Post

Next we have Pecha Kucha micro talks, with automatic slide changes. I cannot live post these as they're so fast! They will be on the Game UX Summit youtube channel in the future.

One quick slide, by Coco Rath: Adjusting the mouse icon to be character-specific is a UX/UI choice, but a big narrative and immersion boon that makes you feel much more like you are the character itself. (Big agree. I love a good gauntlet mouse icon in any medieval fantasy game)

Next the ever cool @atokma.bsky.social is talking about Object Oriented UX Design!

Alex used to work in corporate UX, and then moved over to game development.

The scope of games keep getting bigger, so where and how do you start UX-ing? Usually you have the common UX pipeline. How do you decide what to work on first? What players prefer? What has the most value? So it depends on how players use it, and then we adjust to do that. We iterate. Etc.

However, this is a trap. You first imagine how users use it, what actions they take, etc. And so you design based on those actions. But how often is this confusing to players when they are told to take actions, but not yet know how to do those things?

Instead, with OOUX, you base the user's experience on objects. So first you design the objects, and then you design the action to the verb using those objects. So it provides a foundation before the actions and verbs. So instead of actions first, objects first.

So, not verbing, but nouning when you look at the GDD. So instead of 'commenting', you select 'comment'. So that is the object.

So for something like an 'achievement' object, what are the core elements of an object like that? The name, the description, the badge icon, for example.

Then you add metadata necessary for that object, and you expand to more and more objects. The core elements are necessary for the objects to exist. With them, the object is meaningless.

So you focus on the objects, instead of how they are used. Then you take a look at how the various objects can be nested. So you link objects to objects. Then you add cardinality, and intentionality, to know how much an object is used in another object, and what a player should be able to do.

Then you force rank, for must haves, nice to haves etc. So you move the more important things upwards in the list.

Then you start defining interactions.

The interactions are the green stickies. Which should be in the same column as the other stickies, but this slide is 16:9 so it's to the side for now. But in the real case, it should be all in one column, per object.

Through doing this, you may find more objects you need, which is fine. That's iteration as per usual. Maybe you link to an other object, or create a new one, either can work depending on your project.

The eventual result then allows you to work on the actual interactions much more easily. So they provide a foundation, from which then to do the usual design work of prototypes, interaction design, etc.

Q&A: Do engineers directly use such objects as well? Alex: Yes, they usually do. So they can then advocate for this system too, which is helpful to keep using it internally.

Now: Joseph Kulik, about accessibility and legal compliance.

The big topic at the moment being the EAA: European Accessibility Act. Which is a directive, not a law, but some nations transposed it into law.

The timeframe is: Now. It is active. Public complaints can trigger legal action. Impact can be wide, but it isn't entirely clear yet. It is 'could' not 'has'

What are the requirements? EN 309 549, WCAG 2.1, and POUR

(I'm getting a feeling this can easily be weaponized. E.g. similar to zoning laws, environmental laws, which start with best intentions, and then suddenly halt all progress for years on end due to only a few public complaints.)

So, practically, what can you do? Lots of things to improve user research! Here are some checklists.