This article describes the priorities for accessibility found in video game accessibility reviews. Through an analysis of 20 articles published by the accessibility review websites DAGERSystem.com and CanIPlayThat.com, this study categorizes the accessibility features in those articles in order to discover which accessibility features are the most important to reviewers, gauged by how many words are dedicated to addressing each feature. The study discovers 15 primary categories of accessibility most prominently features in these reviews. Word counts for each category provide a prioritized list of which accessibility features are the most central to video game accessibility. This article concludes by introducing the ground floor approach to video game accessibility, which calls for subtitles, difficulty settings, control options, and visual clarity as essential features in modern game design.
AndersonS. L. (2023). Video game accessibility defined through advocacy: How the websites ablegamers.org and caniplaythat.com use the word accessibility. Games and Culture, 19(5), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231170156
2.
AndersonS. L. (2024). Ability machines: What video games mean for disability. Indiana University Press.
3.
AndersonS. L.SchrierK. (2022). Disability and video games journalism: A discourse analysis of accessibility and gaming culture. Games and Culture, 17(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120211021005
4.
BalanO.MoldoveanuA.MoldoveanuF. (2015). Navigational audio games: An effective approach toward improving spatial contextual learning for blind people. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 14(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0018
5.
BarnesC. (1992). Disabling imagery and the media: An exploration of the principles for media representations of disabled people. British Council of Organisations of Disabled People.
6.
BrownM.AndersonS. L. (2021). Designing for disability: Evaluating the state of accessibility design in video games. Games and Culture, 16(6), 702–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412020971500
7.
CairnsP.PowerC.BarletM.HaynesG.KaufmanC.BeestonJ. (2021). Enabled players: The value of accessible digital games.Games and Culture, 16(2), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019893877
8.
CharltonJ. I. (2000). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. University of California Press.
KatoP. M. (2010). Video games in health care: Closing the gap. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019441
13.
MarinoM. T.BeecherC. C. (2010). Conceptualizing RTI in 21st-century secondary science classrooms: Video games’ potential to provide tiered support and progress monitoring for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300407
14.
MarinoM. T.GotchC. M.IsraelM.VasquezIIIBashamE.BechtJ. D., K. (2014). UDL In the middle school science classroom: Can video games and alternative text heighten engagement and learning for students with learning disabilities?Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713503963
O’TooleC. J. (2013). Disclosing our relationships to disabilities: An invitation for disability studies scholars. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v33i2.3708
17.
PowersG. M.NguyenV.FriedenL. M. (2015). Video game accessibility: A legal approach. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v35i1.4513
18.
ShakespeareT. (2014). The social model of disability. In DavisL. J. (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 214–221). Routledge.
19.
SnyderS. L.MitchellD. T. (2006). Cultural locations of disability. University of Chicago Press.
