Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) (US)
-
It's right there in the Bill of Rights. You can believe what you want as long as you acknowledge God. Why would they put that in there if they liked atheists?
-
@Gothix come to NZ we're in a world of our own .
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Gothix I agree. Free the games!
-
@pwnstar @Meiki Please go back on-topic. We don't allow discussions about religion (except for Fractured's gods obviously) because it often leads to heated debates and fights.
- FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS
In addition to the rules above, we have also decided to forbid the following subjects from being discussed:
Politics
Religion
I am sure you can understand why we have forbidden these two subjects. These subjects often lead to fights and drama, and have little to do with what this forum is about. Because of this, we believe the best course of action is to simply disallow users from discussing them. These rules only apply to real life politics and religion, discussions about in-game politics and religion are obviously fine.
-
So yes, getting back on topic, of course this law is written as a ridiculous over-extension of the idea that people with disabilities need access to things. Video games are not by and large ever going to accessible to the blind, since describing what is going on takes so long that you've already let the character in any real time game die a dozen times before you even get to the problem being talked about.
Simply put, that's U.S. law. It's a ton of fluff and bad ideas all rolled around some decent concepts. It is part of why so many of us joke about the law here, and why so often it simply isn't applied. Because even the lawyers and the police are confused on what is and is not really allowed...
-
@Jairone
There was a FPS (quake or something similar) that was made for a blind person. where the audio told the player the layout and the "location" of other players.so it's possible but I doubt it'd actually happen to all video games.
-
@Meiki this is 100% incorrect. The upshot of games not being for the sole purpose of communication does not mean they are exempt, it means the FCC has the discretion to grant a class waiver. A class waiver was granted covering the period of 2012 to 2018 to allow for R&D and implementation time. In 2017 the industry asked for one final extension on condition that no more would be granted after. The class waiver is done, finished. Now communication services in games must comply.
Info - http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IanHamilton/20190123/334910/Demystifying_CVAA.php
-
@Target anthem was already in development before Jan 1st, so is able to build an achievability case. Info - http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IanHamilton/20190123/334910/Demystifying_CVAA.php
-
@Jairone said in Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) (US):
@Meiki U.S. law has been, for decades, about adding as many loopholes as possible. See, if the law cannot be understood, much less in a reasonable time, it means that more lawyers are needed.
Most of the U.S. government is lawyers, and especially families of lawyers (with children in law practice). It's a direct conflict of interests that so many people ignore.
As to these requirements, they do actually apply. The FCC, the agency in charge of this, has stated that so long as a chat feature exists within games they will technically be under this rule. However, they have granted extensions for a number of reasons. I personally expect this to end up in the court system, as government willingness to extend the extensions has been lowering and yet the idea of having to provide features in a game can be highly impractical (such as a voice description of what is going on for the blind, which might work for something very simple but not for an online game with a pace faster than molasses in mid-winter).
The best way forward on this one, in my opinion, is that companies will likely push back with legal holds and notices of just how ridiculous this can be, until such time as the forces of inclusion for all push it through regardless, after which several companies will arise specifically to offer 3rd party solutions to the 'problem'.
Nope. It cannot end up in courts, enforcement is solely through the FCC. Willingness to extend waivers has not been lowering, it is finished. In 2017 the industry asked for one final waiver so long as that was the last ever one - that was granted. It ended on Dec 31st. There is no longer any waiver.
Text to speech is entirely viable.
Info - http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IanHamilton/20190123/334910/Demystifying_CVAA.php
-
@Jetah GDPR affects all data held on EU citizens, regardless of where it is held. Similarly CVAA applies to all communications services provided in the US, regardless of where the developers of them are based.
-
@Meiki it does not state that. It applies to communication, not gameplay. Info - http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IanHamilton/20190123/334910/Demystifying_CVAA.php
-
Why not just make one post instead of spamming the ever living heck out of this thread?
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Iamhamilton
I'm sure @Specter will be here to say this but try to add notifications (@ and their name) to multiple people in one post. If you're on mobile and can't see the names then you might want to wait till you can (it's a problem I have at time when on mobile).As per your reply. I'm not an EU citizen but I still received email based on that law. So I was wondering if this US law would be similar to EU and other parts of the world.
-
that's not how forums normally work, but if that's how things are done around here, fair enough
You recieved the email because the people involved didn't choose to implement different systems for EU and the rest of the world. They just have one system that works the same way for everyone and is in line with EU's requirements.
The same thing is happening with CVAA... there are developers who are just implementing a single accessible communication service across all of their players, regardless of where they live.
Half right. The rights conferred by US law do not apply to non-US citizens. The obligations conferred by US law absolutely do apply to people outside the USA, if their products and services are used by people in the USA.
You're right in that one option is to kill comms for people in the USA. However most of the people whose CVAA plans I'm familiar with are not choosing that route.
The concept of stretch goals doesn't exist. How it works is the company makes an assessment of which features would be within reasonable effort and expense and which would not, and keeps a record of that assessment. Whether the assessment is reasonable is decided by the FCC. AFAIK the developer can send the assessment in early for validation, or just keep it on the back burner in case a gamer raises an issue, in which case FCC will request to see the evaluation at that point.
The various requirements have differing levels of complexity and expense. For example ensuring the game does not rely on capacitive touchscreens should already be the case for most games anyway (especially as the OS takes care of that requirement for mobile games), and ensuring comms functionality works for people who have no colour vision is zero or close to zero effort if considered early.
-
@Iamhamilton said in Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) (US):
that's not how forums normally work, but if that's how things are done around, here, fair enough
It keeps the thread organised and it looks better. It would get quite messy if everyone started multiposting.
-
Example of a studio implementing CVAA considerations:
-
@Iamhamilton said in Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) (US):
that's not how forums normally work, but if that's how things are done around here, fair enough
I can't say I've seen forums where they encourage you make multiple post 1 per reply.
