Why you should all support accessibility

Dreaders123

Accessibility in gaming is a rapidly evolving area. This is true for other areas too, such as workplace, but gaming is definitely a way behind the curve.

What seems clear about some recent decisions and implementations in Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) is that accessibility is treated as a separate entity from game design. This is understandable. Years have been spent working on game design and accessibility is often seen as a new discipline, and a restrictive one.

In fact, the opposite is true and including accessibility to be a core part of all your processes carries a huge number of benefits:

• Increase to the potential audience size of your game
• Increase active participation in your game
• Increased good-will to your organization
• Increased talent pool for designing and building the game
• Increased innovation in game development and playstyles (which creates revenue and loops to bullet 1)

These benefit everyone.

I wish I was more skilled at conveying the wonder of the positive changes that can happen when you do this, but I'll try a couple of examples of what could potentially happen.

Consider the Arcanist nausea. There is no doubt this choice always carried a risk of adverse effects, but that was never thought through, even when feedback was strongly highlighting it on the PTS, it was ignored. Now it's a problem, and an even bigger one because people are impacted (not just those with accessibility issues) and passionate camps are formed between those who like it, and those who dislike or literally cannot tolerate it. Some people cannot play, some people are playing but their enjoyment is negatively impacted by the visuals, some people are liking the visuals but are negatively impacted because of a perceived threat against something they like. Everyone loses.

What if accessibility had been part of the process? One of the first questions around a bold, exciting visual implementation would have been to consider accessibility and it would have highlighted risk. That would then lead to a series of choices - is this still the right visual treatment? and if it is, is there a way we can mitigate the risk of it? That process is now very different as they will begin to innovate around measures that not only help those with accessibility needs, but help everyone else. It wouldn't be a surprise for the process to say 'if a players visuals affect other players, how do we help those other players not be affected?'. You know what that leads to? Solutions that addresses hundreds of niggles - FlappyBirds anyone? Everyone benefits.

Accessibility consciousness in Design is so powerful and so under-valued. Let's consider OakenSorc and the state of debate about that.

Conway's Law suggests that what gets produced mirrors how an organization internally communicates and I find this to be true far more often than not. Accessibility does not have a clear vision, statement, and level of inclusion from ZoS for ESO and OakenSorc is a perfect example of that. Accessibility here appears to be a problem that needs to go away, whereas actually it's part of a much greater set of solutions.

Firstly, I have to address the state of debate. That thinking, in a social experience like ESO, not only translates into the game, it translates into the community. It is challenge enough to have accessibility issues. It is made significantly worse by being poor consideration. Being told that the aim is to let you 'participate' in some way like being able to take part in a concert only you are in a different room because there's no wheelchair access. Hey, you can still hear and sing along, what's your problem? It gets worse. You can be accused of lying, you can be accused of actually just being lazy. It's shameful. But it's a construct of Conways Law in action.

One thread likened HA builds as a wheelchair ramp vs stairs and the problem is that lots of people who do not need the ramp prefer it over the stairs, so the answer is to make the ramp worse. Even if the changes being made are the right changes (and I do read and hear the evidence to suggest it is, agree or otherwise) - the process here is all wrong. Why is there only one properly effective build? And that's what's causing issues.

What if accessibility was in core design though? I'm going to be bold and say this wouldn't even be a problem. Because what would happen would be a lot of innovation over playstyles, different ways to play. You want class diversity? skills diversity? This is where it comes from. What can we do with bows to make different playstyles fun and effective? What's a really novel way of thinking about skills that provides a different playstyle experience but doesn't break the game? There are threads today where folks are liking that the Arcanist plays a little differently, and others sharing frustration that some classes have nothing distinctive about them. The words diversity and difference should stand out to you! This is the point - accessibility is about diversity and difference and it's something that everybody wants! Everybody benefits.

The more you go down the rabbit-hole the more connected benefits arrive. Why did so many people want to play a sub-optimal build with a simpler playstyle than the more optimal harder playstyles? It is NOT laziness - that's a 'lazy' judgement. It's REWARD. Right now we can only think probably of DPS parsing as a reward. That sucks. How else can we reward different styles of play, different roles, different people?

Innovation. Everyone benefits.

SO my ask -
ESO if you read this please consider how much better your lives would be with accessibility as a core part of your processes and design.
ESO community please don't see accessibility as the enemy. It's actually a pathway to getting many of the things you would love to see yourselves.

LunaFlora

thank you. this is an awesome post and i hope people read it and hope zos does better soon.

etchedpixels

To me there are bigger fish to fry first beyond fine tuning heavy attack builds, oakensoul and the new mythic that basically replaces weaving with a boost to other skills and no useful la

The reticule doesn't resize, either in game anywhere I can find or follow the Windows accessibility settings. That's incredibly basic stuff. Likewise whilst there is now some screen reading there's still none for quest options, which prevents people like my stepdaughter with severe dyslexia even playing.

People have also talked a lot about the blinding arcanist stuff, but the birght white flashes between things are even worse for anyone with visual problems (it's why films, and most other games fade via black) and have been complained about for *years*. The terrible lack of contrast in chunks of Apocrypha and the Telvanni peninsula also shows the lessons of Blackwood have been forgotten already.

We saw the same with all the flash effects in Blackwood. It's great there is now an accessibility team at work on ESO. It's unfortunate that the game developers and designers don't appear to be getting guidance on keeping new stuff accessible

Right now it really feels like the accessibility team are both filling in the wrong holes, and have been given smaller shovels than the ones the new content developers have been given to dig new larger accessibility holes.

barney2525

If you are going to focus an entire piece on one specific Term, it might be useful to DEFINE exactly what that term means in the context of your post.

You wrote this whole piece on accessibility, which can have a wide variety of meanings, and never bothered to define exactly what you are talking about. Hence, none of it makes any sense to a lot of us.

etchedpixels

Zenimax is Microsoft and their take is:

"Accessibility is about building experiences that make your Windows application usable by people who use technology in a wide range of environments and approach your UI with a range of needs and experiences. For some situations, accessibility requirements are imposed by law. However, it's a good idea to address accessibility issues regardless of legal requirements so that your apps have the largest possible audience."

Braffin

barney2525 wrote: »

If you are going to focus an entire piece on one specific Term, it might be useful to DEFINE exactly what that term means in the context of your post.

You wrote this whole piece on accessibility, which can have a wide variety of meanings, and never bothered to define exactly what you are talking about. Hence, none of it makes any sense to a lot of us.

Exactly this.

I think nobody is against accessibility options so more players may enjoy the game. But questioning the results a specific build can earn in comparison to others for example, isn't a question of accessibility but one of game balancing.

A concrete example: I don't think it's healthy for the game when a newly released trial is cleared by several craglorn pugs on day 1. Something more to farm through it quickly, there is nothing more left.

Same we have regarding arcanist's skills. There are accessibility problems due to flashy lights and flapping abominations since years, which should be adressed, but too many people cared. Now the whole "don't like green, that's sci-fi" faction is hiding behind the argument of accessibility to enforce their personal likings.

To be honest: I feel sorry for players affected by disabilities. It's done too little for them, that's true. And on top of that their disabilities are abused from selfish players to make a cheap argument. It's just sad meanwhile.

Dreaders123

Braffin wrote: »

barney2525 wrote: »

If you are going to focus an entire piece on one specific Term, it might be useful to DEFINE exactly what that term means in the context of your post.

You wrote this whole piece on accessibility, which can have a wide variety of meanings, and never bothered to define exactly what you are talking about. Hence, none of it makes any sense to a lot of us.

Exactly this.

I think nobody is against accessibility options so more players may enjoy the game. But questioning the results a specific build can earn in comparison to others for example, isn't a question of accessibility but one of game balancing.

A concrete example: I don't think it's healthy for the game when a newly released trial is cleared by several craglorn pugs. Something more to farm through it quickly, there is nothing more left.

Then I failed in my post in several ways. This is entirely missing the point.

Amottica

Edit. I think others have hit the nail on the head.

Zenimax has created a great design for accessibility. There are complex builds that perform at the high-end of this game that offer a reward for a player skilled enough to use them while there are simpler builds to help those who do not want to put the effort into refining their gameplay or are limited by other means. There is also group content created at multiple difficulty levels to offer accessibility to the masses while also offering a challenge for those that are willing to put the effort into meeting those challenges.

Dreaders123

Amottica wrote: »

Edit. I think others have hit the nail on the head.

Zenimax

It's a shame you edited out your post as I found it a good one. You used the term 'less skilled players'. The point of the post is to suggest that skilled equating to dextrous keyboard ability shouldn't be the only dynamic. What about skilled/intelligence and planning. What about skilled/strategic timing. And so on.

There is a whole world unexplored.

EDIT thank you for reposting your original, I dont know if its word for word but seeing it in this form it does not the words 'less skilled players' However the point is the same as it links skills and efforts. Thank you for reposting it!

Amottica

Dreaders123 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Edit. I think others have hit the nail on the head.

Zenimax

It's a shame you edited out your post as I found it a good one. You used the term 'less skilled players'. The point of the post is to suggest that skilled equating to dextrous keyboard ability shouldn't be the only dynamic. What about skilled/intelligence and planning. What about skilled/strategic timing. And so on.

There is a whole world unexplored.

And ESO has easier builds and less challenging content. I also know a player with Parkinson's who was able to figure out how to play ESO with his limitations and enjoyed both AvA and trials. He has even cleared some of the vet trials which says a lot about both the design of ESO and what is possible.

As for your two questions here. Each player, and group, need to set their goals and work on solutions to meet those goals. Zenimax has provided a means for simpler builds and less challenging content along with offering skill-based challenges with the performance of more complex builds as well as more challenging content. Players and groups also need to be realistic about those goals.

The design is well-rounded.

Dreaders123

Amottica wrote: »

Zenimax has created a great design for accessibility.

Amottica wrote: »

The design is well-rounded.

yet...

etchedpixels wrote: »

The reticule doesn't resize, either in game anywhere I can find or follow the Windows accessibility settings. That's incredibly basic stuff. Likewise whilst there is now some screen reading there's still none for quest options, which prevents people like my stepdaughter with severe dyslexia even playing.

We have to stop thinking in terms of hot topics that cause disagreement with other players. Accessibility as a fundamental part of design benefits everyone.

Braffin

Dreaders123 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Edit. I think others have hit the nail on the head.

Zenimax

It's a shame you edited out your post as I found it a good one. You used the term 'less skilled players'. The point of the post is to suggest that skilled equating to dextrous keyboard ability shouldn't be the only dynamic. What about skilled/intelligence and planning. What about skilled/strategic timing. And so on.

There is a whole world unexplored.

EDIT thank you for reposting your original, I dont know if its word for word but seeing it in this form it does not the words 'less skilled players' However the point is the same as it links skills and efforts. Thank you for reposting it!

All the points your're talking about are already present ingame.

Indeed I can't think of any content where nothing than "dextrous keyboard ability" is demanded.

etchedpixels

Braffin wrote: »

etchedpixels wrote: »

The reticule doesn't resize, either in game anywhere I can find or follow the Windows accessibility settings. That's incredibly basic stuff. Likewise whilst there is now some screen reading there's still none for quest options, which prevents people like my stepdaughter with severe dyslexia even playing.

We have to stop thinking in terms of hot topics that cause disagreement with other players. Accessibility as a fundamental part of design benefits everyone.

It is - and you are exactly right that it's a fundamental piece of design - which is why I find the Arcanist flash bang and the poor contrast in bits of the new zone so depressing. Not only should they have been realized at design time, but the team doing the design should have had enough basic training to catch it themselves.

Things like the combat and competitive side are actually the hard stuff because you have to balance the desire of everyone who wants to feel they succeeded with those who want to feel that their 3 months working in a vet progression group was hugely rewarding. Things like getting screenreader for options, reticle sizes, colour control are actually the low hanging fruit because they don't impact other players. I *absolutely* get why oakensoul, heavy attack builds and the like are such an emotive and difficult to balance thing which will never keep everyone happy.

I come from this having worked on accessibility in software. Much of the challenge is the broad range of needs people have, and working out the priorities. The numbers can also be surprising, most folks wildly under-estimate the number of disabled people - even for well known classes like wheelchair users, let alone "invisible" disabilities like severe dyslexia.

Braffin

etchedpixels wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

etchedpixels wrote: »

The reticule doesn't resize, either in game anywhere I can find or follow the Windows accessibility settings. That's incredibly basic stuff. Likewise whilst there is now some screen reading there's still none for quest options, which prevents people like my stepdaughter with severe dyslexia even playing.

We have to stop thinking in terms of hot topics that cause disagreement with other players. Accessibility as a fundamental part of design benefits everyone.

It is - and you are exactly right that it's a fundamental piece of design - which is why I find the Arcanist flash bang and the poor contrast in bits of the new zone so depressing. Not only should they have been realized at design time, but the team doing the design should have had enough basic training to catch it themselves.

Things like the combat and competitive side are actually the hard stuff because you have to balance the desire of everyone who wants to feel they succeeded with those who want to feel that their 3 months working in a vet progression group was hugely rewarding. Things like getting screenreader for options, reticle sizes, colour control are actually the low hanging fruit because they don't impact other players. I *absolutely* get why oakensoul, heavy attack builds and the like are such an emotive and difficult to balance thing which will never keep everyone happy.

I come from this having worked on accessibility in software. Much of the challenge is the broad range of needs people have, and working out the priorities. The numbers can also be surprising, most folks wildly under-estimate the number of disabled people - even for well known classes like wheelchair users, let alone "invisible" disabilities like severe dyslexia.

I agree completely with you on this.

But I think you somehow got the citation wrong. The argument you quoted isn't from me but @Dreaders123 .

VampirateV

I'm glad that accessibility in this game is getting a little more attention in the community. I feel like there are probably a lot of people like me, who don't have an outright legally recognized disability per se, but DO have some issues that accessibility options are immensely helpful for. My vision is typical nearsightedness that requires a fairly high prescription of lenses, so I have text size set larger for most things in order to reduce eye strain. My wrists and fingers are weak due to a combo of overuse with keyboards and being double-jointed, so my hands get achy and slow when having to do repetitive motions for too long (DPS rotation). ADHD owns me so hard, and despite being medicated, it's still an issue I have, which means that too much flashing/brightness/movement makes my brain want to melt from visual overload.

None of my issues make it impossible to play, but certain elements of gameplay are simply not doable (pvp, can't respond fast enough for example), which automatically lessens the fun. If there are so many players with actual legit disabilities trying to find accessibility options/workarounds, imagine how much of the playerbase total has had to contort their playstyle to make the game doable for lesser issues, like mine. OP is absolutely right that accessibility should be considered from the get-go, as it's supposed to be an integral part of design. Most companies realized a long time ago that making their products more accessible was a smart strategy for reaching the widest market of potential customers. People with disabilities spend money too, and it seems like it should be common sense for any business to employ a strategy that makes their product appeal to the widest audience possible. I mean, more customers = more money. And from the humanity/social pov, accessibility options also allow disabled people to participate more in society, which is an ethical positive. As OP said, accessibility being considered at all steps of product development leads to a win for everyone, and I hope that ESO starts taking it more seriously, now that they're seeing the real world consequences of not applying it thoughtfully with the Arcanist hoopla. I'd NEVER expect a company of any kind to make decisions based on right/wrong, but I would ALWAYS expect one to make decisions that impact their bottom line, and in this case, inaccessibility definitely will make an impact.

Pelanora

Nice post.

Clear more could be done by zos, even to move the playerbase's understanding of 'accessible' beyond 'can understand/ can master' to 'no barrier to even accessing the content in the first place'.

It's not enough for accessibility there is content of all levels, if the game design itself is a barrier to peoples physical ability to try out and play the game.

For example, noone calls James Joyce's Ulysses an accessible work. It's difficult. Nothing to be done about that. But you can release it as an audiobook, in braille, in other languages, and improve its accessibility in that sense of 'accessible'.

Zos have content of varying levels, so they not quite akin to Ulysses, but they have not nailed the other kind of 'accessible.'

TaSheen

I'm... conflicted. Yes I have issues with this game - because I'm old, my reflexes are crap, and twitchy combat was never my thing even when I was younger - and because my inabilities are a very big issue with this game.

I didn't actually understand how "twitchy combat" was going to become my bête noire for quite a while - because until I actually had a character at 160 CP (years ago now), I didn't quite get that from then on, even only solo (due to satellite being my only connection) I wouldn't be able to manage combat well.

Of course, I'm not really interested in combat. But all the quests for the story content have really horrible combat against bosses.... for me at least - it took me a dozen tries to get past Molag Bal, and more than that (I quit counting at a dozen) against Vandacia. I never finished Blackwood/Deadlands.... tired of dying.... Lag like mine means you can't use the "help" offered by F7 - because by the time it's up, I never had the time to activate it due to lag.

So.... I've always felt that I'm in this game (a truly wonderful game overall) but it's a game which requires me to do somthing I'm simply - not able to manage at all, and that's the combat (which there is a HUGE amount of....)

First, not really interested in doing combat -it's nothing I enjoy in any game I've ever played;

Abd second, not ABLE to do combat even if I want to - because my reflexes are crap at my age and this game presupposes that one has GREAT reflexes so one can manage that twitchy combat; not only that, my connection isn't optimal for twitchy combat.

Good thing I love housing, crafting and other non-combat oriented areas. But not being able to quest is.... disappointing.

I'm not disabled. I'm just.... older and slower, and have a not "real broadband" connection. And I'm quite well aware that this game isn't friendly to people like me.

But it's such a wonderful game.... so I just keep plugging....

tonyblack

Accessibility and forced inclusion already downgraded the quality, increased costs or outright alienated and bankrupt so many products and industries. It’s not that it’s a bad thing overall but pretending like it doesn’t have negative impact is very naive. Bland animations, extremely easy content and simplified combat where performance of difficult hard to master builds equal in power to one button builds sounds bad enough as it is. Pushing it even further just drive off anyone who doesn’t need or want anything to do with accessibility.

Liguar

tonyblack wrote: »

Pushing it even further just drive off anyone who doesn’t need or want anything to do with accessibility.

You really can't even think of anyone in your friends and family circle that would benefit from accessibility options, that you would like to share your favourite games with? Maybe someone in your circle does want it, and doesn't tell you. But you shouldn't need to know someone personally that is affected by it to feel empathy.

How exactly can accessibility "drive off" anyone that doesn't want it? (And why would people not want it?)

tonyblack wrote: »

Accessibility and forced inclusion already downgraded the quality, increased costs or outright alienated and bankrupt so many products and industries..

Oh no, not the dreaded forced inclusion.

I would have thought that making games more welcoming to a bigger group of people (accessibility and inclusion-wise) would give a bigger pool of players, which is something games want. ESO already has so many different things to do, it really seems like they want a diverse set of players.

Dreaders123

According to a 2018 study by Accenture, organizations that focus on accessibility see a 28% revenue improvement. There are few other investments with this ROI.

According to the World Health Organization (2022) there are 1.1 - 1.3 billion people worldwide (roughly one in six) who have a significant disability. This is a subset of those needing accessibility. That market has a rough disposable income of 13 trillion dollars.

According to Gartner (2020) digital products in L2 compliance are expected to outperform non compliant competitors by 50%

Numerous studies (Pascal et al, Schmutz et al) have demonstrated that improved accessibility experience results in an improved experience for all users, not just those who need accessibility.

Claims that accessibility makes things bland and boring are not new. They had some supporting evidence in first wave implementations. However by Third Wave (c.2018) evolution in understanding and technology means that this is rarely born out evidentially (unless the implementation is particular poor / after thought / etc) leading to the sorts of statistics above.

Claims of bankrupting products, companies, and industries I can find no evidence - even non-statistical - for.

There are cost implications but, as in all business, costs are not the primary driver many people think they are. Costs are important obviously, but they are predominantly a factor of profit where revenue benefits of the cost need to be taken into account. Certain financial reporting scenarios are also affected by cost figures such as when a business needs to demonstrate specific operating measures around margin / free cash flow / etc but that does not really seem to have a direct and general relevance here.

Amottica

Dreaders123 wrote: »

According to a 2018 study by Accenture, organizations that focus on accessibility see a 28% revenue improvement. There are few other investments with this ROI.

According to the World Health Organization (2022) there are 1.1 - 1.3 billion people worldwide (roughly one in six) who have a significant disability. This is a subset of those needing accessibility. That market has a rough disposable income of 13 trillion dollars.

According to Gartner (2020) digital products in L2 compliance are expected to outperform non compliant competitors by 50%

Numerous studies (Pascal et al, Schmutz et al) have demonstrated that improved accessibility experience results in an improved experience for all users, not just those who need accessibility.

Claims that accessibility makes things bland and boring are not new. They had some supporting evidence in first wave implementations. However by Third Wave (c.2018) evolution in understanding and technology means that this is rarely born out evidentially (unless the implementation is particular poor / after thought / etc) leading to the sorts of statistics above.

Claims of bankrupting products, companies, and industries I can find no evidence - even non-statistical - for.

There are cost implications but, as in all business, costs are not the primary driver many people think they are. Costs are important obviously, but they are predominantly a factor of profit where revenue benefits of the cost need to be taken into account. Certain financial reporting scenarios are also affected by cost figures such as when a business needs to demonstrate specific operating measures around margin / free cash flow / etc but that does not really seem to have a direct and general relevance here

.

And Zenimax has provided accessibility. They have provided means for simpler builds while maintaining the benefits of more complex builds. They provide levels of difficulty in group content and arenas. That is a great balance.

PrincessOfThieves

I support accessibility. Things like colorblind mode, being able to toggle off bright flashes, rebind keys and such should be available in any AAA game.

Content-wise, ESO is not dark souls and there is an easy (normal) mode already. If you find vet content too stressful, just do normal. Or regular vet, it doesn't require that much dps. Optional challenges such as hardmodes and trifectas are not inclusive by design, that's just how it works. For example, you cannot get an achievement for beating a game on hard mode while playing on easy. Demanding that everyone must be able to get difficult achievements on easy mode defeats the point of these achievements. Besides, not that much stuff in ESO is locked behind hardmodes... There are a few mounts and vanity titles but that's about it.

Vanity and pride are not disabilities and don't have to be catered to. And this whole oakensorc debacle shows that it is really about vanity. The build only lost a few % dps and is still very powerful for any vet content (including the new trial on vet), but people keep complaining.

Aislinna

Haven't you posted several of these accessibility dissertations on this forum before? I think you said it was your field of study and were trying to publish papers, if I remember correctly. And each time people ask you to clearly define what you mean by "accessibility" in relation to ESO and you don't seem to do so.

colossalvoids

While the post is pretty good with points and understanding of what's can be wrong with it and what's already done poorly I'd guess it's pretty sensitive topic to the community overall as inclusion and accessibility aren't the most defined of terms to begin with and approach to solutions in some companies were an ultimately bad experience for gamers in general (as both sides suffer in result). So some replies might look like they didn't read the majority of the topic and just commented because the title, which probably is not a fault of getting point across but more of salt crystals dropping into fresh wounds.

But yeah, screen narration, colourblind modes, ui scaling/movement etc. is what I'd personally call an accessibility modes that are absolutely needed and are welcomed whilst tweaking gameplay to be "accessible" most of the times goes a wrong route of creating systems where you can hardly fail, making not even environments/playing fields (competetive parts of those games suffer the most obviously) and generally mixing up accessibility with catering to the masses for the sake of profit, read: should be easy for three finger play, puzzle should be solvable by literally everyone, etc. etc. which are actually diminishing the gameplay overall whilst providing said accessibility and inclusion. At the same time they can just add capable summonable NPC's for solo non leaderboard content to guide through and lend a hand, which would not diminish others experience but would make content more accessible, while making vet+ an even playing field where different ruleset applies due to it's nature. It's kinda like Ubisoft versus FromSoftware approach.

Dreaders123

Aislinna wrote: »

Haven't you posted several of these accessibility dissertations on this forum before? I think you said it was your field of study and were trying to publish papers, if I remember correctly. And each time people ask you to clearly define what you mean by "accessibility" in relation to ESO and you don't seem to do so.

Yes and no and I'm not sure.

Yes I've raised accessibility, no they are not dissertations and no I am not publishing papers. It is an area I have some involvement in personally and professionally. More relevantly I am passionate about it.

I'm not sure that people have repeatedly asked me - I get a lot of distraction and personal based attacks so it may be that sometimes they are in there. More generally though the honest answer is that it's a difficult one to respond to except in a way that I find tends to frustrate people. A rapidly evolving area has evolving definitions.

Accessibility is largely covering two fronts. One is the specific area that people with restrictions (including disability) are able to achieve a similar result in a digital product, with a similar amount of time and effort as those without restrictions. Accessibility needs can be permanent or temporary, can be disability based, or some other factor such as age.

The second front is that Accessibility is about the user experience of a digital product for all users including those with specific accessibility needs. This is a newer interpretation with traction due to the links between focusing on accessibility and the improvements seen across a wider spectrum of measures for all users.

I hope that answers your question.

Aislinna

Dreaders123 wrote: »

Aislinna wrote: »

Haven't you posted several of these accessibility dissertations on this forum before? I think you said it was your field of study and were trying to publish papers, if I remember correctly. And each time people ask you to clearly define what you mean by "accessibility" in relation to ESO and you don't seem to do so.

Yes and no and I'm not sure.

Yes I've raised accessibility, no they are not dissertations and no I am not publishing papers. It is an area I have some involvement in personally and professionally. More relevantly I am passionate about it.

I'm not sure that people have repeatedly asked me - I get a lot of distraction and personal based attacks so it may be that sometimes they are in there. More generally though the honest answer is that it's a difficult one to respond to except in a way that I find tends to frustrate people. A rapidly evolving area has evolving definitions.

Accessibility is largely covering two fronts. One is the specific area that people with restrictions (including disability) are able to achieve a similar result in a digital product, with a similar amount of time and effort as those without restrictions. Accessibility needs can be permanent or temporary, can be disability based, or some other factor such as age.

The second front is that Accessibility is about the user experience of a digital product for all users including those with specific accessibility needs. This is a newer interpretation with traction due to the links between focusing on accessibility and the improvements seen across a wider spectrum of measures for all users.

I hope that answers your question.

Thank you for attempting to answer. Now the next part is what is your goal in relation to ESO and accessibility. I didn't see a defined thesis/opinion statement expressed in your original post or what you're trying to accomplish. And yes, people have a tendency to attack vague buzzword posts because they have to fill in the blanks and guess what you are trying to say.

Are there specific physical accessibility issues you feel ZOS is not addressing and do you have recommendations for them. I personally have physical issues and feel ZOS has given me options for them, but I'm guessing there are other physical issues that are not being addressed in your opinion; please elaborate on what those specifically are. I have seen posts about the arcanist's green and I wonder how much of the complaints are because it's new and a lot of people have made a new character and are busy leveling them up--will people be less upset in a few weeks when the newness goes away and the arcanist isn't everywhere. When I first started ESO, the chaotic lights flashing and many extra pets, flappy birds, etc. in dungeons made me crazy and I asked people if there was a way I could tone things down on my screen. end of the story... I got used to it after a few weeks.

As for the second type, since it's new and evolving, you need to be extremely specific on what you're advocating for. I personally think ESO offers content accessibility in spades; every dungeon, trial or PVE event has multiple difficulty levels (normal, vet, hard mode) for people who have different ability levels. If your opinion is that every player should be able to complete every hard mode trifecta, then please state that and explain and back up your reasoning, so that people can debate without having to guess what you’re advocating for.

I don't think anybody is against physical accessibility in any form. A conversation on content accessibility needs to have clearly defined definitions and parameters to have a productive conversation.

Dreaders123

Aislinna wrote: »

Thank you for attempting to answer. Now the next part is what is your goal in relation to ESO and accessibility. I didn't see a defined thesis/opinion statement expressed in your original post or what you're trying to accomplish.

In my opinion, through observation, I felt three things were true ( and recognise and support that people may disagree ).

1. Accessibility is often seen as 'the enemy' by some of the player base even if they don't admit it per se (because who would?). But it's present in words and actions. People using one bar builds being lazy for example. People judged to just not like arcanist colours while they are describing migraines and nausea. There might be words that say 'for those who need it it's great' but people who point out they need it get called liars and lazy. The rights and wrongs of individual changes are as they are, but the pattern of debate I found sad and concerning. The argument shouldn't be about whether OakenSoul needs a nerf, it's the framing of how that argument was happening and that the focus on accessible play was being lost. I have attempted to highlight through examples that the only reason we have this contention and hostility is the lack of options. Raising the accessibility part of the argument results in personal attacks and accusations. I'm trying to show that these are all symptoms of wider lack of accessibility consideration.

2. I'm glad you have success with current accessibility options. Clearly there are many who do not. The strategy and implementation for accessibility appears weak and unstructured (from the outside). People are literally describing specific problems, often basic problems that are not addressed so I disagree with the assertion that it is well rounded and want to highlight that. I have tried to evangelize that accessibility needs to be core to all processes for it to work well. When it's the purview of 'the accessibility team' or some such it is always stuck to reactively fixing problems in a limited way instead of really solving accessibility as a default.

3. I'm trying to highlight that doing this actually goes much farther than people think. When I look at hot topics here I see that so many would be not be a problem for ALL gamers if only accessibility was built in. People have made the link already between disabling arcanist effects for others and disabling flappy bird. That's the tip of the iceberg. I've highlighted build diversity, skill diversity. I'm trying to highlight that accessibility benefits everyone.

Braffin

Dreaders123 wrote: »

Aislinna wrote: »

Thank you for attempting to answer. Now the next part is what is your goal in relation to ESO and accessibility. I didn't see a defined thesis/opinion statement expressed in your original post or what you're trying to accomplish.

In my opinion, through observation, I felt three things were true ( and recognise and support that people may disagree ).

1. Accessibility is often seen as 'the enemy' by some of the player base even if they don't admit it per se (because who would?). But it's present in words and actions. People using one bar builds being lazy for example. People judged to just not like arcanist colours while they are describing migraines and nausea. There might be words that say 'for those who need it it's great' but people who point out they need it get called liars and lazy. The rights and wrongs of individual changes are as they are, but the pattern of debate I found sad and concerning. The argument shouldn't be about whether OakenSoul needs a nerf, it's the framing of how that argument was happening and that the focus on accessible play was being lost. I have attempted to highlight through examples that the only reason we have this contention and hostility is the lack of options. Raising the accessibility part of the argument results in personal attacks and accusations. I'm trying to show that these are all symptoms of wider lack of accessibility consideration.

2. I'm glad you have success with current accessibility options. Clearly there are many who do not. The strategy and implementation for accessibility appears weak and unstructured (from the outside). People are literally describing specific problems, often basic problems that are not addressed so I disagree with the assertion that it is well rounded and want to highlight that. I have tried to evangelize that accessibility needs to be core to all processes for it to work well. When it's the purview of 'the accessibility team' or some such it is always stuck to reactively fixing problems in a limited way instead of really solving accessibility as a default.

3. I'm trying to highlight that doing this actually goes much farther than people think. When I look at hot topics here I see that so many would be not be a problem for ALL gamers if only accessibility was built in. People have made the link already between disabling arcanist effects for others and disabling flappy bird. That's the tip of the iceberg. I've highlighted build diversity, skill diversity. I'm trying to highlight that accessibility benefits everyone.

Your post again is lacking concrete parameters.

So, 3 simple questions:
1) Should the current iteration of oaken HA be able to clear all PvE-content including trial trifectas?
2) Do you have any suggestions to improve accessibility in PvP.
3) How do you create an equal playfield for all players, if the way to reach this goal is available for all players, regardless of need?

Aislinna

Good luck. Without specifics about the issues, it's hard for me to support your vague cause.

PrincessOfThieves

The main problem with this approach is that, let's be honest, the majority of Oakensorc users are able-bodied people who want easy clears. In a video game you cannot have accessibility things that are meant only for disabled people (like dedicated parking spots and the like), and if you have something that's performing much better than all other options, people will abuse it. That goes against idea of diversity, though - if it's a choice between using HA or falling behind anyone else(unless you're a super elite player), there's not much room for different builds and playstyles. This is why it needs to be balanced - all build options should be equal.
I personally support the idea that there should be easy builds to help people get into vet content. Non-HA Oakensoul builds fill this niche pretty well imo. But the idea that everyone should be able to skip the challenge while playing on hard difficulty is stupid and has nothing to do with accessibility.

Mekie

Accessibility will never work in this game. Why? Because all of us (players).
There's nothing better than HA for those with accessibility needs, and we all know what happens with these players.
If we can't accept the easiest accessibility option we have (HA), and if even ZoS keeps these HA players out of trials like vCR... What do you really expect from ZoS?!
ESO Accessibility = RIP