Visually Impaired Gamer Sues Sony 550
An anonymous reader writes "A visually impaired gamer has sued Sony because game products allegedly violate the Americans With Disabilities Act. 'According to the suit, Sony ignored repeated requests through postal mail and e-mail to come up with reasonable modifications to its games to make them more accessible.' This suit seems to be a combination of National Federation of the Blind v. Target, which complained of inaccessibility to the visually disabled (which settled for $6 million) and Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., where the US Supreme Court ruled a disabled golfer was entitled to a golf cart where one was not already allowed as a reasonable accommodation. If the plaintiff wins, Sony will have to make 'reasonable accommodations' which are not an 'undue financial burden.' In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony."
I doubt it'll provide more profit for Sony (Score:4, Interesting)
Standarized interface for plugins? (Score:2, Interesting)
Most screen readers can parse HTML so that visually impaired users can access web sites, as long as they properly write the web site to standards (not making the whole thing in Flash, for example).
It'd make sense if game developers got behind publishing a common API for all games, so that a user can just install a single program that'd give the proper clues to disabled gamers for every compatible game.
Public Accommodation (Score:5, Interesting)
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
This has kept a generation of lawyers employed by arguing over the definition of "public accommodation". The strict interpretation limits it to only physical places, which would rule out games. There have been many court battles over expanding the definition. This particular suit, if I read the various summaries correctly (IANAL), would be one of the more far reaching stretches of the definition and could have a significant impact on how much the ADA covers.
In short, it could fund an entire new generation of lawyers by expanding the ADA to an almost unlimited scope. Blind or not, I hope this guy goes down in flames.
For reference: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+297 [duke.edu]
WOW from a Visually Impaired Person's point... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.wow.com/2009/07/06/visually-impaired-players-the-unseen-inhabitants-of-azeroth/ [wow.com]
Controller Mod? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the second part is what seems ridiculous to me. He claims that Sony's online auction site for selling/buying games isn't fit for the visually impaired. So not only is Sony not allowing him full entertainment of the games, they're actually costing him extra money. That's just stupid. Every computer I've seen within the last 5-6 years has come with some sort of zoom feature for the visually disabled. I know my computer (Alienware bought at the end of 2008) has an Ease of Access section in my start menu with a magnifier, narrator, on-screen keyboard, and voice recognition. They're probably not the best out there considering them came with it, but I'm sure it would allow him to use an auction site.
Re:Crossing the line ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Guess what. I use this ideology called "adapt and overcome". I'm glad that people/companies don't pander to my "disability". Do I wish games/websites/stores/life would give me the option of using a neon blue 1px outline on aggressive mobs (both in games and at the local mall)? Sure I do, but they don't, so I figure out tricks to overcome it.
Don't believe I'm colorblind. Google "colorblind developer". You'll see my site, it's number 1 on google for that term.
I hope this lawsuit fails. Games and their developers shouldn't be forced to develop games that everyone can play. Businesses/offices that are essential for living (DMV, grocery stores, hospitals) should have to accomidate handicapped people, but not games. I was in a wheelchair for the last semester of college and learned how amazingly difficult it is to get around in a wheelchair first hand. I will never look at a building the same way.
If a company doesn't consult with disabled people when developing their game/website, then those disabled people should use their money's talking power and go elsewhere. If 10% of the US players of EQII (the percentage of colorblind males in the US) quit playing EQII because of the aggro mob issue, Sony would probably take note.
Larger Fonts (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with that? (Score:2, Interesting)
There are also games for the totally blind. Shades of Doom [gmagames.com] is an example. The idea there is interesting and could potentionally be expanded into something much more complex.
This situation depends on his degree of visual impairment. My good eye can manage a visual acuity of 20/200-20/400 on tests and I can play a lot of games with it just fine. I can see a lot of MMOs being playable with visual impairments if there are appropriate visual (or audio) cues for some events and accommodations to make the text more readable. He might be into that type of game because it doesn't require a lot of twitch action like an FPS or arcade game usually will. Sadly, the article didn't say anything about what kind of vision he has.
The remark about Sony profiting might be true, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. Some of the changes you can make to software to help people with severe visual impairments will help a lot of other customers like your software better. I see a lot of geeks with 20/20 vision squinting at screens, getting lost in menus, complaining about colour contrasts, etc. There is a middle ground that might not make this guy totally happy, but would make life easier for a lot of users.
As a blind person (yes, legally I count as such), I do find his action offensive though. He's going about this all the wrong way. He should get in with some software people and make a positive difference, even if it's only in small ways.
Re:Great (Score:2, Interesting)
Visually impaired != Blind (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously guys, it's easy to go "Tut tut, blind people can't possibly play games, what an unreasonable fellow". But the article says *visually impaired*, which does not necessarily mean total blindness. There are phases in between where you can see the computer screen but it'd be nice if the game didn't have to make it really hard to follow what's happening. Are there really as many people here as the posts would indicate who can't see this distinction?
Also: are you the same crowd of people who bitch at Microsoft for releasing OSes that are too bloated to run on your hardware without an upgrade. You *can* at least upgrade your hardware!
Re:WOW from a Visually Impaired Person's point... (Score:1, Interesting)
It's a video game.
I just wanted to reinforce this. It's a video game--as in, a game categorized by its markedly different visual interaction. It seems to be counter to the nature of the thing to accommodate those that can't experience one of its most important, defining characteristics.
An auction site is probably commercial speech (Score:3, Interesting)
The ADA only applies to "commercial speech", where the intent is to sell. [...] Games aren't usually "commercial speech".
Do advertisements in video games count as "commercial speech"? What about Sony's "official auction site where gamers can sell their in-game items for real money" that the article mentions?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:this is getting ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, he did say "we are so special" when describing the parades and I'm guessing that's probably what ticked you off.
Well, yeah, that's something that shows his prejudices - because that's not really what the parades are about. Sure, it is about "gay pride" but being proud of who you are is a bit different to saying "I'm special."
Either this applies to all parades, or it doesn't. Take ethnic parades - they are usually seen as a celebration of culture. But I guess they could be taken as "we're so special" events, but that's not usually how they're seen.
So, ultimately is he saying that in an equal society, nobody should be celebrating their culture?
Not entirely unreasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
*It seems mostly focused on MMOs, but doesn't name any specific games.
*"Visually impaired" is not a euphemism for "blind" here - he literally means "people who can see, but not well". So much of the backlash is misguided ("Blind people are suing to play video games? LOLWUT? Next they'll want to drive???!!!?")
*His list of things that would make a difference are reasonable - high-contrast display modes, audio navigation cues, audio descriptions of items, and the like.
*HOWEVER... he then proceeds to state that Sony's causing him to LOSE MONEY because he could be selling his in-game items for real-world cash. Ugh.
So this thing isn't entirely over-the-top, but it definitely falls apart when he argues monetary loss.
How does this even apply to Sony? (Score:3, Interesting)
He's complaining about the features of a game, which are a good, or good/service combination, using legislation that specifically targets location based attractions. If he's going after Sony because of its SonyStyle stores, then any possible equitable remedy would also apply to every store that has a game kiosk, or anything interactive at all, like the easy listening CD machine at Bed Bath and Beyond.
Personally, I really, really hope that this case is dismissed. First, for inapplicability of the statute, but more importantly so that game developers are not saddled with the additional economic burden of adding disability compliance to all games. The mechanics of a video game are not like walking up a ramp, including a braille menu, or using the bathroom. They are varied, and hinge fundamentally on a wide variety of combinations of audio and visual stimuli that cannot generally be summed in a way to make them equally accessible given some sensory impairment. There is no single, predictable means of meeting such a requirement, adding more uncontrollable variable cost to game development, leading to less ambitious titles, less experimentation among developers, less development time and resources for the core functionality of the game. Having been a software developer, a game developer, and now a legal scholar, this just seems bad, bad, bad.
If you're blind (Score:2, Interesting)