{"id":316,"date":"2024-05-10T21:29:58","date_gmt":"2024-05-10T21:29:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dev.meeplesforchange.org\/inclusion-and-accessibility-guide\/prototyping\/"},"modified":"2026-04-10T01:35:20","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T01:35:20","slug":"prototypage","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/guide-de-creation-de-jeux-de-societe-inclusifs-et-accessibles\/prototypage\/","title":{"rendered":"Prototypage"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
    \n
  1. Introduction<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Theme<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Representations<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Writing<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Accessibility<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Prototyping<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Rulebook<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. Conclusion<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
    \n

    Prototyping<\/h1>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

    Inclusion and accessibility testing is essential to identify weaknesses in your design. Details that may be invisible to you could cause harm or discomfort to others.<\/p>\n

    Unlike mechanical playtesting, inclusion and accessibility testing requires a different focus. Below are some recommended best practices for conducting these types of tests.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

    Preparing the tests<\/h2>\n

    For inclusion testing, the goal is to verify that your illustrations and components do not contain oversights, offensive stereotypes, or inaccuracies. Allow each participant the chance to play one or more rounds first, so they understand the essence of the game. Afterward, give them access to all the components so everyone can review the illustrations and texts in detail.<\/p>\n

    For accessibility testing, conduct specific sessions with people affected by the categories of needs relevant to your game:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Visual<\/li>\n
    • Motor<\/li>\n
    • Auditory<\/li>\n
    • Cognitive<\/li>\n
    • Speech-related<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      It is valuable to test in both ideal conditions and challenging conditions. For example, board game caf\u00e9s are often dimly lit and noisy: visual elements may be harder to distinguish for colorblind or visually impaired players, and oral communication may be more difficult.<\/p>\n

      You may choose to tell participants which aspects of inclusion or accessibility you want feedback on, or leave it unmentioned. Both approaches have advantages: giving context helps participants focus, while withholding it can reveal spontaneous insights. We recommend conducting different tests using both methods.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

      Recruiting Participants<\/h2>\n

      The purpose of testing is to gain perspectives on your prototype beyond your own. For this reason, it is essential to recruit participants from diverse circles. At a minimum, we recommend including:<\/p>\n

        \n
      • Players from your target audience<\/strong>: people who represent the intended users of your game.<\/li>\n
      • A variety of individuals from different social groups<\/strong>: to ensure broader perspectives and identify potential gaps in representation.<\/li>\n
      • Consultants in inclusion and accessibility<\/strong>: to provide expert evaluation of your design choices.<\/li>\n
      • Experts in the subject matter of your theme<\/strong>: to validate accuracy and authenticity, especially in historically or culturally inspired games.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

        Conducting Tests<\/h2>\n

        Inclusion and accessibility are evolving topics in our society, and not everyone is yet comfortable with them. To create a safe environment, reassure participants that the testing session takes place in an inclusive space where there are no right or wrong answers. Remind them that the goal is to provide constructive feedback. Differences of opinion are welcome, but it is essential that all comments be expressed respectfully during the session.<\/p>\n

        Offer participants the option to contact you later if they feel uncomfortable or if they think of something they forgot to mention during the test.<\/p>\n

        You can also decide whether participants are allowed to give feedback during gameplay or only once the session is finished. The choice will depend on the method you have selected for collecting feedback.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

        Collecting Feedback<\/h2>\n

        Data collection during playtesting can take several forms:<\/p>\n

          \n
        • Discussions<\/li>\n
        • Questionnaires<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          There is no single best method. If possible, you can also use a hybrid approach combining both. Some questions lend themselves better to quantitative methods (scored questionnaires), while others are better explored through qualitative discussions.<\/p>\n

          In both cases, here are some example questions to address:<\/p>\n

            \n
          • Did you feel included in the game?<\/li>\n
          • Do you think certain people could feel hurt by the representations?<\/li>\n
          • Do the game mechanics devalue one or more social groups?<\/li>\n
          • Are there elements you would change? If so, which ones?<\/li>\n
          • Did you have difficulty playing the game? If yes, for what reasons?<\/li>\n
          • How could the game be made easier to play?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

            # Discussions<\/h3>\n

            Advantages :<\/h4>\n
              \n
            • Natural exchanges between participants can bring out valuable critiques.<\/li>\n
            • Provides the opportunity to explore points in greater depth.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              Disadvantages:<\/h4>\n
                \n
              • Some people may feel uncomfortable sharing their opinions publicly and would prefer to give feedback privately.<\/li>\n
              • Participants may be influenced by the opinions of others.<\/li>\n
              • Care must be taken to ensure that dominant voices do not overshadow quieter participants.<\/li>\n
              • Individual interviews are possible but require more time and effort.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n

                # Questionnaires<\/h3>\n

                Advantages :<\/h4>\n
                  \n
                • Everyone can share feedback freely without the influence of others.<\/li>\n
                • Easier to compile and analyze results.<\/li>\n
                • Can be anonymized if requested.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  Disadvantages:<\/h4>\n
                    \n
                  • Writing responses can take more effort, which sometimes leads to shorter or less detailed comments.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                    Tip<\/strong>: Always include a section for open comments in your questionnaires. This gives participants the chance to share thoughts that don\u2019t fit neatly into predefined questions.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":298,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-316","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=316"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/316\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":825,"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/316\/revisions\/825"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/meeplesforchange.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}