Accessibility tag

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 18:34

@waxeagle On this question (rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/15148/…), SevenSidedDie removed my accessibility tag. I definitely think this question relates directly to accessibility. How do you think I should address this problem? Should I post a meta question about it?

wax eagle

@called2voyage generally accessibility is about helping someone overcome a disability, not sure how that's the case here

(and yeah I approved the initial edit, but I'm thinking I was wrong at this point)

called2voyage

According to the wikipedia definition which I paraphrased in the excerpt for the tag, accessibility is about accomodating all people, especially those with diabilities. I think that is the case here. Also, one answerer specifically points out that he has had these issues with people with learning disabilities.

wax eagle

@called2voyage then yeah, head to meta to make your case. Link the meta post on the question and you should be able to ping SSD when you do it. Definitely don't revert the edit without a meta discussion as that doesn't end well

called2voyage

@waxeagle right, I figured that would be the best course of action. I don't like to start revert wars.

wax eagle

@called2voyage they aren't productive...ever

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 18:40

@waxeagle agreed

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 18:54

@waxeagle Here's the meta question.

wax eagle

(you cant ping people in questions or answers...just fyi, just comments (if they are already a part of the post) and chat (if they've been there recently or you're a mod))

called2voyage

@waxeagle I've pinged SevenSidedDie in the comments of the post in question.

wax eagle

@called2voyage good deal, he should get that as he's an editor

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 19:28

@called2voyage I get the feeling the misunderstanding stems from the fact "accessibility" can mean a lot in general, but as a tag here is focused on disabilities.

wax eagle

@leokhorn well, it was created today, so it's still in the definition phase

called2voyage

@leokhorn Please drop in on the meta discussion and contribute your thoughts if you have any! Thanks.

leokhorn

@waxeagle Oh, I didn't know that. I would have if I hadn't skipped the actual question -sigh-... Sorry about that.

wax eagle

@leokhorn that's ok. called2 is just being proactive, which is great

The Oracle

1

Q: What should the scope of the [accessibility] tag be?

Today I created the accessibility tag for our now-growing category of posts dealing with issues such as blind players, prone players, dyslexic players, autistic players, etc. I also tagged one post (How can I help my PCs remember clues that they found?) as accessibility as well. This is why I am...

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 19:42

@called2voyage After reading the whole thing properly this time, I have to say it falls down to preferences it seems :/. I would agree with SevenSidedDie overall, but you also make a good point. I'd say there would be no debate if the tag was "disabilities" instead. As such, it's semantically more encompassing.

That said, I may still agree that "accessibility", with its broader meaning, may be a bit too encompassing as a tag? I'm no expert on tags and categorization on this site though, so... take that as an amateur's view :)

wax eagle

@leokhorn they should both be specific and general...which is terrible for trying to explain things to people :)

called2voyage

@leokhorn My main problem with limiting the tag to "disabilities" is that it tends to exclude cases such as special needs like where someone may have a difficult family situation, a newborn child, be hospitalized, et.c

wax eagle

in a sense all of our tags suck because a tag is supposed to by itself be able to be solely applied to a question. But that's just simply not the case here.

almost every question on this site needs a system tag because we serve so many different interests

called2voyage

Ultimately I am fine with narrowing the scope, I just don't think it should be as narrow as merely "disabilities". If someone could propose an appropriate scope, that would be great.

wax eagle

@called2voyage let me think on it. I might come up with something.

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 19:47

@called2voyage Hmm... could these situations somehow fall under a different word? Would it be a good thing to put them together? If tags are for searching... would someone with disabilities be interested by issues of dealing with children while playing... and vice versa?

called2voyage

@leokhorn The problem with separating them that extremely, though, is that our own post history shows that disabilities alone is too small a category.

leokhorn

Ah... and tags do need a substantial amount of questions related to them, right :/

called2voyage

Also, the question I linked to relating to someone who is prone might not intuitively be thought of as a disability.

leokhorn

Are there exceptions to this though? When a tag remains important enough as a distinction in spite of its rarity?

called2voyage

Whereas accessibility is abundantly more clear in such cases.

wax eagle

Aug 5, 2013 19:49

blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/tag-folksonomy-and-tag-synonyms let's all get on the same page with what tags are about.

leokhorn

Hmm... Tough tough tough :/

@waxeagle I'm sorry to say that all I learned was that tags were decided by the community and how tag synonyms work. Still not sure what tags are all about :)

Alex P

@leokhorn Yeah, ditto.

leokhorn

Oh mysterious tags...

called2voyage

This may be one of those cases where we may just have to define point-by-point what occassions fall into the category.

Alex P

I really don't know what to do with tags beyond just games and a few conceptual ones.

"Accessibility" seems like a great tag to have.

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 19:57

@called2voyage By the way, kinda torn on this, indeed. While "she needs to be lying in a hospital bed" makes it an obviously non-trivial issue, far from just "comfort", I couldn't call it a disability... and yet it seems to fall under the same type of issue.

Alex P

@leokhorn It's effectively a temporary disability.

leokhorn

@AlexP Whatever its final form may be, it is definitely a great tag.

called2voyage

@leokhorn Exactly why I have trouble narrowing this to mere "disability".

@AlexP Exactly, but not very intuitive.

Alex P

I mean, if I get foot surgery, they give me a handicapped placard to use for a few months.

wax eagle

@leokhorn that ok, and every community is different, which means that parts of that blog may not even apply to us, but it's still the main guidance for how SE uses tags

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 19:58

@AlexP But if you are hospitalized due to an illness, you may not think of yourself as having a disability--even if that is effectively the case.

leokhorn

Hm. I guess "disability" feels like too strong a word, but maybe that's just baggage. Maybe it is rather appropriate?

Alex P

And I'm not labeled "disabled" in common parlance but if I want to do research about how to get around &c. I really do just want to look up disability and accessibility info.

"Accessibility" is inherently a softer term than "disability" already.

leokhorn

In a sense, accessibility can apply even when there is no particular physical or mental issue to address, right?

called2voyage

@leokhorn Even if it were possibly appropriate, it is not very useful if it isn't intuitive.

leokhorn

It's just "making things easier to use/access"

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 20:01

@leokhorn Yes

leokhorn

And that can apply to everyone

called2voyage

@leokhorn Exactly.

leokhorn

Thus too broad?

I'm going back and forth on this, clearly :)

called2voyage

@leokhorn Not if we constrain it in our own definition.

Thus my meta question focusing on scope.

Alex P

@leokhorn It's not too broad if you use the generally-accepted definition.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:02

> Accessibility is the degree to which a product, device, service, or environment is available to as many people as possible.

user61230

I don't see a reason why this definition doesn't satisfy

leokhorn

@called2voyage Yeah, I'm starting to think no word will be the "right" word and that it will just require defining officially what it's meant to mean in the site's context.

called2voyage

@Emrakul Because SevenSidedDie seems to think it too broad. ;) And may be right.

Alex P

I can't read SSD's mind, but I think the idea is that if a question covers techniques that may help accessibility, but isn't primarily focused on it, does it count?

I think the underlying thing is this:

called2voyage

@AlexP But see that's where I disagree.

I don't think the question just covers techniques that may help.

Alex P

Aug 5, 2013 20:05

Are tags for categorization? Or are tags for creating groupings of things in some other context?

called2voyage

I think it is an accessibility issue.

Alex P

To me, it's an "Asking me to remember all this stuff is stupid, because that's not why I play RPGs" issue.

called2voyage

Per the Wikipedia definition that Emrakul posted, the whole question is an accessibility problem.

Alex P

Because that is what my answer is really about. >.>

leokhorn

@called2voyage By the way, your current question happens to only have SevenSidedDice's answer/pov to vote on. Maybe you should put your own answer with argumentation (well... further argumentation?) so people can vote it as the "right way to proceed"?

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:06

Accessibility is specifically for questions where the game needs to be brought to people who would not normally be able to easily play.

user61230

e.g. the question in question being questioned

called2voyage

@leokhorn I don't feel I have a clear enough answer yet.

@Emrakul Thus the whole debate...

leokhorn

@called2voyage Fair enough. Figured you were also trying to form an answer first, but wasn't sure.

Alex P

So, I think this is kinda like saying "Is 'How do I adjust my contrast?' an accessibility issue?"

It can be. Contrast is a big deal for the visually impaired.

But I don't think every question like that inherently falls into the category.

called2voyage

@AlexP It is always an accessibility issue, because it matters to the usability by all users not just visually impaired.

Phil

Aug 5, 2013 20:09

@called2voyage By that definition, a large number of questions on here would be tagged the same

Alex P

@called2voyage I think that's making 'accessibility' too broad.

called2voyage

@Phil Right, thus the reason to define scope.

leokhorn

Agreed

I think we're going in circles :)

user61230

Not by the definition I created.

called2voyage

@AlexP I agree, which is why we're having this discussion.

@Emrakul That's what I would argue too, but others seem to think that the whole site would be tagged that way.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:10

It specifically requires that it appeal to a group for which there are people who would not be able to take a normal route to playing.

user61230

In other words, accessibility is not for making things easier in-game.

Phil

@Emrakul That is actually a really good starting point

user61230

Accessibility is for situations in which normal methods do not apply.

called2voyage

@Emrakul I like the way you are emphasizing things...do you think you could post an answer to the meta discussion?

Phil

and in that context the question that started this should not be tagged in that way (imho)

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:11

Sure, will do.

leokhorn

What we seem to agree on: accessibility, per its usual meaning, includes many things that would be too broad for a tag. Yet disability seems too narrow. So either we find a magic word in-between, or it's possible to use either word by applying our own site-specific definition of it... or we're stuck :/

called2voyage

@Phil Why?it is not an in-game issue--it is a usability issue.

Phil

Its a question about forgetful players.

Alex P

@Phil I disagree on that. To use a technical example again, if your question is "I have a hard time reading my display due to a visual impairment," and the answer is "Turn up your contrast, like this" (using a standard feature of the product), I'd still say that's accessibility.

called2voyage

@Phil Which matches Emrakul's definition.

Furthermore, a big problem in our society right now is not realizing the underlying physical and mental difficulties in a situation.

A GM may think his players are being difficult and don't want to remember things. They may even make his life difficult and joke around in other ways and take a light-hearted attitude about things to an inappropriate level.

But that doesn't preclude them having an actual difficulty.

wax eagle

Aug 5, 2013 20:14

@leokhorn tag wikis help with this. we get to define how the tag is used there

2

called2voyage

Often people react in this way because they have a difficulty.

Phil

No it doesn't. His definition specifically relates to people who normally would not be able to play. That question is talking broadly about the frustration of players who forget clues, which is much wider. Are you saying that you want any question that relates to a particular category of 'problem player' to be tagged in the same way?

called2voyage

@Phil If the problem player issue can be identified as a deficiency in the way the game is played, yes.

Phil

Example question - "I am running a game with a player who only enjoys combat to the detriment of everything else. He hates the games I run because of this. What can I do?"

Is that an accessibility question?

leokhorn

@waxeagle I thought so. So as long as we come up with a precise scope it should be fine?

Alex P

Aug 5, 2013 20:16

@Phil No.

called2voyage

I can speak from experience having a brother with Asperger's, and a wife, brother, and sister with ADHD that a lot of true physical and mental difficulties get written off as people causing trouble.

2

user61230

I've posted my response to this problem.

wax eagle

@leokhorn yep

called2voyage

@Phil No, because combat is not a flaw in game mechanics. It is a taste preference.

Alex P

@called2voyage That's a good point.

Phil

Aug 5, 2013 20:17

@called2voyage But that doesn't mean that every single question about people causing trouble should be tagged as accessibility

called2voyage

@Phil Right, you have to use discernment to tell whether or not it is an issue of taste or not.

Remembering things in any case is not an issue of taste.

user61230

No question about people causing trouble should be tagged accessibility.

called2voyage

Most times if people express frustration at having to remember things it is not just laziness.

wax eagle

"questions about modifying game mechanics or playstyles to make gameplay more friendly to people with difficulty playing games as intended"

Phil

@called2voyage But you don't know that if you are not the author of the question.

wax eagle

Aug 5, 2013 20:19

expanded tag wiki should include -> physical disabilities, social disorders, etc

Zachiel

@waxeagle with unsurmountable difficulty - or something that suggests it's something that does not depend on the will of the player

user61230

@Zachiel I don't think any of these things are insurmountable, just very difficult.

called2voyage

@Phil Then the question is poorly worded because in such a general format it implies there is probably a memory difficulty. If the author knows for sure that the players are just being lazy, the question needs to be narrowed in the title.

wax eagle

@Zachiel I buy that. this shouldn't just be "our playstyles conflict" or "this isn't the game for me" this should be "no game is workable without modification"

Phil

@called2voyage No, I would argue that the issue is you are reading too much into the question that is being asked.

wax eagle

Aug 5, 2013 20:21

@called2voyage my impression of that question was that it was just normal folks who can't be arsed to remember details (which is fairly normal for games, specially long running ones)

called2voyage

@Phil I think the issue is that people aren't realizing memory difficulties where they are.

Zachiel

@Emrakul that's what the second part of the sentence tries to deal with. I know insurmountable isn't the right word there, but I can't think of something better right now

called2voyage

@waxeagle It is normal because people do have definite limits on their memory.

leokhorn

@called2voyage I get the feeling argueing about that very specific question may pull us away from the problem. Aren't there always going to be issues deciding whether or not to apply some of the more abstract tags? Just look at system-recommandation recently.

wax eagle

@called2voyage sure, but is accommodating an issue everyone has a part of accessibility?

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:22

@wax Hence my specification in my answer: Remembering rules is something most people have to deal with at some point, because not everyone has an eidetic memory.

wax eagle

(that's the crux here I think)

called2voyage

@waxeagle Absolutely!

Zachiel

@called2voyage I also feel, regarding that specific question, that many players don't want to need to memorize things. They find it boring and not useful to their experience

wax eagle

@called2voyage isn't that more usability?

called2voyage

@Zachiel not useful to their experience" is exactly an accessibility issue.

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 20:24

@called2voyage By definition... but that would be too broad for a tag :/

Zachiel

@called2voyage Yes, but I don't think that's impairing

user61230

@called The definition of "accessibility" is this entire site.

Zachiel

we want a tag that deals with impairing problems

user61230

That's why we're narrowing it to situations in which it's particularly relevant.

user61230

In which accessibility is the key issue, as opposed to the end goal.

Phil

Aug 5, 2013 20:25

It feels like you are arguing that unless a question that potentially relates to accessibility explicitly excludes it then you should assume that it does.

If you do that then you start second guessing the question about all sorts of things

called2voyage

@Phil That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing that this question explicitly, not potentially, relates to accessiblity, but that it isn't being recognized as such.

Phil

Which part is explicit?

leokhorn

@called2voyage If there's a lack of agreement, it may be that this very question lies on the edge of the definition. Is it really such a bad thing if just this question ends up without the tag?

called2voyage

@Phil As soon as "remembering" is brought into question it becomes an accessibility issue.

Phil

No it doesnt

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:27

@called Not as we're defining it.

user61230

We can define it however we choose.

wax eagle

ok, I just read the question in question again. It's not about usability or accessibility. It's basically just a "how can I get my players to write things down where they'll remember them" question.

called2voyage

@leokhorn No, I'm fine if the line falls right on the other side of this question, but I'm trying to show that we should be careful not to make it too narrow.

Phil

@called2voyage That is something you are reading into it

wax eagle

there is no question of access, or limitations. It's just...make your players right stuff down where they'll remmber it

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:28

And in this case, we're defining it as "needing some form of accommodation above the normal level"

wax eagle

or gently remind your players that they have that thing...

Zachiel

I don't think those bad memory players are impaired as I am, forgetting to do things my dad tells me to do in less than half an hour.

Phil

or get them to stop the OOC chat that distracts them

user61230

See my example. "How can I get players to remember things?" is not accessibility. "How can I get my memory-impaired players to remember things?" is accessibility.

wax eagle

@Emrakul agreed

Phil

Aug 5, 2013 20:28

there could be a million and one reasons why they are forgetting things, and most of those have nothing to do with accessibility at all

called2voyage

@Emrakul and in that case it is appropriate for the post in question to remain untagged, but as leokhorn said it should be an edge case.

Phil

@Emrakul agreed

user61230

Huh?

user61230

Edge case?

Phil

It is not an edge case

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:29

Isn't that... exactly on the point of accessibility?

Alex P

@Phil One of the reasons might be "You have unreasonable expectations of what a person should be able to recall."

called2voyage

@Emrakul as in it is at the very limits right outside the line we're drawing for scope.

user61230

@called What definition are you operating by?

Phil

@AlexP absolutely, but then you risk tagging based on the answers given rather than the detail in the question

user61230

@AlexP This is true, but if the players are memory-impaired, it implies that some greater level of accommodation is needed, which is very likely the case regardless of the GM.

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 20:30

@Emrakul "needing some form of accommodation above the normal level"

Phil

The question doesn't explicitly state what the GM thinks the problem is, and they probably don't even know (hence asking the question in the first place). A good answer will give lots of alternatives, some of which may well be to do with accessibility, but that does not mean the question should then be tagged

user61230

And the answer to the question could very well still be "your expectations are too high"

called2voyage

others are implying that it is at the normal level

Phil

and you are assuminbg that it is not

user61230

@called So, by that definition, how does memory-impairment not fall cleanly within those boundaries?

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 20:32

@Emrakul I think it should, but like I said, others see it as being at normal levels.

Thus "edge case"

Phil

erm

user61230

Ah, I'm not sure "edge case" is what you were going for. I think "disputed" is more appropriate.

user61230

Edge case means something else.

Alex P

I think this goes back to a categories-vs-relevance issue. The discussion in the question is relevant to accessibility. The actual purpose of asking the question, I think, wasn't.

called2voyage

"An edge case is a problem or situation that occurs only at an extreme (maximum or minimum) operating parameter"

sure, maybe disputed would work better

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:33

A dispute over content doesn't quite fall into that.

called2voyage

edge case if it actually did fall within

Phil

the question is about players forgetting stuff. This happens to everyone, and the question does not make it clear that the GM thinks it is an accessibility issue. It may well be the case, and you are free to give an answer that suggests it. However, that does not then mean the question should be retagged unless the questioner edits in additional detail

user61230

As a more clear-cut example: "How do I get my players with poor sight to see the board better?" is not accessibility.

user61230

Because plenty of people have poor eyesight.

Phil

Lol, in that case I would say it is about accessibility :o)

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:35

"How do I get my blind players to visualize the board?" is accessibility, because the normal rules do not apply.

called2voyage

@Phil Exactly.

user61230

@Phil No, because the answer is "get them glasses," something most people have to do.

Phil

anyway, bed time for me

user61230

That's not any unusual level of accomodation.

user61230

@Phil See ya!

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 20:36

@Phil Bye, thanks for discussing!

leokhorn

I'm going to try defining the tag and see what you think: "the tag should be used when a question's core focus is a physical or mental difficulty not found in most users, preventing an optimal session. If the source of a problem is not explicitely such a difficulty and may be explained by other reasons, then the tag does not apply."

called2voyage

@leokhorn That sounds reasonable.

@leokhorn If you post that as an answer, I would vote for it.

user61230

That actually seems a bit limiting, but our definitions are basically overlapping.

called2voyage

@Emrakul limiting in what way?

user61230

In fact, they are exactly the same definition.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:37

I withdraw that statement.

Alex P

@leokhorn That phrasing sees off-putting to me. I'm not sure how to really pin down why.

leokhorn

Though by that definition, I would not tag the "memory" question with it, since it is not explicitely mentioned the players have issues remembering because of mental issues. They may just not be paying attention (willfully), as someone suggested.

called2voyage

right, I'm fine with that.

user61230

Then that's not an accessibility question, because the normal rules apply perfectly fine.

wax eagle

@Emrakul again it depends on the nature of the eyesight issues. For instance, I have one friend who has uncorrectably poor vision. If I was to game with her an accessibility question about gaming with someone with poor eyesight would be quite good. If the issue is glasses, that's just off topic here :)

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 20:39

@AlexP I was admittedly not trying to use "nice" words or anything, just pin down the limit of the tag. I'm sure there are better ways to say it.

user61230

@wax Granted it was a poor example, but yes, I agree.

called2voyage

Ultimately, I suspect the underlying issue here is lack of clarity in questions.

user61230

@called I disagree; I think this part of a question's focus should be very explicit.

wax eagle

@called2voyage quite possibly. Comments trying to get to the root of questions can help with that. B

user61230

Are you asking about a situation where the normal routes do not apply? Yes or no. It's not really a grey area.

wax eagle

Aug 5, 2013 20:40

for instance with the memory question, the basic assumption is that the players are normal folks with no skill for detail. But it could be that they do have memory issues that need to be accomodated. I find the question more intresting in teh default case as it's more widely applicable

user61230

But, both are applicable.

leokhorn

@Emrakul I may be wording your answer differently. But I felt your definition somewhat lacked a tidbit of precision. As in, someone could read it and apply it to more than you intend.

And I won't say my attempt at fixing works... Its' just an attempt :)

user61230

I avoided specifying physical and mental impairments for that reason

user61230

Because someone may have an issue which would be accessibility but not revolve around a physical or mental difficulty.

leokhorn

@Emrakul Would you have an example? I'm having trouble imagining one.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:42

And I can't think of one, because I don't have direct experience handling these kinds of situations.

user61230

Right. Simultaneous enter key.

user61230

But I don't want to preclude the possibility. That's why the scope should be slightly more encompassing.

called2voyage

@Emrakul What else is there besides physical and mental? Emotional? Social? I don't think those are appropriate here unless they are directly linked to physical/mental issues.

user61230

Also because physical/mental impairments are specific subscopes under [accessibility], and should simply replace it if we're using that.

leokhorn

@Emrakul I understand, though it won't help defining it with precision :/

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:44

If we go with those, then we shouldn't have an [accessibility] tag, and we should use more specific tags for physical and mental disability.

called2voyage

@Emrakul Physical/mental difficulty and physical/mental impairment are two different things.

user61230

(But then we have to decide on a politically-correct term)

called2voyage

@Emrakul Accessibility is physical/mental difficulty.

leokhorn

@Emrakul Wouldn't that make the tags too precise and not worth existing, as per usual recommendations of "needs enough questions to apply tag to"?

user61230

@called You're right, sorry.

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 20:45

@called2voyage What's the difference actually?

user61230

@leo Either all of the questions fall under either physical or mental disability, or there are more questions which need to be included.

user61230

Stick with one point or the other; if you're going with the former as your [accessibility] definition, the tag needs to be split. If you're going with the latter, then we need a broader definition.

called2voyage

Difficulty simply means that one has troubles with something that is physically or mentally oriented. Impairment/disability implies some more permanent, on-going issue. Though they can be used in lighter cases, they aren't immediately apparent.

leokhorn

@called2voyage So... just a temporary/long-term difference?

called2voyage

@Emrakul I don't see why the tag needs to be split.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:48

Do we need to distinguish between a physical impairment and physical disability?

Alex P

@Emrakul No.

leokhorn

I'd say no.

user61230

@called Because if we're saying that all questions fall under two distinct categories, then we need to split them down.

called2voyage

@leokhorn Sort of, think the difference between generic "memory troubles" and Alzheimer's for example.

user61230

That's what I'm saying, so yes, we're in agreement on that point.

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 20:48

@Emrakul What? Two distinct categories...it is never that clear cut.

leokhorn

@called2voyage Hmm... would you include both under the tag or just one?

user61230

If the definition is "physical or mental disability," then the questions concern either a physical disability, a mental disability, or both.

called2voyage

@leokhorn both, if the memory troubles are causing greater difficulties than normal.

user61230

Since the definition @leokhorn suggested splits by that difference, then there should be one tag for each.

called2voyage

@Emrakul like I said, it is not just disability...and it is not that clear cut.

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 20:49

@called2voyage OK, works for me so far.

user61230

@called Explain?

called2voyage

@Emrakul there are lots of issues that are not clearly either physical or mental...and that's not even getting into the fact that all mental issues are technically-speaking physical.

leokhorn

@Emrakul My definition did? Huh...

user61230

> The WHO defines disability as an activity limitation that creates a difficulty in the performance, accomplishment, or completion of an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being. -- source

user61230

@called That's what I was arguing. I'm arguing against @leokhorn's definition.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:51

Which is why my definition specifically avoided using either of those terms.

called2voyage

@Emrakul Like I said technically a disability, but using that word is not always intuitive.

user61230

The definition I proposed is useful in that it does not specify mental or physical.

called2voyage

@Emrakul But all difficulties are physical/mental, even if you can't pick exactly which.

leokhorn

@Emrakul Nevermind, I get what you mean now, again. Phew, this is making my brain hurt

called2voyage

That's why leokhorn's definition works.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:52

@called Do you have an example?

user61230

I'm confused as to when that would happen.

called2voyage

@Emrakul The question is do you have an example of a difficulty that is not?

user61230

No, that's not my question.

user61230

Because if we're going with @leokhorn's definition, then I'm arguing they should be split.

called2voyage

Why?

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:53

And if they shouldn't be, we need an instance where tagging both physical and mental does not apply.

called2voyage

How could we split them?

user61230

Which means we need to come up with an ambiguous case.

user61230

The definition leokhorn provided specifically says mental or physical, which means the questions are divided into two groups: physical and mental.

Zachiel

I think I lost you guys...

leokhorn

@Emrakul You're totally losing me on this.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:54

Unless something is ambiguous between the two, then both tags should exist.

called2voyage

Tourette syndrome is not clearly physical or mental.

leokhorn

@Emrakul I'm including both under the same umbrella. At least that's my intent, maybe I worded it wrongly?

Zachiel

Mhh, can't we have a tag that includes any and both of them?

called2voyage

@Zachiel exactly

user61230

@called But the question that someone will ask will concern either the physical or mental aspect of it.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:54

Not both, because the question would have multiple parts and be too broad.

leokhorn

@Zachiel This. I never meant to split anything, especially considering how specialized the single tag we're discussing is already.

called2voyage

@Emrakul Not necessarily.

user61230

Example?

Zachiel

Oh, I understand Emrakul, nonetheless it's enough to reduce the range of a search

called2voyage

"In my party there is a player with Tourette syndrome that is bothering others by his loud outbursts..."

Physical or mental?

Clearly the line is fuzzy.

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 20:56

OK... I think I'm getting it... You're saying if there is no way, ever, for a question to concern a problem that would be both physical and mental... then we will only ever apply one tag, so it may as well point out which type of difficulty it is.

user61230

Mental. Outbursts would be mental.

user61230

In my opinion.

user61230

But, remember, you can tag both.

called2voyage

No, because it is a physiological response.

But why have two tags if the categories would be so small?

And they inherently are associated with each other.

user61230

Why have small tags at all?

leokhorn

Aug 5, 2013 20:57

That said, I don't know if it's a good thing to dilute the concept into two separate tags, even for precision. I could understand it on a medical stackexchange, but maybe not on rpg?

Zachiel

I think the differentiation between physical and mental is not relevant to us, because we want a tag that's like "problem players" but because of something "serious"

called2voyage

Accessibility may not be small over time.

user61230

Then neither of the two parts would be small, either.

called2voyage

@Zachiel Right.

leokhorn

@Zachiel Agreed.

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 20:58

@Emrakul Now you're getting into the Sorites paradox.

user61230

Tags should be as explicit as possible.

Zachiel

I'd suggest to use one until the number of instances grow so much and we need two

user61230

@Zachiel That I can agree with

called2voyage

@Zachiel Exactly

@Emrakul Well, glad that settles things.

leokhorn

@Emrakul But also apply to enough questions to be valuable. Consider how many questions a broader "accessibility" (or however it's called ultimately) would apply to right now? Imagine if that's split in two :/

@Zachiel Agreed!

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 20:59

@leokhorn Tags are split all the time for the sake of specificity.

user61230

There's a fallacy here: Tag groupings don't need to be large, they just need to be descriptive.

Zachiel

Also, I'd like not to set the gravity of the problem according to duration, because a guy who broke his arm has accessibility problems (according to our definition of accessibility, that only encompasses impossibility to use a game as intended)

leokhorn

@Emrakul Ah. Well, I was not aware of that. Thought the minimum number of questions was very important.

@Zachiel Sounds fair

user61230

@leokhorn The relevance and specificity is key, and the number of questions is an indicator of the health of a tag.

user61230

If there are too few questions (think, 4 or 5) then the tag may be too specific.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 21:01

Not the other way around.

leokhorn

So, uh.... now that we've agreed on not splitting... how are my and Emrakul's definition faring?

Zachiel

We can also have tags that are applicable to only one question, the real problem is that the system recognizes them as tags created by inexperienced users and automatically deletes them. Having a wiki page fixes that

leokhorn

@Zachiel Oh, it avoids auto-pruning?

called2voyage

@leokhorn If you could post your definition as an answer on the meta question, that would be great.

Zachiel

@leokhorn yes.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 21:02

Any tag which has developed content is kept automatically. (is the philosophy, not the code)

leokhorn

@called2voyage I may do this. I think it may still need a bit of work on the exact wording. I don't want to offend anyone or anything by being too blunt.

Zachiel

@leokhorn I think it can be discussed in Meta. Or you want to link the definition to @BESW, who is pretty good at this sort of things.

leokhorn

@Zachiel Hasn't he gone to sleep for the day? I may just post it as is and edit later based on suggestions, if that's deemed appropriate.

called2voyage

Well, there we go.

user61230

@leokhorn Feel free. Discussion is fairly open on meta, typically.

called2voyage

Aug 5, 2013 21:05

@BESW Hello!

Zachiel

don't tell me my ping woke him up

You're scary, BESW

called2voyage

@Zachiel If so, he slept too close to the computer.

leokhorn

@Zachiel I may have misremembered his going away. This discussion has been pretty intense and I'm all confuzzled :p

called2voyage

Or his phone...I had plenty of roommates in college that slept with their phone.

user61230

I don't think phones ping?

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 21:07

At least, mine never has.

BESW

Hi.

Reading backlog.

called2voyage

@Emrakul Depends what type of app you're running I guess...and what phone obviously.

wax eagle

@Emrakul AFAIK you can't get SE notifications on your phone....yet

user61230

Thinking about the ping sound on mobile, and yeah, I agree.

called2voyage

@waxeagle You can in-browser on the phone if you leave the SE site open.

Zachiel

Aug 5, 2013 21:10

It looks like BESW is reading and writing things in his sleep XD

leokhorn

@Zachiel Sleepstackexchanging.

BESW

I wish. I stayed up really late and now I'm up early.

called2voyage

@leokhorn Abbreviated: Sleep SEx...

BESW

Okay, so I just skimmed the last... 2/3... of what I missed.

Zachiel

@called2voyage how rude.

BESW

Aug 5, 2013 21:16

What definition am I supposed to be looking at? [yawn]

called2voyage

@Zachiel I hope that was meant in a sarcastic tone...if not, I apologize for any offense.

leokhorn

"The tag should be used when a question's core focus is a physical or mental difficulty not found in most users, preventing an optimal session. If the source of a problem is not explicitely such a difficulty and may be explained by other reasons, then the tag does not apply."

@called2voyage I thought it was funny, if that's any comfort :)

called2voyage

@leokhorn :)

Zachiel

@called2voyage I'm just malicious. Sleep... ahem...

If that was intentional, my fault for not getting the joke XD

called2voyage

@Zachiel Ha ha, I figured you had a good sense of humor, but I didn't want to be presumptuous. The Internet is notorious for miscommunication.

user61230

Aug 5, 2013 21:20

@called What? How dare you say such things about my mother.

BESW

@leokhorn And what's the problem?

called2voyage

@Emrakul Same to you. ;)

Zachiel

@called2voyage My fault for always forgetting smileys, anyway. >_>

@leokhorn this, @BESW

leokhorn

@BESW Just wondering if using "physical or mental difficulties" could be seen as too blunt. We're not trying to offend people needlessly.

called2voyage

@leokhorn Except Emrakul's mother.

BESW

Aug 5, 2013 21:22

"Disability" or "impairment" seem to be the most neutral-yet-straightforward terms in use.

leokhorn

@called2voyage This is going to turn into a running joke, isn't it? :p

called2voyage

@leokhorn If I'm lucky...

user61230

@BESW Actually, the difference is rather distinct: linky

leokhorn

Oh, related to previous ponderings: meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/398/what-are-tags-for (haven't read through yet but it seems more focused than the blog post from earlier)

@Emrakul According to this, I'd want to use disability. Impairment seems to be the source, disability is the resulting issue.

called2voyage

@leokhorn Then maybe I was wrong about favoring accessibility over disability...but I thought it would be clearer.

TRPG General Chat

Participants