[Accessibility-testing] Meeting Debrief - Sept 10 2018

[Andrew Plotkin]

I know I've been silent on this thread -- sorry. I got wrapped up in other 
projects. Which I am still wrapped up in, but we all know what that's 
like.

I also missed last Monday's meeting by straight-up forgetting that we had 
a meeting. I apologize for this too.

So, topics.

> We spent most of the meeting discussing the opportunity to make use of 
> the AbleGamers Player Panels program, per discussion earlier on this 
> list.

That program sounds like an ideal fit. We'd already decided to go with AT 
people who could be introduced to IF, rather than IF people who could be 
taught AT. So the AGPP is just an already-volunteered pool of the kind of 
people we want.

The only possible mismatch is that our two test games (even together) are 
probably *smaller* than the typical game that AGPP tests. So we could wind 
up with an unexpectedly high participation rate, and thus wind up buying a 
lot of gift cards. But I am okay with this risk. (If this turns into a big 
AGPP community event, that's IF education and advocacy -- score it as a 
win.)

> We agreed (based on prior discussion) that, given the nature of IF, 
> we’d get the most mileage out of testers with visual and mobility 
> impairments and their corresponding assistive technologies. (But of 
> course we would welcome representation from other players as well.)

Makes sense.

> We plan on rewarding each tester who completes the whole test course 
> with a $10 Amazon gift card, and will say as much in our proposal to 
> Player Panels.
>
> Depending upon the size of the response we get, we will work out between
> IFTF and AbleGamers how to split up the resultant cost.

This sounds entirely fine.

Splitting the cost should just be a matter of dividing up the tester list 
and saying "Okay, you buy Amazon gift cards for everyone on list A, we'll 
do the same for everyone on list B." (The Amazon page for doing this looks 
straightforward.)

> - How long do they need to do it?

Somewhere back in the email thread, you said "about an hour for each 
game", which I agree with. (I think we said "aim 20 minutes" back when we 
were planning the games, and then Opera came out larger than expected. I 
won't apologize because I put in the stuff I thought needed to go in...)

One thought: before we formally submit an AGPP proposal, we should decide 
what we're doing about the Twine side. Are we going to add more material 
to it? How much? What deadline?

As I understand it, we don't have to have all our material ready to launch 
on the day the proposal goes out. AG will get back to us with a list of 
interested testers, and we can tell them (e.g.) "Please bear with us while 
we finish our test games." However, there's a strike-while-the-iron-is-hot 
factor; volunteers become less enthusiastic if we leave them on the back 
burner. So we should at least have completion dates on the calendar.

> On the topic of surveys: Deborah feels that the ideal post-game survey 
> should combine the open-ended questions of Zack’s draft with questions 
> specific to the game.

This makes sense to me.

I didn't start dealing with IFTF email until late this evening, and now 
it's later. So I don't have specific survey additions yet. I will mull 
this over and reply to that thread tomorrow night.

(See Zarf give himself public deadlines...)

--Z

-- 
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*