Post

The timeframe is: Now. It is active. Public complaints can trigger legal action. Impact can be wide, but it isn't entirely clear yet. It is 'could' not 'has'

The application of the act is wide. Communication can mean in-game VoiP. E-commerce can mean in-game stores.

What are the requirements? EN 309 549, WCAG 2.1, and POUR

(I'm getting a feeling this can easily be weaponized. E.g. similar to zoning laws, environmental laws, which start with best intentions, and then suddenly halt all progress for years on end due to only a few public complaints.)

So, practically, what can you do? Lots of things to improve user research! Here are some checklists.

This goes even for the selection process. It is easy to accidentally discriminate against accessibility needs, and forget that you need to actively recruit for testing to make sure you're inclusive.

You may not be able to reconstruct your building to add accessible elevators, but you have other options like parking, entry, desks, equipment, etc. So this is to be able to have a user testing lab to do the tests, to get the data, to make sure you are covering the EAA.

And here is the summary. Compliance is the first step, there are wider reaching implications, with also wider benefits, so do research, but make sure you get the right testers, so adjust your testing space.

The last talk of the day: Jessica Murrey on Scaling activism through gameplay.

First an idea of Peace, and trying to achieve it. Understanding that peace does not mean quiet, passive, or an absence of conflict. Instead to see that conflict, and think 'build', to see it as an opportunity.

And to then continually work towards that, so that folks ask you about it, which she calls 'the tattoo effect'. (Funny aside: She used an anecdote about being asked about tattoos on the street. The Europeans here all looked bewildered. That may happen in the US, but it's not a thing here.)

Be persistent about attacking the problem though, not the person. When you shame people you push them further into extremism. (Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... lots of thoughts here, too many to write down at this moment in time. There is so much nuance here.)

3 steps to achieve this: Strategize, Armor Up, and Aim True Main takeaways here are: Find solutions. Do not move into ad-hominem quickly. Decide how you react to what happens to you.

These are very difficult to do, but through experiencing them they become easier to do. This is where games come in: They are interactive. You experience through the story, and you master through gameplay. So it trains you to be able to do the difficult things described earlier.

This is the gameplay loop to push for positivity and progress. Positive actions creating more skills, negative actions creating blockers, and neutral actions creating no impact.

They are venture backed and also have ads for organisations that, for example, help with women's shelters. Then, if you go to that shelter, or support it, or do another kind of action, and record that, you can get points with for example a beauty company's loyalty points.

Another example is a Boy's Literacy programme, and again asking users to eventually post about it on their own social platforms, to create positive action in real life, outside of the game.

Players are also sorted into various systems depending on their actions, which then changes what exactly they are able to more accurately within the games' systems. So a positive reinforcement of how they prefer to act.

They have seen impact through this, for example with 7374 custom notes to hospitalized children, reposts by influencers, and other IRL impacts through the game.

And that's it for the first day of the Game UX Summit! There were also loads of coffee breaks and a great lunch in which a lot of conversation happened. You can sign up for updates on the next @gameuxsummit.com event, so you can visit the next one yourself: gameuxsummit.com/newsletter

Classic issues that colleagues say about internal workflows: It works, but it's too complex. It's hard to use. It is not visually appealing. It feels overwhelming. The flow is hard to follow. And more.

User research is critical for improving internal tools. You have to know who is doing what, when, and why. You cannot make proper improvements without knowing what the issues are. Seems basic, but is often still forgotten.

Especially because Tool Design is still a nascent field, most tool engineers have not worked with a designer before. So, they expect you to perform magic right away and 'do your design magic' to remove problems right away. This is unrealistic. You have to do research first.