: Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In: Proceedings of the International ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 373–380. ACM, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Eck, N., Waltman, L.: Text mining and visualisation using VOSviewer. ISSI Newsletter 7(3), 50–54 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E.: Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 5(1), 80–92 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael James Scott
    • 1
  • Fotios Spyridonis
    • 1
  • Gheorghita Ghinea
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.Westerdals Oslo School of Arts, Communication and TechnologyOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations