Datasets:

GarethFW
/

Inclusive-Games-Design

@@ -1,210 +0,0 @@
-# Inclusive Games Design
-This repository is a practical guidance resource for teams and AI assistants creating, reviewing, and iterating games that are more accessible, inclusive, and enjoyable for a wider range of players.
-The project contains a reusable design policy in `AGENTS.md`. It helps teams ask the right questions about mechanics, sensory demands, information design, social participation, player journeys, and testing evidence without turning accessibility into a vague afterthought.
-## What is included
-- `AGENTS.md` — the core inclusive game design policy and operational guidance
-- `README.md` — practical guidance for using the resource in a real game project
-## Why this matters
-Good accessibility is not only a compliance task. It is a design problem about how players participate, understand, respond, recover, and belong. Many barriers in games are not inherent to the genre itself; they are created by poor pacing, unclear information, conflicting feedback, untested assumptions, or exclusionary defaults.
-This resource helps distinguish:
-- essential challenge from incidental barriers
-- intended experience from accidental difficulty
-- player agency from forced exclusion
-- meaningful accessibility options from cosmetic adjustments
-## How to use this resource in a game project
-### 1. Put the policy at the root of the game repository
-Copy or reference `AGENTS.md` in the root of the project you are building. When an AI tool supports repo-level instruction files, this is the ideal place to set a default design lens.
-Recommended approach:
-- keep `AGENTS.md` in the repository root
-- make it part of the project’s source control
-- review it with designers, QA, and product owners before release
-### 2. Treat it as a design lens, not just a checklist
-Ask the AI to evaluate each feature using questions such as:
-- What is the intended experience and emotional outcome?
-- What gameplay demand is essential to that experience?
-- What demands are merely friction or exclusion?
-- What alternative ways can players participate without removing the core challenge?
-- Which sensory, motor, cognitive, reading, or communication barriers are introduced?
-- What evidence supports the design choice?
-- What remains untested or uncertain?
-This creates a stronger process than simply asking the AI for “accessibility improvements.”
-### 3. Use AI to map player journeys
-Review the whole player journey and document it in stages such as:
-- first launch
-- settings and onboarding
-- learning the controls
-- playing the core loop
-- failing and recovering
-- saving and returning
-- communication and support
-For each stage, identify:
-- relevant controls and inputs
-- audio and visual information
-- timing and pacing demands
-- reading and language demands
-- social or communication demands
-- environmental and fatigue considerations
-### 4. Ask AI to separate challenge from barrier
-A useful prompt is:
-“I am creating a [genre] game for [platforms and audience]. Review this mechanic and separate the essential challenge from incidental demands. Identify likely barriers for players with different sensory, motor, cognitive, communication, or reading needs. Recommend adjustments that preserve the intended experience without removing the core challenge.”
-This is more useful than asking for a generic accessibility pass.
-### 5. Use AI to review specific features and mechanics
-For each major mechanic, ask the AI to produce a design brief that includes:
-- intended experience
-- required action and challenge
-- barriers or exclusion risk
-- alternative input or presentation options
-- impact on gameplay and agency
-- test plan and evidence gaps
-Examples:
-- “Review this rhythm game mechanic and identify how audio, timing, and visual feedback affect diverse players.”
-- “Assess this stealth encounter for subtitle, sound cue, and information access needs.”
-- “Compare controller remapping, hold-to-repeat, and input timing options for this action system.”
-- “Evaluate how this character or narrative portrayal affects agency and representation.”
-### 6. Require evidence, not assumptions
-The policy emphasises that conclusions must be grounded in traceable evidence. When using AI, ask it to distinguish between:
-- known behaviour from tested gameplay
-- inferred risk from likely barriers
-- missing evidence that must be validated by humans
-- design limits that require explicit review
-This reduces the risk of the AI inventing “accessibility” without proof.
-### 7. Keep a human decision loop
-AI can help generate options, compare trade-offs, and surface risks, but the final decision still belongs to the responsible human owner. The policy is designed to support human review, not replace it.
-The project owner should confirm:
-- who owns design decisions
-- who reviews evidence
-- who decides whether a remaining exclusion is acceptable
-- how design limits are recorded and revisited
-### 8. Test with real players and diverse contexts
-The repository guidance stresses that accessibility work should be validated with relevant players, not just simulated or automated checks. AI can help plan the research, but it should not replace representative testing.
-Ask the AI to help with:
-- test scenarios and player journeys
-- consent-safe participant screening criteria
-- evidence capture templates
-- reporting of what was observed versus what was inferred
-- prioritisation of remaining issues after testing
-## Suggested AI workflow for a game project
-A practical workflow for using this repository in a game team could be:
-1. Add `AGENTS.md` to the game repository root.
-2. Define the core brief:
-   - genre
-   - platform
-   - audience
-   - target age range
-   - input methods
-   - solo/social modes
-   - languages and localisation requirements
-3. Ask the AI to create a design brief for the game concept.
-4. Ask it to map each core mechanic against access demands.
-5. Require alternatives for control schemes, communication, reading, audio, haptics, and information clarity.
-6. Prompt for a risk register and remaining uncertainty.
-7. Review the output with designers, QA, and inclusion stakeholders.
-8. Test with players and update the design based on observed evidence.
-9. Record design limits and human decisions before release.
-## Example prompts
-### Concept review
-“Review this game concept for accessibility and inclusion. Identify the essential experience, likely barriers, and the adjustments that preserve the intended challenge without excluding players unnecessarily.”
-### Mechanic review
-“Assess the combat mechanic for input burden, timing demands, information clarity, sensory load, and recovery options. Suggest several alternative designs and explain how each affects player agency and fairness.”
-### Narrative and representation review
-“Review the proposed narrative and character portrayal for authenticity, agency, harmful stereotypes, and ability-related representation. Suggest safer, more inclusive alternatives grounded in evidence and design intent.”
-### UI and reading review
-“Audit the HUD, tutorial flow, and text-heavy interfaces for typography, language support, contrast, legibility, progressive disclosure, and cognitive load. Prioritise changes by impact and risk.”
-### QA and release review
-“Create a pre-release accessibility and inclusion review based on the current game build. Distinguish evidence-backed findings from assumptions, and list remaining unknowns and escalation items.”
-## Good practices when using AI
-- Ask for evidence and trade-offs, not just feature suggestions.
-- Require the AI to say what is essential versus optional.
-- Keep the design brief grounded in the actual audience and platform.
-- Ask for multiple alternatives before choosing one.
-- Validate final choices with tests and player feedback.
-- Record a clear decision trail for design limits and escalations.
-## Scope and boundaries
-This repository is a game design policy, not a substitute for legal review, platform rules, contractual obligations, or a formal accessibility audit. It is intended to support thoughtful design and honest decision-making about inclusion.
-It does not claim to implement or guarantee compliance with any single external standard. Instead, it captures game-relevant principles and operational habits that help teams build more inclusive experiences.
-## Repository status
-This project is a proposed design and guidance resource. It is intended to be adopted, adapted, and reviewed by the team using it.
-## Contributing
-If you are using this resource in a game project, consider adding:
-- a project-specific scope and audience definition
-- a list of core mechanics and access risks
-- testing notes and evidence summaries
-- design decisions and remaining exclusions
-- owner assignments for accessibility and release decisions
-## License
-The repository metadata currently indicates a project source and should be reviewed before distribution under a declared licence. This README is intended as a practical project guide, not legal advice.
-## Summary
-This resource is best used as a living design policy for AI-assisted game development. It helps an AI reason about player access, challenge, narrative, communication, and testing in a way that is grounded in evidence and human accountability.
-If you are building games with AI, use this repository to shape the conversation around inclusion from the beginning, not as a final-stage patch.