Content uploaded by Ronny Andrade
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronny Andrade on Aug 07, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Playing Blind: Revealing the World of Gamers with
Visual Impairment
Ronny Andrade
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
andrader@unimelb.edu.au
Melissa J. Rogerson
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
melissa.rogerson@unimelb.edu.au
Jenny Waycott
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
jwaycott@unimelb.edu.au
Steven Baker
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
steven.baker@unimelb.edu.au
Frank Vetere
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
f.vetere@unimelb.edu.au
ABSTRACT
Previous research on games for people with visual impair-
ment (PVI) has focused on co-designing or evaluating spe-
cic games - mostly under controlled conditions. In this
research, we follow a game-agnostic, "in-the-wild" approach,
investigating the habits, opinions and concerns of PVI re-
garding digital games. To explore these issues, we conducted
an online survey and follow-up interviews with gamers with
VI (GVI). Dominant themes from our analysis include the
particular appeal of digital games to GVI, the importance
of social trajectories and histories of gameplay, the need
to balance complexity and accessibility in both games tar-
geted to PVI and mainstream games, opinions about the state
of the gaming industry, and accessibility concerns around
new and emerging technologies such as VR and AR. Our
study gives voice to an underrepresented group in the gam-
ing community. Understanding the practices, experiences
and motivations of GVI provides a valuable foundation for
informing development of more inclusive games.
CCS CONCEPTS
•Social and professional topics →People with disabil-
ities;•Applied computing →Computer games;
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies
are not made or distributed for prot or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the rst page. Copyrights
for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must
be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specic
permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk
©
2019 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed
to ACM.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5970-2/19/05.. .$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300346
KEYWORDS
visual impairment, digital games, audiogames, empowerment
ACM Reference Format:
Ronny Andrade, Melissa J. Rogerson, Jenny Waycott, Steven Baker,
and Frank Vetere. 2019. Playing Blind: Revealing the World of
Gamers with Visual Impairment. In CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (CHI 2019), May 4–9,
2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 14 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300346
1 INTRODUCTION
When designing technology for people with visual impair-
ment (PVI), there has been a strong focus on the design of
tools for navigation and waynding [
2
,
44
,
60
,
63
,
76
,
82
,
85
],
for mobility training [
122
], and tools for creating, communi-
cating and rendering graphical information [
3
,
17
,
75
], with
less attention being placed on leisure activities such as creat-
ing art [
52
], travel [
104
], dating [
65
], participating in sport or
physical activity [
31
,
56
,
73
], making music [
30
], and playing
games.
Games in general, and digital games in particular, rely
heavily on visual stimuli to present information to players. In-
deed, digital games are commonly referred to as videogames,
a name which emphasises their visual, "video" content. This
reliance on visual information excludes PVI, as games de-
mand sensory capabilities that exceed those of PVI [
29
,
118
].
With digital games becoming an ubiquitous cultural phenom-
enon [20, 42], exclusion of PVI needs to be addressed.
Many digital games have been designed to address exclu-
sion of PVI. Some may include a graphical interface, and can
therefore be categorised as videogames. Some games have
focused on assisting PVI to navigate physical locations by re-
producing these locations in a virtual environment, obtaining
improved orientation and mobility outcomes [
32
,
94
,
95
]. Oth-
ers have focused on the use of videogames for educational
purposes, designing interesting interaction mechanisms such
as compass, radar, and musical metaphors [
66
,
103
]. Others
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk R. Andrade et al.
have argued for the need of equitably accessible games, and
designed videogames for PVI for hedonic purposes [100].
Apart from research-driven initiatives, gamers with vi-
sual impairment (GVI) have responded to the challenge of
interacting with visually rich videogames by engaging with
Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs), audiogames, and mainstream
games to an extent. MUDs are text-based adventures and its
origin dates back to the 70s [
12
]. By being text-based, MUDs
are accessible to existing accessibility software. Audiogames
are a type of digital game that includes an entirely auditory
interface and may or may not include a graphical interface
[
45
,
66
]. The engagement of GVI with mainstream games
depends on their remaining sensory capabilities.
Unlike previous studies, we have not designed a game es-
pecially for PVI. Rather, we present ndings from a study that
investigated the current experiences and preferences of GVI.
We have followed a game-agnostic, "in the wild" approach
that privileges the views of GVI. In doing so, we aim to under-
stand the habits, opinions and concerns of GVI in regard to
videogames. By giving voice to this under-represented group
in the videogames literature, we seek to move towards an ap-
proach that empowers PVI and encourage their engagement
with fun and inclusive gaming experiences [91].
2 RELATED LITERATURE
This study is concerned primarily with the habits and prac-
tices of GVI. Our work is informed by literature that con-
siders broader issues of VI as well as by our understanding
of games and more specically, of audiogames and of other
assistive technologies that have been deployed for PVI
1
both
within and outside game settings. It reects our belief that
research into VI should focus not only on the instrumental
supports and aids that PVI require but also on the "beauty"
and the "wonder" of play purely for play’s sake [122].
HCI and people with visual impairment
There is a signicant body of research that considers the spe-
cic diculties experienced by PVI in using social media and
crowdsourcing tools [
105
,
106
] as well as issues related to
employment and participation. PVI experience higher rates
of unemployment and of underemployment than are found
in the general population [
53
,
83
,
107
]. To date, much of
this research has been focused on everyday participation,
including key workplace issues such as accessibility and the
education of sighted colleagues [
109
]. Dobransky and Har-
gittai [
36
] have explored internet adoption by people with
disabilities in the US and argue that technology has a tremen-
dous potential to include these individuals in an inaccessible
1
Although we consider it to be insensitive to use an acronym to refer to a
group of people, we have used PVI and GVI to refer to people/gamers with
visual impairment to improve clarity of expression in this article.
society. With the focus of accessibility research on workplace
accessibility, PVI may feel excluded from creative and leisure
activities [118].
There has been little work done in HCI to explore VI play-
ers’ own practices and experience, although there are isolated
examples of participatory design work with VI participants
in HCI [
52
] as well as other work which examines workplace
practices [
21
]. Harris [
57
] suggests that while people with
disabilities are initially excited by new technology, many
devices end up unused and forgotten. Similarly, Macdonald
and Clayton [
74
], and Moser [
79
] argue that digital technolo-
gies seem to construct new disabling barriers. Rather than
proposing new technologies, our research examines how PVI
choose to engage with games as a leisure activity, and what
accommodations they use and require.
Games for PVI
There is a growing body of research into making gaming
accessible for PVI [
6
–
8
,
14
,
59
,
108
,
112
,
118
], allowing them
to "experience some of the more advanced types of computer
game technology and enjoyment that sighted gamers have
taken for granted for many years" [
10
]. Like research into
real-world navigation tools, responses to this have consid-
ered the accessibility of virtual environments [
69
,
113
] as
well as waynding [
19
] and sensory substitution [
11
,
77
].
For example, some games have focused on assisting PVI to
navigate physical locations by reproducing these locations
in a virtual environment, obtaining improved orientation
and mobility outcomes [
34
,
94
,
95
]. Some videogames have
been designed for use in formal educational settings, util-
ising interesting interaction mechanisms which have been
replicated in audiogames, such as compass, radar, and mu-
sical metaphors [
66
,
103
]. Other researchers have argued
for the need for equitably accessible games, and designed
videogames for PVI for hedonic purposes [100].
Games specically designed for players with VI include
memory games [
88
], action games including rst-person
shooters [
54
,
66
], platformers and racing games [
66
], boardgames
[
55
], exergames [
89
], games with tactile interfaces [
97
], mu-
sic games [
66
] including Blind Hero [
117
], interactive text-
based games and MUDs [
66
], directional games [
66
], and
games based on exploring 3D virtual worlds [
47
,
103
], includ-
ing Terraformers [
111
], Swamp [
64
], Shades of Doom [
46
,
115
],
and others. Games are also used instrumentally, for example
to improve accessibility of the World Wide Web [
108
], as
teaching aids [
66
,
93
,
120
], or to specically address issues
of game level creation [10].
Common to this research –which may include participa-
tory designs with VI players– is a focus on what studios or
designers can do to improve the experience of gaming with
a VI; a primarily decit-driven approach. Accessibility is de-
signed into games and is presented to VI players. It has been
Playing Blind: Revealing the World of Gamers with Visual Impairment CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk
suggested that this may be seen as normalising the discourse
of disability by presenting PVI as dependent on technology
[78].
Whilst decit-driven approaches have led to valuable in-
novation to improve quality of life for PVI, recent work has
called for a more positive approach which recognises the
skills, competencies and knowledge of PVI [
27
,
119
]. Gerling
et al. point to the need to involve players with disabilities in
development of both entertainment and education-oriented
games, and provide recommendations for working with these
players [
50
]. Sighted individuals wearing blindfolds are not a
suitable proxy for participants living with VI [
98
,
100
]. Inac-
cessible games, it is suggested, may be due more to oversight
or omission than to a conscious design decision [
58
]. Audi-
ences with a need for "multisensory types of feedback" are
recognised as a "agship context" for games user research
[37].
It is perhaps ironic that more attention has been paid to
obscuring in-game information for all players than to tech-
niques for revealing information to PVI. For example the
"Fog of War" technique, whereby the game intentionally oc-
cludes or reveals terrain information to the player based on
their location or line of sight [
18
,
84
] is a popular mechanism
to reect the "limitations of game characters’ ability to per-
ceive and monitor the world around them" [
72
]. In contrast,
gamers with VI are already restricted in their ability to per-
ceive objects and events and require mechanisms that reveal
features that are obscured to them. A notable approach to
inclusion of PVI –although not in the digital game space– is
the work of the Meeple Like Us project [
59
], which provides
an accessibility analysis for popular boardgames across eight
factors which include visual accessibility. Boardgames pro-
vide not only visual but also tactile, "sensuous" appeal [
92
]
and are an increasingly popular leisure activity.
Audiogames
Audiogames [
66
,
90
] are a specic form of digital game devel-
oped for PVI, featuring "complete auditory interfaces, so that
they can be played without the use of graphics" [
45
]. These
games use auditory cues such as speech, auditory icons (rep-
resentational natural sounds e.g. the sound of a car crash or
of a bleating sheep), and earcons (articial sounds e.g. beeps,
musical tones or sound patterns) to convey information to
players [
16
,
35
,
48
]. There is no consistent set of earcons that
is used across dierent games [
113
]; players must learn a new
set of arbitrary sounds for each game that they play [
45
].
Audio mappings with greater articulatory directness [
61
]
may be easier to learn than those which are purely symbolic
[
48
]. In other words, the more a sound is like the sounds
experienced in a comparable situation in the real world, the
easier it is to learn and remember. Accordingly, a game or
setting with a large number of earcons creates additional
cognitive load on players’ memories [
16
]. Unlike a visual
scene, sound is temporary rather than persistent; it must be
repeated if it is to remain salient [
66
]. Excessive amounts
of audio content may create overload, thereby complicating,
rather than simplifying, gameplay [
68
]. Yet a lack of descrip-
tive audio information was identied by one study as "the
biggest deal-breaker for our blind respondents" [47].
Kirke [
66
] summarises the dierent types of audiogames,
which are indexed at the website www.audiogames.net. Com-
mon interaction mechanisms in these games include verbal
information, where players are provided with oral instruc-
tions on what to do; time-based mechanisms, where earcons
indicate when to perform an action; and constrained naviga-
tion, where the player’s character is limited to moving on a
coordinate-based grid-like system [51].
Audiogames have been criticised for failing to oer the full
range of gameplay experiences. In a call for positive design
[
119
], Smith and Nayar compare blind-accessible videogames
to a wheelchair ramp-enabled library that is lled only with
digests of the original books, suggesting that "accessibility
alone is not enough" and arguing for what they term equiva-
lent accessibility —allowing people with disabilities to expe-
rience the world as others do, "with a similar sense of control
(intention) and eciency as sighted players can" [
100
]. They
identify complexity as a critical element of gameplay that is
poorly served by existing approaches to accessibility.
Binaural 3D sound may be used in games to provide di-
rectional cues for players [
66
]. This technique embeds di-
rectionality into sound recordings through the use of two
high-delity microphones which are typically embedded in
a dummy head, to emulate "the physical eects of the dirac-
tion of sound waves by the human torso, shoulders, head and
outer ears" [
23
]. Thus, binaural 3D sound allows "simulation
of three-dimensional sound of the real source" [67].
More recently, echolocation has been proposed as a navi-
gational tool in virtual environments [
4
]. Research over the
past seventy years has shown that echolocation –using self-
emitted noises such as mouth-clicks as well as the ambient
sounds generated by a person’s cane or shoes– is an eective
tool for human navigation [
96
]. The prospect of supporting
echolocation in virtual environments promises an additional
tool for PVI, who already use a range of strategies in negoti-
ating in-game virtual environments [4, 103].
3 AIMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Previous literature has generally explored games for PVI on
a game-by-game basis, with the exception of Kirke [
66
], who
provides a comprehensive list of the most common audio-
games played by GVI. In this paper, we set out to explore
the habits, opinions and concerns of GVI through a game-
agnostic, "in the wild" methodology. We aim to understand
the lived experience and practices of GVI in their interactions
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk R. Andrade et al.
with games and play. This research redirects the dialogue
of disability surrounding GVI, moving away from an ap-
proach of compassion, where design is driven by a perceived
decit. Instead, we orient this research towards a positive,
empowering approach, where we make explicit the needs
and concerns expressed by GVI [
27
,
119
]. This approach will
inform the development of more accessible games through
an understanding of the trajectories and practices of GVI.
4 METHODS
Our research comprised an online survey and semi-structured
interviews. The participants were PVI who are part of an
online audiogame community. The study was approved by
the University of Melbourne Ethics Committee (Ethics ID
1851274).
Online Survey
The survey aimed to understand respondents’ existing gam-
ing habits, their perception of interaction patterns in their
favourite games, and their views on emerging gaming tech-
nology, such as VR and AR. The survey was advertised on
the website forum.audiogames.net, as the site specialises in
audiogames and attracts GVI and game developers.
As someone with a visual impairment, the rst author
strived to establish a bona-de relationship with members
of the forum by providing answers to technology-related
questions. This positioned him as both an insider within the
PVI community [
15
] and an expert in the subject matter,
developing credibility within the community for him and,
by extension, for the research project.
The survey consisted of 24 questions. A copy of the survey
is included in the supplementary material for this paper. The
survey contained a series of single-choice, multiple-choice
and open-ended questions. Some of the questions regard-
ing participants’ gaming habits were adapted from larger
surveys by The Entertainment Software Association [
42
] and
Digital Australia [
20
]. The survey was built using Google
Forms and was tested for accessibility using Firefox 60.0 and
the screen reader NVDA version 2018.1. Because PVI may
experience diculties lling in online surveys even when
these are accessibility compliant [
70
,
71
], we decided not to
make questions mandatory. The survey was piloted with the
University of Melbourne Web Accessibility lead, who has
extensive experience working with people with disabilities.
The survey was available for four weeks and was advertised
on the forum on two separate occasions.
Interviews
At the conclusion of the survey, respondents were invited
to volunteer for a semi-structured interview. Six people en-
gaged in the interview, which was conducted in English. The
interviews aimed to get in-depth knowledge about intervie-
wees’ experiences and perceptions of gaming. The interviews
explored interviewees’ relationship with digital games, their
thoughts on accessibility and games, and the factors that
keep them engaged with games. Space was also allocated to
allow interviewees to discuss any other topics they felt were
important. The interviews were conducted via a medium that
was preferred by the interviewees, allowing them to engage
in a space where they felt most comfortable. Five intervie-
wees preferred the video-conferencing software Skype and
one preferred the audio-conferencing software TeamTalk.
However, cameras were not enabled in any interview. While
the interviews were scheduled to last around 20 minutes,
participants were happy to go over the pre-established time
to share their views. We obtained 186 minutes of interview
recording in total.
Participants
Participation in both the online survey and the follow-up
interview was voluntary; there was no compensation for
participation. We received seventeen valid responses to the
online survey and were able to contact six out of eight in-
terested participants to take part in the follow-up interview.
Participants were 18 years of age or more, spoke English as
a rst or second language, and had a self-reported degree of
visual impairment that could not be corrected with glasses,
including low visual acuity (mostly colour perception), loss
of central vision, loss of peripheral vision, blindness (some
light perception) or full blindness (no light perception). Ta-
ble 1 shows demographic information of all our participants.
Participants 1 through 11 participated in the survey only, and
participants 12 through 17 participated in both the survey
and the follow-up interview.
As shown in Table 1, participants came from North and
South America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Only one
of our participants was aged between 36 and 45 years while
the other sixteen participants’ ages fell between the range
of 18 to 35 years. Twelve participants were male, four were
female and one preferred not to disclose their gender. Ten of
the seventeen participants declared the state of their vision
as blind with light perception, four are blind with no light
perception, and three self-identied as having low visual acu-
ity, relying mostly on colour perception. In order to protect
participants’ privacy, they are referred to by pseudonyms.
Data Analysis
We analysed the multiple-choice answers from the survey by
tabulating responses to individual questions. These results
are presented in the section Quantitative data from the online
survey.
Playing Blind: Revealing the World of Gamers with Visual Impairment CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk
Table 1: Demographic information of participants. All participants completed the survey. Participants 12-17 con-
tinued to the semi-structured interview
N Age range Name Gender Country Impairment (and onset)
1 26 to 35 P1 Male No answer Low visual acuity. Colour perception.
2 36 to 45 P2 Male No answer Blind, light perception
3 18 to 25 P3 Female Slovenia Blind, light perception
4 18 to 25 P4 Male United Kingdom Blind, light perception
5 18 to 25 P5 Male Turkey Blind, no light perception
6 18 to 25 P6 Male United Arab Emirates Low visual acuity. Colour perception.
7 18 to 25 P7 Female USA Blind, light perception
8 26 to 35 P8 Female No answer Blind, light perception
9 18 to 25 P9 Male USA Blind, light perception
10 18 to 25 P10 Male USA Blind, light perception
11 18 to 25 P11 Male USA Blind, light perception
12 18 to 25 Juan Male Canada Blind, no light perception (from birth)
13 18 to 25 Marcela Female Philippines Blind, light perception (early childhood)
14 26 to 35 Alberto Male Brazil Blind, no light perception (early childhood)
15 26 to 35 CJ Prefer not to say USA Blind, no light perception (10 years old)
16 18 to 25 Carlos Male Austria Blind, light perception (from birth)
17 26 to 35 Jose Male USA Low visual acuity. Colour perception.
Loss of peripheral vision (from birth)
Extended answers from the open-ended questions in the
survey and the follow-up interviews were analysed sepa-
rately with the aid of the software NVivo 11, using thematic
analysis and the step-by-step method proposed by Braun and
Clarke [
22
]. Following Braun and Clarke, our rst step was
to transcribe, read and re-read our interviews [
22
]. We then
followed an inductive approach, whereby codes were driven
by the content of the data. Once the data had been coded,
we proceeded to search for and identify trends or themes
among the codes. These initial themes were then revised,
formally dened and given a name. The rst author coded all
the interviews while two other researchers coded specic in-
terviews in an attempt to ensure consistency and identify all
relevant themes. While the individual themes identied by
each researcher were worded dierently, they encompassed
similar ideas, with minor dierences in emphasis based upon
the framework of expertise of each researcher [9].
5 FINDINGS
The results from the online survey oered a snapshot of
demographic information of GVI, frequency and duration
of gameplay, preferred gaming device, and preferred types
and genres of games. Moreover, responses to the open-ended
questions in the survey showed some of the reasons why
GVI engage with videogames, and their concerns regarding
new gaming technologies, such as AR and VR. The follow-up
interviews provided rich insights into the habits, opinions
and concerns of GVI. The themes derived from our analysis
included: engagement with games and narratives, tensions of
building games that are complex but accessible and appealing
to the mainstream, the importance of social trajectories for
gameplay, ideas around self-representation in digital games,
opinions about accessibility in mainstream digital games,
and concerns surrounding emerging technologies, such as
AR and VR.
antitative data from the online survey
Summary survey results are presented in Table 2. The results
in this table correspond to questions that had single choice
answers. The relatively high no answer rate to the rst two
questions may be explained by our decision not to enforce
mandatory answering of all questions.
Table 2 shows that more than half of our respondents
played videogames at least every other day. Duration of play
was mostly more than two hours at a time. The table shows
that while six respondents mostly played with others, the
remaining respondents said they mostly played on their own.
Most respondents reported to use the free and open-source
screen-reader NVDA for Windows while playing.
Our respondents played games on computer (16), mobile
phone (14), dedicated console (7), and handheld console (2).
When asked about the genre of game they played, partici-
pants responded: role-playing games (RPGs) (15), platformers
(10), ghting games (10), strategy games (10), shooters (9),
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk R. Andrade et al.
Table 2: Responses to single-answer questions from
the online survey
Question Answer Count
How often do you
play videogames?
Every day 6
Every other day 6
Once a fortnight 1
[no answer] 4
When you play, for
how long do you
usually do it?
30 minutes to 1 hour 1
1 to 2 hours 4
2 to 3 hours 2
3 to 4 hours 3
4 or more hours 3
[no answer] 4
With whom do you
play videogames
most often?
By myself 11
With family members 2
With online friends 4
What type of game
do you play most
often?
Text-based games (MUDs) 3
Audiogames 11
Mainstream games 3
What assistive
technology do you
use when playing
videogames?
NVDA screen reader 13
Other PC screen reader 1
In-console screen reader 2
None 2
puzzle games (4), trivia games (3), educational games (3),
racing games (1), and horror games (1).
alitative data from the online survey
Our analysis identied dierent aspects of the gaming experi-
ence that respondents enjoy. Two respondents referred to the
narrative of the game: "the great narration and stories you’re
able to nd, plus the regular updates" (Carlos), "Story and ac-
tions" (P2), Others highlighted the level of complexity of the
game: "The combination of exploration/discovery with the
challenge of survival" (CJ), "Plenty of areas to explore, with
new ones being added regularly" (P3), "Complexity, attention
to details, and replayability" (P6), and "The mainstream-like
feel" (P4). These answers foreshadow some of the themes
that reappeared in the follow-up interviews.
Respondents were asked about the cues that games use
to convey information. Our analysis identied three modes:
text, sounds and radar. Text referred to the ability of the
digital game to present information in such a way that is
compatible with screen-reader software. Sounds referred to
the use of auditory icons and earcons across digital games,
and radar, as explained by P4: "functions like a cane, playing
dierent sounds if it nds open space, walls, or other objects".
Respondents were asked about their experience with AR
and VR. None of our respondents had experienced VR be-
fore; however, P7 said they "would be open to it if it could
even work for me" and Juan "would really like to [try VR]!".
When asked if they had tried AR experiences, four respon-
dents claimed to have tried the popular Pokémon Go game
and found it completely inaccessible. In the words of one of
our respondents: "of course the development team had not
considered the fact that a blind person may be able to play".
Follow-up interviews
The semi-structured follow-up interviews allowed us to ex-
plore in more depth the opinions and concerns of GVI. Key
themes related to: the personal appeal of games —what par-
ticipants found engaging, or the story elements that they
preferred; the social and gaming trajectories and relation-
ships that bring them into and keep them in the gaming
hobby; the way that they are represented in games; the per-
ceived tensions around complexity and accessibility; and the
challenges and promise associated with new technologies.
Engagement in games. Analysis revealed there were several
factors that attracted GVI to games, namely curiosity, en-
gagement, and ability to aect the game narrative. Marcela
was driven to digital games by curiosity: "I was just curious
about playing games, because I know there’s a lot of games
for sighted people and I was curious about how about us?
How can visually impaired play computer game?". CJ was
attracted to games because of the "engagement" games pro-
vide: "It’s kind of hard to explain I guess. It isn’t necessarily
how complex, or intuitive, or anything like that so much as
how engaging the game is". On a similar note, Juan linked en-
gagement to the opportunity to direct the game’s narrative,
commenting that "aecting the story" keeps him engaged: "I
don’t even need a massive world, or anything like that, just
something that feels important, like I’m doing something,
like I’m aecting the story, you know?".
Engaging both GVI and sighted players was a challenge
recognised by Juan: "[An audiogame] won’t appeal as much
to sighted people, there’s almost no way to please both, which
kind of sucks". Alberto, however, had a dierent opinion:
"let’s use Swamp as a good example. Again, because Swamp
has minimal, but still it has graphics. And, I have lots of
friends, and nephews, and a bunch of sighted players playing
alongside us".
Analysis revealed that engagement changed over time as
the visual capabilities of players changed. CJ explained that
they "got better at Mortal Kombat 4 after I lost my remaining
vision, because I wasn’t distracted by how dicult it was to
tell things apart". This range of dierent forms of engagement
that GVI enjoy in games highlights the need for a diversity
of game styles and interaction methods.
Playing Blind: Revealing the World of Gamers with Visual Impairment CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk
Stories and narrative. Some of our participants considered
the story a key element for videogame engagement. For Juan,
games where he aects the story were "the kind of genre I
would like the most", but "there’s very few audiogames that
really have a story". Juan commented that he particularly en-
joys MUDs because "they’ve got lots of story". Carlos shared
this sentiment:
"the more story there is and the more control you
have over it, the better it is in my opinion. So, I
really like story driven games. There aren’t that
many audiogames that change based on your
decision unfortunately, but the ones there are, I
enjoy a lot".
On a similar note, Jose said: "in audiogames so far, we
haven’t really had much story stu. It’s usually just game-
play elements or it’s a very minimal story". For these players,
the game narrative supports and extends the gameplay ex-
perience.
The tension of complexity vs accessibility. Participants de-
scribed a tension between a game’s complexity and its acces-
sibility. According to Juan, "You’ve got to make a game more
crap if you really want to make it easier for blind people.
You’ve got to make it more simplistic." In his opinion:
"Most games for blind people are made by some-
one else that isn’t blind or hasn’t been a gamer
for a long time. [Games for PVI] are just really
easy and simplistic when you actually get down
to the action elements. They... are usually quite
easy and don’t have much challenge or replaya-
bility to them."
Alberto, on the other hand, noted: "You don’t have to
force a downgrade on a game just for it to be accessible".
CJ cited a dierent issue when handling complexity, noting
that "There are like some types of games where they use
challenges that don’t really map very well to audio in terms
of their complexity and their speed."
Juan and Alberto both provide examples to support their
opinion. For Juan:
"AHC [A Hero’s Call], no sighted person would
give a damn about that game. They’d be like,
’Oh, that’s cool, it’s playable for blind people’,
but no sighted person would be like, ’I want to
play a game that basically uses modern sounds
but has the whole game systems and story and
stu from the nineties’".
Referring to Swamp, a game with minimal graphics, Al-
berto said: ’So, it’s basically everyone on the same ground,
there are no advantage for being sighted, or for being visually
impaired in the game."
Older games were perceived as simpler by CJ, although
this perception may be coloured by deterioration in vision:
"there was a period where I had some vision.
It was still really limited... but I could see well
enough to play Mario and games like that where
they were not necessarily too deep, where the
graphics were simple with the cartoonish colours
and the not overly complex".
Players’ perceptions of the relationship between game
complexity and accessibility are clearly linked to the types
of games that they play as well as to the situation of play.
Social trajectories and gameplay. Interviewees were intro-
duced to dierent types of games by dierent people. In the
case of Juan, "My dad [who is also blind] played [audiogames]
a bit... sometimes I’d watch him play something". However,
a dierent person introduced Juan to mainstream games:
"I have a very good [sighted] friend but I barely ever see
him anymore... he’s basically my only access to mainstream
games... and we would play Super Street Fighter, which I
was never very good at, and Mortal Kombat, and Injustice".
Marcela was introduced to audiogames by a friend: "at the
end of year 2016, I was invited by my friend ..., and from
there, I learned lots of games". It was similar for Alberto: "We
tended to watch our friends, and family play when we were
younger, like Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and stu like that",
and for Jose "I was over at a friend’s house and he told me
about [MUDs]". CJ, however, was introduced to games by a
professional worker: "My braillist at the time introduced me
to audiogames. The person who would translate my school
work assignments into braille, had a bunch of kind of random
software that they gave me".
According to Juan, the community of GVI is quite close.
In his words:
"there’s three or four games that blind people re-
ally tend to gravitate towards right now. Swamp,
Redspot, STW [Survive the Wild], those three.
You’re almost guaranteed to nd people that
you nd on audiogames.net and that you email
or Skype with. It’s a close-knit community. Ev-
erybody pretty much knows everybody or can
remember them if they talk to them for a little
bit".
Marcela said that when online, she "plays with her friends"
and "has no experience playing with strangers". Similarly,
Carlos plays with online friends, but he also plays "with a
couple of people I know, IRL [in real life]". Marcela added that
"we play together [with online friends] and sometimes just
talk about random things". In these comments, interviewees
have shown the value of social relationships in gameplay,
the need for a gate-keeper, and a sense of community.
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk R. Andrade et al.
Self-representation in games. Participants had dierent atti-
tudes regarding self-representation in videogames. In Juan’s
opinion, "I’m not into role players, so I don’t really care about
avatars. I just choose a username that I use on other stu
so that people know who I am, and I can nd friends easier
that I already know". Similarly, Carlos explained that in the
game Crazy Party, "The name is the only way [to identify
other players]". Referring to a rst-person RPG called Dark
Passenger, Alberto mentioned: "[the experience] is more im-
mersive, because you are from the character’s perspective.
You are on the character’s skin".
CJ highlighted the limitations for self-representation pro-
vided in audiogames:
"Something that I kind of wanted to see, but
I’m pretty sure it isn’t actually never going to
happen is that there’s a bunch of dierent types
of armour in the game. It would be things that
can have really distinct sounds when the players
are moving. There’s a leather jacket versus plate
armor versus a SWAT armour. They’re all like
really dierent. If you were to have the sounds
of that with the players’ movements, I think that
would make it a lot more interesting because you
could hear people sound quite distinct... But it’s
still something that I think would help a lot with
distinguishing characters, keeping them unique."
In this way, GVI could be identied by personalized audio
icons or avatars.
Accessibility in mainstream platforms. Overall, participants
showed positive attitudes towards accessibility in mainstream
platforms. Carlos noted, "I love the fact that things are hap-
pening now. There has been a large step forward in accessi-
bility in the last year and a half. We still have a long way to
go, but it’s like what’s there is already great". Alberto felt the
same way: "It’s improving slowly, but it’s better than nothing,
I guess", and so did Jose: "I think it’s getting better, but, of
course, there’s still room for a lot of improvement." Juan and
Carlos both cited the Xbox as example of good accessibility
decisions from mainstream companies. Carlos highlighted
the following: "Just recently, the rst TTS (text-to-speech)
game for Xbox got released... Even if it’s just a Solitaire game,
it’ll show other developers that this is possible, and they can
do this". Juan praised the Xbox Accessibility Controller for
its mainstream-like implementation and aesthetic:
"They took time to make it cheaper and also gave
it a lot of ports. They made it not insulting in its
branding or its marketingâĂę and they made it
cool looking, which is pretty big. I thought, ’hey
these guys took a lot of time to do that, that’s
awesome’."
Alberto talked about EA as a company that was concerned
about accessibility: "We have big companies like EA. They
are very concerned about how the games they are producing
are getting to the public. So, a few games like UFC [Ultimate
Fighting Championship] are getting accessibility treatment".
CJ, Alberto, Carlos and Jose agreed that ghting games
"are very accessible from out of the box" (Alberto). Jose ex-
plained how these games were made accessible: "The menus
are now read out loud... I was listening to other people play-
ing the latest Mortal Kombat games and they have dierent
sound cues to let you know when certain things happen".
Our participants also acknowledged platforms that are not
as accessible. Juan noted that "Steam is a nightmare to get
around". Regarding the game development platform Unity,
which is not accessible to screen-reader users, Carlos said "If
we had a language as powerful as Unity without the accessi-
bility problems, we could have some really good games out
there already". Our analysis showed that participants were
well aware of the steps towards accessibility that the gaming
industry is taking, as well as particular environments that
were problematic for GVI.
Experience with virtual and augmented reality. Our analysis
revealed that, while our participants have not had any ex-
periences with VR, some yearned to try these technologies.
Marcela expressed her desire to participate in VR experiences.
She said, "I really wish there was a game like that", referring
to the combination of head-tracking and 3D binaural sound.
"3D sound is more fun so that you can imagine you’re 3D
playing on reality and not just computer". CJ saw potential
in the ability of VR headsets to track a person’s head: "I have
gured if you actually have head tracking, it would be easier
to keep track of how you’re oriented, so that would probably
help."
Carlos had experience with the popular AR game Pokémon
Go. He described the experience as follows: "With VoiceOver
[the default screen-reader in iOS], it is completely inaccessi-
ble, so you have to have someone else there. And they just
played, and I just watched and went with them... It would
be something I would really love to play if I could". His nal
comment on the issue was this: "My main concern with VR
and AR is that it will leave blind gamers in the dust even
more, as things transition to very VR-based games and simple
graphical games aren’t enough anymore".
6 DISCUSSION
Technology is often seen as a means to ’normalise’ indi-
viduals with an impairment by compensating for what are
presented as decits [
78
,
79
]. Rogers and Marsden have ar-
gued that the rhetoric of compassion that underpins this
approach to research can lead researchers to design tech-
nologies which they think the disabled person needs [
91
].
Playing Blind: Revealing the World of Gamers with Visual Impairment CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk
This worldview can alienate the person with a disability,
making their true desires and aspirations secondary to their
bodily limitations. Instead, researchers have recommended
that the HCI community should follow a rhetoric of engage-
ment and discourse of passion, and design for empowerment
rather than compassion [
79
,
91
]. Following this path could
enable relationships with technology that are "neither mas-
tery and control nor passive acceptance, but an experience
of being immersed in intimate interactions" [
79
]. Indeed, our
participants demonstrated a passionate relationship with
their games, playing from a very early age, some dedicating
more than four hours a day to playing videogames or, in
the case of Carlos, playing the same MUD for over thirteen
years.
The importance of games to PVI
Our participants rely heavily on audiogames, which oer an
accessible, familiar, and enjoyable interface for their gaming.
They describe their engagement with games and can recount
their personal histories of gameplay. Survey respondents
invest considerable time in gaming, with two thirds of re-
spondents playing games at least every other day and eight
of thirteen respondents playing for two or more hours at a
time.
Playing games is a goal-directed leisure activity [
81
]. Stud-
ies of "Gamer Identity" have found that needs for competence,
autonomy and relatedness are closely correlated with the
individual’s social identity as a gamer, and that enjoyment
and connectedness are important to both casual and heavy
gamers [
81
]. This is echoed in our interview data through
the discussion of the particular activities and game elements
that participants found engaging, as well as in the way that
they described their experience of sociality.
One topic that did not appear in our ndings was any
desire on the part of the interviewees to present themselves
as a blind character in-game, although Carlos commented
that there are stereotypical blind characters in AHC and Blind
Legend. It was unclear whether this was due to the desire to
present an idealized self (as shown by some older adults [
26
]),
whether it was an oversight, or whether it was due to a lack of
in-game supports for blind characters. Research with young
people using powered wheelchairs suggests that although
users with a disability might not prioritise representation of
that disability in an interface, they may nevertheless value
that representation if it exists [49].
Social play
Gaming is known to be a highly social activity [
41
]. There is
a considerable body of research that explores the dynamics
of groups on MMOs and argues that multiplayer capabilities
improve or extend the gaming experience [
28
,
39
,
101
,
114
].
Moreover, others have argued that social interactions in dig-
ital games are benecial to gamers’ social networks in the
virtual world, as people establish and maintain social ties
[
103
,
121
]. Game acionados frequently get to know oth-
ers in-game [
40
,
101
], accruing social capital through group
membership [
33
,
110
]. Comments such as Marcela’s obser-
vation in the section Social trajectories and gameplay that
sometimes she gets together with friends to play but instead
talks "about random things" echo similar reports stressing the
sociality of gaming, describing face-to-face gaming evenings
"where no actual gaming took place because we just started
talking and had a fun evening." [92].
Participants described the trajectories of their involvement
in gaming. Many talked about the people —friends, family
or professionals, who introduced them to games and who
played with them. Juan, for example, described a sighted
friend, who he no longer sees regularly, as having provided
his "only access" to mainstream games.
Many of the games our participants engage with have
multiplayer capabilities. With one of our participants den-
ing the community of GVI as "close-knit", future research
could explore in more detail the types of social interactions
that are targeted to GVI. For example, research on streaming
play typically focuses on the technology [
1
,
116
], the selec-
tion of games [
34
], the visual spectacle [
102
], and on chat
interactions [
99
]. In our interviews, however, Jose described
listening to other players playing Mortal Kombat, observing
that sound cues may help provide an even ground for players
with dierent physical abilities.
Mixed-ability players
Although we found some research interest in audiogames
[
66
,
90
], there is little to no research that examined the in-
volvement of sighted players in audiogames, or of players
who also experience another form of impairment such as
hearing loss. Both of these groups are identied in a post to
the audiogames.net forums by the designer of Swamp, who
notes the additional accommodations that he has designed
for blind players with hearing loss, and that he has made
changes to improve accessibility "for our minority player-
base, and by that I mean those silly sighted players" [5].
We found disparate views from our participants about
whether games can be designed to be both accessible to GVI
and challenging for sighted players. Given this, it would
be valuable for future research to explore the thoughts of
sighted players regarding audiogames. Games like Musicraft
demonstrate that it is possible to design audiogames for
both VI and sighted players [
66
], although these have yet
to become mainstream. Moreover, it would be interesting to
explore the interactions between sighted players and GVI,
as well as the experience and needs of players with multiple
impairments.
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk R. Andrade et al.
Two recent industry reports [
20
,
42
] found that a large
percentage of gamers are children and teenagers. This points
to a need for further research on this group of players, which
could explore the dynamics and needs of younger GVI. More-
over, we received ve responses from GVI aged under 18.
Because of constraints around our ethics approval, these re-
spondents were not allowed to answer the questions of the
survey once they identied their age, but this interest shows
the eagerness of younger GVIs to share their views on digital
games and accessibility.
Reducing barriers to play
Tensions of PVI integrating to mainstream activities such as
regular employment, and the workarounds they rely on have
been explored in depth [
109
]. Additionally, projects have pro-
posed both general guidelines for accessible game design [
58
]
and more specic guidelines, for example the Meeple Like Us
guidelines to accommodate PVI playing tabletop games [
59
].
These eorts show that with the right support and adapta-
tions PVI can participate in any gaming activity regardless of
their impairment. As Alberto puts it, with the right support
"basically everyone [is] on the same ground, there are no
advantages for being sighted, or for being visually impaired".
This equal footing may enable PVI to experience the immer-
sive interactions associated with the discourse of passion
[
79
] in the same way a fully able-bodied player engages with
games.
While the research community has made many eorts to
address the gap of inaccessible games, with examples such
as PowerUp [
103
] or Blind Hero [
117
], these usually fail to
reach the mainstream [
86
]. Given the renewed interest of the
game development industry in producing accessible games,
as explained by our participants, there is an opportunity for
industry and research to nd new and imaginative ways to
reducing barriers to play.
Realistic auditory representations
Extensive research has explored the role of avatars as media-
tors of interactions with virtual worlds [
25
,
26
,
62
,
87
]. Visual
aspects of avatars have driven much of this research [
38
].
Studies have explored the use of photorealistic avatars [
87
],
avatars with expressive facial animations and real-time hair
simulation [
24
], and avatars with customisable walking gait
[
80
]. However, little to no attention has been placed to the
aural customisation of avatars. As CJ explained, providing
unique sounds to players based on specic game elements
such as armour "would make it a lot more interesting because
you could hear people sound quite distinct". We believe there
is an opportunity to explore the impact of providing aural
customisation of avatars to both sighted and VI gamers.
Lack of complexity
Our participants valued complexity in games, although some
felt that games for PVI tend to be overly simplistic. A possible
reason for this perceived simplicity could be the tendency
for sighted individuals simulating VI to consistently under-
estimate the capability of players living with VI [98, 100].
One diculty in extending complexity is the fact that
images are persistent, where sound has a distinct beginning
and end. In order for a sound to persist, it must be repeated.
This adds to audible clutter and, thus, to the cognitive load
required to understand and play the game. Further work
is required to understand the balance between providing
enough sound to support GVI and over complicating the
process required to understand the game state [68].
Concern about emerging trends
Two recent surveys [
20
,
42
] provide a detailed analysis of
gaming trends in the US and Australia, highlighting trends
within the broader gaming community which may aect
GVI. Both reports note a growth in the use of VR devices,
with one report suggesting that "1 in 3 of the most frequent
gamers said they were likely to buy VR in the next year" [
42
].
This contrasts with the attitudes and thoughts of our partic-
ipants, who have had no experience with VR and fear that
this technology would "leave blind gamers in the dust even
more". This suggests that accessibility features are not keep-
ing pace with the speed of technological change, aligning
with concerns that even existing accessibility technologies
fail to capture the broad range of experiences and interac-
tions available to sighted players [100].
Longevity of older technologies
The rst MUD is documented to have appeared in 1978,
as networked computing became popular [
13
]. Through
the 1980s and 1990s, MUDs were associated with techni-
cal prowess and unruly university students misusing valu-
able network resources [
12
,
43
]. However, as computing
moved towards graphical user interfaces, MUDs evolved
into MMORPGs [
13
]. While it is hard to imagine sighted
players engaging with text-based games that are built on
forty-year-old technology, MUDs have found a new player
base in the community of GVI.
Reecting the importance of narrative to these players,
Carlos, Juan, and Jose agree that MUDs allow for the cre-
ation of richer stories than most audiogames. This highlights
the importance of applying a multi-modal approach to com-
municating the state of the game world and the available
options. The text-based interface, which is compatible with
the screenreading technology that PVI are already using
in other aspects of their lives, is particularly well-suited to
the audiogame format and allows interesting narrative and
Playing Blind: Revealing the World of Gamers with Visual Impairment CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk
gameplay without restricting the complexity of the story and
interactions.
7 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have exposed the habits, opinions and con-
cerns of a group of gamers with visual impairment (GVI).
We have found that, just like their sighted counterparts, GVI
build diverse histories and social trajectories through game-
play. However, unlike their sighted counterparts, GVI must
confront a series of barriers to gameplay: limited options of
self-representation, a perceived lack of complexity in games,
the necessity for engagement with decades-old text-based
technologies, and fears of being "left in the dust" by new and
emerging technologies such as VR and AR.
By exposing these concerns, we hope to inspire future
work that pays closer attention to the needs of diverse groups
of players. We expect that this work will create awareness
of the need for a rhetoric of passion, where decit-driven de-
sign is tempered by a positive-design approach that focuses
on empowering immersive and enjoyable interactions that
are equivalently accessible to both PVI and sighted players.
Rather than seeing disability as something that needs to be
normalised, this approach recognises the skills and knowl-
edge of PVI and demonstrates the practices and opportunities
that GVI communities are already embracing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work of Ronny Andrade was supported by a Melbourne
Research Scholarship. The work of Melissa Rogerson was
supported by the Australian Research Training Program. The
authors would like to thank their participants for their time
and rich insights.
REFERENCES
[1]
Shakeel Ahmad, Christos Bouras, Eliya Buyukkaya, Muneeb Dawood,
Raouf Hamzaoui, Vaggelis Kapoulas, Andreas Papazois, and Gwendal
Simon. 2018. Peer-to-peer live video streaming with rateless codes
for massively multiplayer online games. Peer-to-Peer Networking and
Applications 11, 1 (2018), 44–62.
[2]
Jérémy Albouys-Perrois, Jérémy Laviole, Carine Briant, and Anke M.
Brock. 2018. Towards a Multisensory Augmented Reality Map for
Blind and Low Vision People: a Participatory Design Approach. In
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174203
[3]
James L. Alty and Dimitrios I. Rigas. 1998. Communicating graphical
information to blind users using music: the role of context. In Pro-
ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. ACM, 574–581. https://doi.org/10.1145/274644.274721
[4]
Ronny Andrade, Steven Baker, Jenny Jaycott, and Frank Vetere. 2018.
Echo-House: Exploring a Virtual Envirionment by Using Echoloca-
tion. In Proceedings of the 30th Australian Computer-Human Inter-
action Conference (OzCHI’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3292147.3292163
[5]
Aprone. 2014. Swamp, zombie FPS by Aprone. Retrieved September
5, 2018 from https://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?id=14921
[6]
Dominique Archambault, Thomas Gaudy, Klaus Miesenberger,
Stéphane Natkin, and Rolland Ossmann. 2008. Towards generalised
accessibility of computer games. In International Conference on Tech-
nologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment. Springer, 518–527.
[7]
Dominique Archambault, Damien Olivier, and Harry Svensson. 2005.
Computer games that work for visually impaired children. Interac-
tion et usages des modalités non visuelles, accessibilité des contenus
complexes (2005), 165.
[8]
Dominique Archambault, Roland Ossmann, Thomas Gaudy, and
Klaus Miesenberger. 2007. Computer games and visually impaired
people. Upgrade 8, 2 (2007), 43–53.
[9]
David Armstrong, Ann Gosling, John Weinman, and Theresa Marteau.
1997. The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: an
empirical study. Sociology 31, 3 (1997), 597–606.
[10]
Matthew T. Atkinson, Sabahattin Gucukoglu, Colin HC. Machin, and
Adrian E. Lawrence. 2006. Making the mainstream accessible: reden-
ing the game. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium
on Videogames. ACM, 21–28.
[11]
Paul Bach-y Rita, Mitchell E. Tyler, and Kurt A. Kaczmarek. 2003.
Seeing with the brain. International journal of human-computer inter-
action 15, 2 (2003), 285–295.
[12]
Richard Bartle. 1996. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who
suit MUDs. Journal of MUD research 1, 1 (1996), 19.
[13]
Richard A. Bartle. 2010. From MUDs to MMORPGs: The His-
tory of Virtual Worlds. In International Handbook of Internet Re-
search, Jeremy Hunsinger, Lisbeth Klastrup, and Matthew Allen (Eds.).
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4020-9789- 8_2
[14]
Kevin Bierre, Jonathan Chetwynd, Barrie Ellis, D. Michelle Hinn,
Stephanie Ludi, and Thomas Westin. 2005. Game not over: Accessibil-
ity issues in video games. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference
on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. 22–27.
[15]
Norman Blaikie. 2007. Approaches to social enquiry: Advancing knowl-
edge. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
[16]
Meera M. Blattner, Denise A. Sumikawa, and Robert M. Greenberg.
1989. Earcons and icons: Their structure and common design princi-
ples. Human-Computer Interaction 4, 1 (1989), 11–44.
[17]
Jens Bornschein, Denise Bornschein, and Gerhard Weber. 2018. Com-
paring Computer-Based Drawing Methods for Blind People with
Real-Time Tactile Feedback. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1–13. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173689
[18]
Brian Bowman, Niklas Elmqvist, and TJ. Jankun-Kelly. 2012. Toward
visualization for games: Theory, design space, and patterns. IEEE
transactions on visualization and computer graphics 18, 11 (2012),
1956–1968.
[19]
Nicholas A Bradley and Mark D Dunlop. 2005. An experimental
investigation into waynding directions for visually impaired people.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 9, 6 (2005), 395–403.
[20]
Jerey E. Brand, Stewart Todhunter, and Jan Jervis. 2017. Digital
Australia 2018. Report. NSW, Australia.
[21]
Stacy M. Branham and Shaun K. Kane. 2015. The Invisible Work of
Accessibility: How Blind Employees Manage Accessibility in Mixed-
Ability Workplaces. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM
SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (ASSETS ’15).
ACM, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700648.2809864
[22]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[23]
C. Phillip Brown and Richard O. Duda. 1998. A structural model
for binaural sound synthesis. IEEE transactions on speech and audio
processing 6, 5 (1998), 476–488.
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk R. Andrade et al.
[24]
Chen Cao, Hongzhi Wu, Yanlin Weng, Tianjia Shao, and Kun Zhou.
2016. Real-time facial animation with image-based dynamic avatars.
ACM Trans. Graph. 35, 4 (2016), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2897824.
2925873
[25]
Romina Carrasco, Steven Baker, Jenny Waycott, and Frank Vetere.
2017. Negotiating stereotypes of older adults through avatars. In
Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human
Interaction. ACM, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152771.3152795
[26]
Romina Carrasco, Jenny Waycott, Steven Baker, and Frank Vetere.
2018. Designing the Lost Self: Older Adults’ Self-representations in
Online Games.. In Designing Interactive Systems. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3196709.3196773
[27]
John M. Carroll, Gregorio Convertino, Umer Farooq, and Mary Beth
Rosson. 2012. The rekeepers: aging considered as a resource. Uni-
versal Access in the Information Society 11, 1 (2012), 7–15. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0229-9
[28]
Lynn Cherry. 1999. Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual
World. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. 376 pages.
[29]
P. John Clarkson, Sam Waller, and Carlos Cardoso. 2015. Approaches
to estimating user exclusion. Applied ergonomics 46 (2015), 304–310.
[30]
Jeremy M. Coleman. 2016. Classroom Guitar and Students with Visual
Impairments: A Positive Approach to Music Learning and Artistry.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 110, 1 (2016), 63–68.
[31]
Joanna C. Colgan, Melissa J. Bopp, Brooke E. Starko, and Lauren J.
Lieberman. 2016. Fitness Wearables and Youths with Visual Impair-
ments: Implications for Practice and Application. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness 110, 5 (2016), 335–348.
[32]
Erin C. Connors, Elizabeth R. Chrastil, Jaime Sánchez, and Lot B.
Merabet. 2014. Action video game play and transfer of navigation
and spatial cognition skills in adolescents who are blind. Frontiers in
human neuroscience 8 (2014).
[33]
Mia Consalvo. 2009. Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames. Mit
Press.
[34]
Jie Deng, Felix Cuadrado, Gareth Tyson, and Steve Uhlig. 2015. Behind
the game: Exploring the twitch streaming platform. In Proceedings of
the 2015 International Workshop on Network and Systems Support for
Games. IEEE Press, 8.
[35]
Tilman Dingler, Jerey Lindsay, and Bruce N Walker. 2008. Learn-
abiltiy of sound cues for environmental features: Auditory icons,
earcons, spearcons, and speech. International Community for Audi-
tory Display. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/49940
[36]
Kerry Dobransky and Eszter Hargittai. 2016. Unrealized potential:
Exploring the digital disability divide. Poetics 58 (2016), 18–28. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.08.003
[37]
Anders Drachen, Pejman Mirza-Babaei, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2018.
Frontlines in Games User Research. In Games User Research, Anders
Drachen, Pejman Mirza-Babaei, and Lennart E. Nacke (Eds.). Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK, 509–519.
[38]
Nicolas Ducheneaut, Ming-Hui Wen, Nicholas Yee, and Greg Wadley.
2009. Body and mind: a study of avatar personalization in three
virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human
factors in computing systems. ACM, 1151–1160.
[39]
Nicolas Ducheneaut, Eric Yee, Nick nad Nickell, and Robert J. Moore.
2007. The life and death of online gaming communities: a look at
guilds in world of warcraft. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 839–848. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240750
[40]
Nicolas Ducheneaut, Nicholas Yee, Eric Nickell, and Robert J. Moore.
2006. "Alone Together?": Exploring the Social Dynamics of Massively
Multiplayer Online Games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06). ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124834
[41]
Lina Eklund. 2012. The Sociality of Gaming: A mixed methods ap-
proach to understanding digital gaming as a social leisure activity. ,
85 pages. http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=1&
pid=diva2:574218
[42]
ESA. 2017. Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game
Industry. Retrieved August 20, 2018 from http://www.theesa.com/
wp-content/uploads/2017/04/EF2017_FinalDigital.pdf
[43]
Remy Evard. 1993. Collaborative Networked Communication: MUDs
as Systems Tools. In LISA.
[44]
German Flores and Roberto Manduchi. 2018. Easy Return: An App
for Indoor Backtracking Assistance. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173591
[45]
Johnny Friberg and Dan Gärdenfors. 2004. Audio games: new per-
spectives on game audio. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGCHI
International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment tech-
nology. ACM, 148–154.
[46] GMA Games. 2001. Shades of Doom.
[47]
Thomas Gaudy, Stéphane Natkin, and Dominique Archambault. 2009.
Pyvox 2: an audio game accessible to visually impaired people
playable without visual nor verbal instructions. In Transactions on
Edutainment II. Springer, 176–186.
[48]
William W Gaver. 1986. Auditory icons: Using sound in computer
interfaces. Human-computer interaction 2, 2 (1986), 167–177.
[49]
Kathrin Gerling, Kieran Hicks, Michael Kalyn, Adam Evans, and
Linehan Conor. 2016. Designing Movement-based Play With Young
People Using Powered Wheelchairs. , 4447-4458 pages. https://doi.
org/10.1145/2858036.2858070
[50]
Kathrin Gerling, Conor Linehan, and Regan Mandryk. 2018. In-
volving players with special needs in Games User Research. In
Games User Research, Anders Drachen, Pejman Mirza-Babaei, and
Lennart E. Nacke (Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 465–
484. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794844.001.0001
[51]
Neveen I. Ghali, Omar Soluiman, Nashwa El-Bendary, Tamer M.
Nassef, Sara A. Ahmed, Yomna M. Elbarawy, and Aboul Ella Has-
sanien. 2012. Virtual reality technology for blind and visual impaired
people: reviews and recent advances. Advances in Robotics and Virtual
Reality 26 (2012), 363–385.
[52]
Emilie Giles, Janet van der Linden, and Marian Petre. 2018. Weaving
Lighthouses and Stitching Stories: Blind and Visually Impaired People
Designing E-textiles. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3173574.3174044
[53]
Yvonne HH. Goertz, Brigitte A.G. van Lierop, Inge Houkes, and
Frans J.N. Nijhuis. 2010. Factors related to the employment of visually
impaired persons: A systematic literature review. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness 104, 7 (2010), 404.
[54]
Dimitris Grammenos, Anthony Savidis, Yannis Georgalis, and Con-
stantine Stephanidis. 2006. Access invaders: Developing a universally
accessible action game. In International Conference on Computers for
Handicapped Persons. Springer, 388–395.
[55]
Dimitris Grammenos, Anthony Savidis, and Constantine Stephanidis.
2005. UA-Chess: A universally accessible board game. In Universal
Access in HCI: Exploring New Interaction Environments-Proc. 11th Int.
Conf. on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI International 2005), Vol. 7.
[56]
Justin A. Haegele and Lauren J. Lieberman. 2016. The Current Expe-
riences of Physical Education Teachers at Schools for Blind Students
in the United States. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 110, 5
(2016), 323–334.
[57]
Jennifer Harris. 2010. The use, role and application of advanced tech-
nology in the lives of disabled people in the UK. Disability & Society
25, 4 (2010), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687591003755815
Playing Blind: Revealing the World of Gamers with Visual Impairment CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk
[58]
Michael Heron. 2012. Inaccessible through oversight: the need for
inclusive game design. The Computer Games Journal 1, 1 (2012),
29–38.
[59]
Michael James Heron, Pauline Helen Belford, Hayley Reid, and
Michael Crabb. 2018. Eighteen Months of Meeple Like Us: An Ex-
ploration into the State of Board Game Accessibility. The Computer
Games Journal 7, 2 (2018), 75–95.
[60]
Leona Holloway, Kim Marriott, and Matthew Butler. 2018. Accessi-
ble Maps for the Blind: Comparing 3D Printed Models with Tactile
Graphics. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.
3173772
[61]
Edwin L. Hutchins, James D. Hollan, and Donald A. Norman. 1985.
Direct manipulation interfaces. Human-computer interaction 1, 4
(1985), 311–338.
[62]
Sisse Siggaard Jensen. 2009. Actors and Their Use of Avatars as Per-
sonal Mediators: An empirical study of avatar-based sense-makings
and communication practices in the virtual worlds of EverQuest
and Second Life. MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication
research 25, 47 (2009), 15.
[63]
Hernisa Kacorri, Eshed Ohn-Bar, Kris M. Kitani, and Chieko Asakawa.
2018. Environmental Factors in Indoor Navigation Based on Real-
World Trajectories of Blind Users. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173630
[64]
Jeremy Kaldobsky. n.d.. Swamp. Retrieved September 10, 2018 from
http://www.kaldobsky.com/audiogames/
[65]
Gaylen Kapperman, Stacy M. Kelly, Kylie Kilmer, and Thomas J. Smith.
2017. An Assessment of the Tinder Mobile Dating Application for
Individuals Who Are Visually Impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment
& Blindness 111, 4 (2017), 369–374.
[66]
Alexis Kirke. 2018. When the Soundtrack Is the Game: From Audio-
Games to Gaming the Music. In Emotion in Video Game Soundtracking,
Duncan Williams and Newton Lee (Eds.). Springer, Cham, CH, 65–83.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72272- 6_7
[67]
Péter Tamás Kovács, Niall Murray, Gregor Rozinaj, Yevgeniya Sulema,
and Renata Rybárová. 2015. Application of immersive technologies
for education: State of the art. In 2015 International Conference on
Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL).
IEEE, 283–288.
[68]
Rynhardt Kruger and Lynette Van Zijl. 2014. Rendering virtual worlds
in audio and text.. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Mas-
sively Multiuser Virtual Environments. ACM, 1–2.
[69]
Rynhardt Kruger and Lynette van Zijl. 2015. Virtual World Accessi-
bility with the Perspective Viewer. Enabling Access for Persons with
Visual Impairment (2015), 105.
[70]
Jonathan Lazar, Aaron Allen, Jason Kleinman, and Chris Malarkey.
2007. What frustrates screen reader users on the web: A study of 100
blind users. International Journal of human-computer interaction 22,
3 (2007), 247–269.
[71]
Jonathan Lazar, Abiodun Olalere, and Brian Wentz. 2012. Investi-
gating the accessibility and usability of job application web sites for
blind users. J. Usability Studies 7, 2 (2012), 68–87.
[72]
Marc LeBlanc. 2006. Tools for creating dramatic game dynamics. The
game design reader: A rules of play anthology (2006), 438–459.
[73]
Lauren J. Lieberman. 2017. No Barriers: A Blind Man’s Journey to
Kayak the Grand Canyon. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness
111, 3 (2017), 291–294. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123223473&site=ehost-live
[74]
Stephen J. Macdonald and John Clayton. 2013. Back to the future,
disability and the digital divide. Disability & Society 28, 5 (2013),
702–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.732538
[75]
Shachar Maidenbaum, Galit Buchs, Sami Abboud, Ori Lavi-Rotbain,
and Amir Amedi. 2016. Perception of graphical virtual environments
by blind users via sensory substitution. PloS one 11, 2 (2016), e0147501.
[76]
Shachar Maidenbaum, Shelly Levy-Tzedek, Daniel-Robert Chebat,
and Amir Amedi. 2013. Increasing accessibility to the blind of virtual
environments, using a virtual mobility aid based on the" EyeCane":
Feasibility study. PloS one 8, 8 (2013), e72555.
[77]
Tony Morelli and Eelke Folmer. 2014. Real-time sensory substitution
to enable players who are blind to play video games using whole
body gestures. Entertainment Computing 5, 1 (2014), 83–90.
[78]
Ingunn Moser. 2000. Against normalisation: subverting norms of
ability and disability. Science as culture 9, 2 (2000), 201–240.
[79]
Ingunn Moser. 2005. On becoming disabled and articulating alterna-
tives: The multiple modes of ordering disability and their interfer-
ences. Cultural Studies 19, 6 (2005), 667–700.
[80]
Sahil Narang, Andrew Best, Ari Shapiro, and Dinesh Manocha. 2017.
Generating Virtual Avatars with Personalized Walking Gaits using
Commodity Hardware. In Proceedings of the on Thematic Workshops
of ACM Multimedia 2017. 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1145/3126686.
3126766
[81]
Joyce LD. Neys, Jeroen Jansz, and Ed SH. Tan. 2014. Exploring
persistence in gaming: The role of self-determination and social
identity. Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014), 196–209. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.047
[82]
Makoto Ohuchi, Yukio Iwaya, and Yôiti Suzuki. 2006. Cognitive-map
forming of the blind in virtual sound environment. Georgia Institute
of Technology.
[83]
Jamie O’Mally and Karla Antonelli. 2016. The Eect of Career Men-
toring on Employment Outcomes for College Students Who Are
Legally Blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 110, 5 (2016),
295–307.
[84]
Santiago Ontañón, Gabriel Synnaeve, Alberto Uriarte, Florian Ri-
choux, David Churchill, and Mike Preuss. 2013. A survey of real-time
strategy game AI research and competition in StarCraft. IEEE Trans-
actions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games 5, 4 (2013),
293–311.
[85]
Lorenzo Picinali, Amandine Afonso, Michel Denis, and Brian FG
Katz. 2014. Exploration of architectural spaces by blind people using
auditory virtual reality for the construction of spatial knowledge.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72, 4 (2014), 393–
407.
[86]
John R. Porter. 2014. Understanding and addressing real-world acces-
sibility issues in mainstream video games. In Proceedings of the 16th
International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibil-
ity (ASSETS’15). 42–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591357.2591364
[87]
Arushi Puri, Steven Baker, Thuong N. Hoang, and Romina Carrasco.
2017. To be (me) or not to be?: photorealistic avatars and older adults.
In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human
Interaction. 503–507. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152771.3156166
[88]
Roope Raisamo, Saija Patomäki, Matias Hasu, and Virpi Pasto. 2007.
Design and evaluation of a tactile memory game for visually impaired
children. Interacting with Computers 19, 2 (2007), 196–205.
[89]
Kyle Rector, Cynthia L. Bennett, and Julie A. Kientz. 2013. Eyes-
free yoga: an exergame using depth cameras for blind & low vision
exercise. In Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS
Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, 12.
[90]
Niklas Röber and Maic Masuch. 2005. Playing Audio-Only Games: A
compendium of interacting with virtual auditory worlds. In DiGRA’05
- Proceedings of the 2005 iGRA International Conference: Changing
views: Worlds in Play. DiGRA.
[91]
Yvonne Rogers and Gary Marsden. 2013. Does he take sugar?: moving
beyond the rhetoric of compassion. interactions 20, 4 (2013), 48–57.
CHI 2019, May 4–9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland Uk R. Andrade et al.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2486227.2486238
[92]
Melissa J. Rogerson, Martin Gibbs, and Wally Smith. 2016. "I Love
All the Bits": The Materiality of Boardgames. In Proceedings of the
2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI
’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3956–3969. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2858036.2858433
[93]
Patrick Roth, Lori Stefano Petrucci, André Assimacopoulos, and
Thierry Pun. 2000. From dots to shapes: an auditory haptic game
platform for teaching geometry to blind pupils. In ICCHP 2000, Inter-
national Conference on Computers Helping people with special Needs.
[94] Jaime Sánchez and Miguel Elías. 2007. Guidelines for designing mo-
bility and orientation software for blind children. Human-Computer
Interaction –INTERACT 2007 (2007), 375–388.
[95]
Jaime Sánchez, Mauricio Sáenz, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, and Lot
Merabet. 2010. Enhancing Navigation Skills Through Audio Gam-
ing. In CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Comput-
ing Systems (CHI EA ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3991–3996.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1754091
[96]
Bo N. Schenkman and Mats E. Nilsson. 2010. Human echolocation:
Blind and sighted persons’ ability to detect sounds recorded in the
presence of a reecting object. Perception 39, 4 (2010), 483–501.
[97]
Alexis Sepchat, Nicolas MonmarchÃľ, Mohamed Slimane, and Do-
minique Archambault. 2006. Semi automatic generator of tactile video
games for visually impaired children. In International Conference on
Computers for Handicapped Persons. Springer, 372–379.
[98]
Arielle M. Silverman, Jason D. Gwinn, and Leaf Van Boven. 2015.
Stumbling in Their Shoes: Disability Simulations Reduce Judged Ca-
pabilities of Disabled People. Social Psychological and Personality Sci-
ence 6, 4 (2015), 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614559650
arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614559650
[99]
Max Sjöblom and Juho Hamari. 2017. Why do people watch others
play video games? An empirical study on the motivations of Twitch
users. Computers in Human Behavior 75 (2017), 985–996.
[100]
Brian A. Smith and Shree K. Nayar. 2018. The RAD: Making Racing
Games Equivalently Accessible to People Who Are Blind. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174090
[101]
Constance A. Steinkuehler and Dmitri Williams. 2006. Where Every-
body Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as "Third Places".
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 11, 4 (2006), 885–909.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x
[102]
T.L. Taylor. 2018. Watch me play: Twitch and the rise of game live
streaming. Princeton University Press.
[103]
Shari Trewin, Vicki L. Hanson, Mark R. La, and Anna Cavender.
2008. PowerUp: An Accessible Virtual World. In Proceedings of the
10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and
Accessibility (Assets ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177–184. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/1414471.1414504
[104]
Ozkan Tutuncu and Lauren J. Lieberman. 2016. Accessibility of
Hotels for People with Visual Impairments: From Research to Practice.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 110, 3 (2016), 163–175.
[105]
Aditya Vashistha, Edward Cutrell, Nicola Dell, and Richard Anderson.
2015. Social Media Platforms for Low-Income Blind People in India.
ACM, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700648.2809858
[106]
Aditya Vashistha, Pooja Sethi, and Richard Anderson. 2018. BS-
peak: An Accessible Voice-based Crowdsourcing Marketplace for
Low-Income Blind People. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1–13. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173631
[107]
Vision Australia 2011. Vision Australia Public Policy: Access to
Employment.
[108]
Luis Von Ahn, Shiry Ginosar, Mihir Kedia, Ruoran Liu, and Manuel
Blum. 2006. Improving accessibility of the web with a computer
game. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in
computing systems. ACM, 79–82.
[109]
Herman Wahidin, Jenny Jaycott, and Steven Baker. 2018. The Chal-
lenges in Adopting Assistive Technologies in the Workplace for Peo-
ple with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 30th Australian
Conference con Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI’2018).
[110]
Christopher Walsh and Thomas Apperley. 2009. Gaming capital:
Rethinking literacy. In Changing Climates: Education for sustainable
futures. Proceedings of the AARE 2008 International Education Research
Conference. http://oro.open.ac.uk/20850/
[111]
Thomas Westin. 2004. Game accessibility case study: Terraformers–a
real-time 3D graphic game. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies,
ICDVRAT.
[112]
Thomas Westin, Kevin Bierre, Dimitris Gramenos, and Michelle Hinn.
2011. Advances in Game Accessibility from 2005 to 2010. In Interna-
tional Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction.
Springer, 400–409.
[113]
Gareth R. White, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Graham McAllister. 2008.
Toward accessible 3D virtual environments for the blind and visually
impaired. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Digital
Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts. ACM, 134–141.
[114]
Dmitri Williams, Nicolas Ducheneaut, Li Xiong, Yuanyuan Zhang,
Nick Yee, and Eric Nickell. 2006. From Tree House to Barracks: The
Social Life of Guilds in World of Warcraft. Games & Culture 1, 4
(2006), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412006292616
[115]
John Wood, Mark Magennis, Elena Francisca Cano Arias, Teresa
Gutierrez, Helen Graupp, and Massimo Bergamasco. 2003. The design
and evaluation of a computer game for the blind in the GRAB haptic
audio virtual environment. In Proceedings of Eurohaptics.
[116]
Di Wu, Zheng Xue, and Jian He. 2014. iCloudAccess: Cost-eective
streaming of video games from the cloud with low latency. IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 24, 8 (2014),
1405–1416.
[117]
Bei Yuan and Eelke Folmer. 2008. Blind hero: enabling guitar hero for
the visually impaired. In Proceedings of the 10th international ACM
SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM, 169–176.
[118]
Bei Yuan, Eelke Folmer, and Frederick C. Harris. 2011. Game acces-
sibility: a survey. Universal Access in the Information Society 10, 1
(2011), 81–100.
[119]
Chien Wen Yuan, Benjamin V. Hanrahan, Sooyeon Lee, Mary Beth
Rosson, and John M. Carroll. 2017. Constructing a holistic view
of shopping with people with visual impairment: a participatory
design approach. Universal Access in the Information Society (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0577-1
[120]
Yuhang Zhao, Cynthia L. Bennett, Hrvoje Benko, Edward Cutrell,
Christian Holz, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Mike Sinclair. 2018.
Enabling People with Visual Impairments to Navigate Virtual Re-
ality with a Haptic and Auditory Cane Simulation. In Proceedings
of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys-
tems (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 116, 14 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173690
[121]
Zhi-Jin Zhong. 2011. The eects of collective MMORPG (Massively
Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) play on gamers’ online and
oine social capital. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 6 (2011),
2352–2363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.014
[122]
Eric Zimmerman. 2013. Foreword. In The Well-Played Game:
A Player’s Philosophy (revised ed.), Bernard De Koven (Ed.). The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. http://cat.lib.unimelb.edu.au/record=
b5608797~S30
