Source metadata

Key takeaways

  • Accessibility can be tiered without being optional. The site separates guidelines into basic, intermediate, and advanced layers, which helps teams reason about minimum standards versus more specialist support.
  • Subtitle quality is a concrete design task. Subtitle readability is treated as specific craft work, not a box tick: if subtitles exist, they should be clear and easy to read.
  • Accessibility is about removing avoidable barriers. Many accommodations involve interface presentation, input flexibility, readability, and communication clarity rather than complex bespoke technology.
  • Advanced features are high-value for narrower audiences. The advanced page explicitly notes that some adaptations require more budget or specialist work, but can be transformative for the players who need them.

Notable claims

  • The advanced-guidelines page describes advanced accessibility features as adaptations that may only benefit narrower groups, but have very high value for those players.
  • The subtitle guideline treats legibility as a best-practice expectation whenever subtitles or captions are present.

Relevance

This source primarily informs:

It also supports:

Open questions raised

  • The guidelines are practical, but not all of them are equally easy to verify in student projects. Which subset should be treated as baseline assessment criteria in a university context?
  • Where should the wiki draw the line between accessibility guidance that belongs on general design pages and guidance that belongs in a dedicated accessibility page?