A visually impaired video game player has recently sued Sony Online Entertainment (a branch of Sony that manages their online games) over the game Everquest 2, stipulating that the game’s features and graphics violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (Full Text here), which generally stipulates that everyone, regardless of disability, has the right to “equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation”.
There are two big flaws in this lawsuit. And here they are.
Despite recent interpretations of the ADA, there’s quite a bit of uncertainty to what the internet is- and specifically, if things that are on the internet (in this case, a video game) should be considered a “public accommodation”. The internet, by definition, is a (largely) display-based system that, while making attempts at being accessible to those with poor vision, nonetheless highly relies on the ability for one to see. Many websites operate on the presumption that you and your computer can both process and understand their visual systems- which is why we obsess so much about things like HTML and CSS integration. There is quite a bit of elbow work put into making the internet accessible to everyone on any browser on any system. Nonetheless, the status of a website or virtual world as a “public accommodation” is, at best, suspect- should we define Sony Online’s members-only somewhat-expensive gaming service as “public”, or even an “accommodation”? Is the world in Everquest 2 tantamount to a public space in real life? Is anything on the internet a “public accommodation”? Do you even have a right to it?
The problem with such an interpretation is that it places a lot of undue pressure on designers and programmers, who can’t do too terribly much about issues as related to visual impairments. Should places like CNN be sued if a visually impaired user has trouble accessing their news articles? Even worse, should small time designers like myself be sued for not running expensive user tests with visually impaired individuals on every page of our website? Should companies like Nintendo be sued for retroactively not developing games easy enough for every single person in the United States to see (especially given even I sometimes get confused with their games)? Even if these cases were to go to court, and a huge settlement would be given, there is no true way to solve these problems: there’s no way in the world I could definitively, with 100% certainty, make a website that every single visually impaired person in the US could access- likewise, nor could Nintendo develop a game that every single person could see, regardless of visual impairment. It’s just not possible.
The second inherent issue with this legislation is pretty simple: it presumes the gamer in question could have done nothing to alter his game experience to make it easier for him to see. Even my somewhat cheap laptop has the ability to alter color, contrast, and a variety of other factors in order to change the display graphics to be easier- something it wouldn’t be too terribly hard to do on a larger PC capable of playing Everquest 2 (which is a PC taxing game). Furthermore, if I remember correctly, games like EQ2 also featured the ability to scale their UI (user interface- the text of the game, such as your character’s health) to be larger, thus making it even easier to see text and other relevant information if the need be. It’s certainly not easy, per se, but it’s possible. It certainly isn’t a major fix, but it’s not a bad start.
But yes, on the flip side, there is something inherently discriminatory about Everquest 2- as there is with all videogames and all forms of visual entertainment. As much as we may try to accommodate those who cannot enjoy these games, it is somewhat silly to think that video games suddenly do backflips in order to cater to those who have visual problems, especially above and beyond what is normative. Sure, it may be highly discriminatory that a blind man cannot go into a movie theater and enjoy the same experience as everyone else, but such is expected with the medium- it isn’t exactly something that can be easily fixed. Unfortunately, thus is life.
I’m going to, as much as possible, be watching this case closely- it might be something very damaging for videogame companies in the future. If the visually impaired gamer wins, then this may be the beginning of a string of lawsuits against companies producing visual and/or aural media. That’s a scary thought.
Tags: ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, business, computers, law, lawsuit, news, Sony Online Entertainment, sue, Technology, video games, web 2.0
[...] Entertainment, who he alleged violated the ADA by making it difficult for him to play Everquest 2. As I argued, the Internet (and internet games) is/are not a “public accommodation”, and … Well, it looks like someone agrees with me. The presiding judge for Stern v. Sony Corp. dismissed [...]