0

Game accessibility data [WIP]

A frequent ask when working in game accessibility is data. Prevalence data, usage data – this post shares some examples, and some reasons why they should be treated with caution.

Background

If you’ve had any kind of involvement with accessibility you’ve likely come up against questions about data. “But how many people are actually Deaf?”, and so on.

It may seem like a sensible question, but actually it’s worth looking at why that question is being asked. It’s often asked when looking for a way to justify deprioritising something. A more sensible framing of the same question is “how many of our players are we comfortable with excluding?“.

As companies and teams and individuals progress along their accessibility journey this thinking tends to fade into the background. Particularly as it moves earlier in development and part of design decisions rather than expensive feature workarounds. Moving more towards accessibility just being part of what day to day development looks like, more towards a success criteria on other work or a choice and how we design by default, and further from it being a separate thing competing for priority on a backlog.

Caution required!

As the old saying goes – ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’. Data can often be extremely misleading.

For example around 2% of the population are Deaf, prioritising based on that would mean that many games just wouldn’t have subtitles. But 60% of Assassins Creed Origins players turned on the off-by-default subtitles, and 95% of Assassins Creed Odyssey players left the on-by-default subtitles turned on.

Around 1% of the population have one hand, yet Uncharted 4’s one handed functionality was used by 33% of their players.

There isn’t any data available on how many people are physically unable to operate a gyroscope, but it would not be large – yet Into The Dead’s non-gyro alternative input methods were used by 75% of their players.

And 8% of males have some form of colourblindness, but 100% of The Outer Worlds’ players made use of the game’s colourblind accessibility – it’s just how the game is designed, by default.

Research data can be misleading too. Was the demographic representative? Was the sample size large enough? Were the questions leading?

And even usage data itself can be misleading. If a feature is used by 2% of players, why is that? Because it’s useful to 2% of players? Or because it should be useful to 10% of players, but it’s poorly executed? Or because it is hard to find? Because the naming and description of the setting itself is unclear?

In all; exercise caution, be careful about what you use, how you use it, and why it is being requested.

But now that those caveats are out of the way, on with the data.


Prevalence data


Usage data

Subtitles & captions

Text presentation

Controls

Difficulty

Visuals

Assists

Menu narration

General


Financial/business data


Other data

  • After FC 26’s accessibility workshop, 88% of studio attendees said they would highly recommend it to their colleagues, and 96% said that hearing directly from disabled players was highly insightful and enhanced their understanding of accessibility challenges within FC.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhtRi5BW_Qc
  • After Rebellion’s accessibility workshop, 88% of studio attendees said it was applicable to their role, and 82% could apply the learning to their process.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuCyDCP-Pvk&t=1640s
6

Comments are closed.