You think it's weird that people expect random website owners with limited resources not to be held to the same accessibility standards as multi-billion dollar manufactures?
Why?
Why?
It isn't really a defensible position to say that you have an interaction with someone and to work out how they ought behave you need to go and do a tally of their assets and mull over their balance sheets. It'd be tantamount to saying we'd need to know what Haim Michael's assets were to know how to feel about this article. The law shouldn't change depending on whether he is broke, has $100k in savings or is a multi-millionaire. The issue here under the law is whether disabled people can access his website or not.
- Mandatory canteens.
- Mandatory retirement savings plan.
- Break rooms (in Sweden my company had a nap room that had to have a locked door from inside).
I assert that it is rational to expect a large bank or city government to have accessibility standards and at the same time, not expect Hacker News or a personal blog to have the same.
Soon you will apply the same standard for video games too? After all, why can't people without arms enjoy the same video games as you do? This kind of line of thinking has no end in sight, and is purely aimed at killing smaller companies and reinforcing the centralization of a few actors.
I don't know about Sony and Nintendo, but Microsoft and 3rd parties on PC have absolutely ploughed resources into making sure that's the case.
Notable examples include the Xbox Adaptive Controller [1] which greatly simplifies making custom setups for the specific needs of gamers with limited motor control or limb difference etc.
Features like Co-pilot [2] which allow cooperative controller use.
And that's JUST from Microsoft, there's plenty more from third parties and hackers.
Hell, one absolute lunatic [3] has been playing COD and SF4 with a recorder (the musical instrument). You can absolutely build custom controllers, be that for limb difference or just to make ridiculous Twitch streams as you headshot someone with a C Sharp.
Most games now include the obvious traditional stuff like subtitles. Useful for me personally.
Plus stuff like visual changes for the visually impaired (inc specific palettes for colour blindness) are common.
And we're starting to see many more with newer "cognitive accessibility" options like motion sickness reduction presets for graphical options, objective assists and difficulty reduction, etc.
[1] https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/accessories/controllers/xbox-adap... [2] https://support.xbox.com/en-GB/help/account-profile/accessib... [3] https://www.twitch.tv/DeanoBeano
I think you're completely wrong on this. Gaming should be accessible and there's no excuse for it not to be in future.
It's not aimed at killing any companies. It's about enabling us all to kill each other, race each other, build stupid forts with each other, and hunt demons together. Armless or not.
Hence proving my point that this is the stuff of big companies. If you had to develop solutions as a small manufacturer because it is "mandated" you would go bankrupt before accomplishing anything
> I think you're completely wrong on this. Gaming should be accessible and there's no excuse for it not to be in future.
"should"'s are meaningless. Resources are limited and you can't expect to serve all the needs out there when you make a product. Making choices matter, and that's precisely why you cannot make a product for "everyone".
No, it doesn't and no it isn't. Your rhetorical question is fundamentally wrong, and I gave you examples to prove it.
And I'm not talking generally, I've destroyed the specific example you gave.
>Soon you will apply the same standard for video games too? After all, why can't people without arms enjoy the same video games as you do?
Yes. Yes they can.
But to address the other stuff you're saying...
Just because even big companies are doing it now, doesn't mean it is necessarily difficult or expensive. Microsoft went big and hard on it not because it needed massive investment, but because it warranted it and is a subject they're passionate about.
Accessibility is and deserves to be expected. There's no excuse for lacking it in the gaming space.
They did it at Microsoft scale and made a product that's effectively a standard now.
And disabled gamers represents more potential revenue. Win win.
(It wasn't immediate clear if you were arguing about the first or second part of the sentence. I'm assuming second, but in case it was the first "Sony and Nintendo" bit:
I didn't know the specifics of non-MS consoles because not owned a Nintendo console newer than a Wii, and have no reason to have a Playstation. Especially as many of the Sony exclusives are coming to PC anyway.
A quick look at PS4/PS5 accessibility features, they include RT transcription for squad comms in addition to standard closed captions, controller remapping, visual accessibility features. First game I picked to look at was TLoU Part 2 has a LOT of accessibility features with sensible presets for physical and cognitive disability.
And you possibly need an adapter, but you can use the Xbox Accessibility Controller with PS4/PS5 as well.)
All the controller-level stuff could literally be done by hobbyists and was done by hobbyists and small companies, and big companies.
A quick Google will show you stuff like the [Thomas] Controller from 2013.[1] AbleGamers have been going since mid-2000.
Big companies have started bringing economies of scale to help drive adoption. You are wrong with your fundamental premise, and I'm proving you wrong with the specific rhetorical question you posed.
And at the software level we're mostly talking about features that aren't expensive to implement. They're as close to free as you can get. Even solo devs can do the majority of it because it's largely stuff you'll have in for ease of debugging, localisation and QA.
With the possible exception of high-end new stuff like comms transcription, slap 'em under the right menu headers, add some sensible presets, GOOD TO GO.
It's basically a modern cheat menu.
[1] https://hackaday.com/2013/06/20/building-custom-game-control...
>"should"'s are meaningless.
No they aren't.
>Resources are limited and you can't expect to serve all the needs out there when you make a product.
Agreed.
>Making choices matter, and that's precisely why you cannot make a product for "everyone".
I'm not disputing that. But you're fundamentally wrong about accessibility. "Should" does matter, and the very example you used demonstrates why.
People without arms DO enjoy the same video games as I do. Just as it should be.
Edit: I forgot physical-level stuff with Nintendo. HORI (who aren't even Nintendo-sized, although not tiny either, have a similar product to the XAC for the Switch, the HORI Flex controller. [2] But you can use the XAC with the Switch anyway with adapters, possibly without adapters via BT.)
But while looking that up, I spotted a new line of Microsoft accessibility products ("Adaptive Accessories") that are hopefully dropping in a few days. Nice.
A website is a work of art, and nobody has a right to someone else's art. Disabled or not.
I want to be clear - I think all this regulatory interference is doing more harm than good. But I don't see why this case is different because it is working on behalf of disabled people rather than ... I can't figure out who the charger stuff is meant to be helping, I see a lot of people outraged that they bought 2x chargers, which seems like a funny group of people to be protecting.
This argument is absurd. Nobody has a right to prevent someone form expressing themselves just because they can't enjoy it.
That is a bit of a strawman argument though, is there anyone saying that? The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them. And I don't see how this is going to fit in with your original point on multi-billion dollar corporations.
If we want to keep to the idea of absurd outcomes, why is it so much more absurd that Mr Michael has to make accessible videos but world's best phone design company isn't considered competent to design a phone? These are both pretty absurd.
Yes, you did. And then followed up with the same line of reasoning again in the next sentence:
> The actual situation is likely more like if a blind person can't see your painting you have to describe it to them.
But my painting is only meant to be appreciated visually because that is how I choose to express it. The idea that I should be forced to represent my art in a way I never intended it to be, is absurd.
But why you think that you can apply that sort of standard to yourself, but not see a level of absurdity in the EU commission trying to wrest phone design away from Apple of all companies is still a profound mystery even after all these posts. They have as much a "right" to design integrity as an artist does.
It has nothing to do with dignity it has to do with artistic vision. If you don't want to present your art in ways you don't intend it to be consumed, you shouldn't be forced. If someone else wants to do it for others, that's fine. You could even start a business taking art forms and describing them for people who can't appreciate them in their natural setting.