Asleep at the Virtual Wheel

Problem Definition

VR technology is inherently ableist, with a lack of guidelines for designing experiences leading to limited developer awareness of best practices and a feeling of exclusion from people with disabilities. Due to a gap in literature exploring how accessibility options are presented in commercial applications, the current state of accessibility is hard to determine.

The following two key research questions were explored:

1. Which accessibility features and software-level customisation options are available to tailor required interactions, physical positioning, locomotion, user interface (UI) elements, and outputs to individual needs?
2. How has the accessibility of mainstream VR applications evolved since 2016?

Methodology

Data were collected from 330 applications released on all major VR application storefronts from 2016 to 2023, categorising accessibility features and options to tailor the experience available in each application.

A systematic software review process was followed, with inclusion criteria based upon commercial application usage metrics in order to identify the applications that are most likely to be experienced by users, in turn providing a representative overview of mainstream VR practices.

Results

Our findings highlight a number of areas where practitioners have not widely implemented options to tailor application experiences, including little support for alternative adaptable hardware inputs, minimal text size adjustment options, and an almost complete lack of colourblind settings. Additionally, temporal trends unexpectedly emphasise how a number of essential accessibility features are becoming less prominently supported at a software-level, with these trends suggesting that further establishment of best practice guidelines and more stringent enforcement of accessibility recommendations by VR application platforms may be required to reverse the general growing inaccessibility of mainstream VR software.

Physical positioning flexibility is also decreasing, with primary seated posture progressively less offered. In addition to the reduction in input options, UI and output modality results indicate that users are largely unable to tailor the visual or audio experience to their own preferences or needs, with text size adjustment rarely included beyond depth-based control, display brightness settings contained in only 12 of the 330 applications, and dedicated colourblind control provided in just three applications. Potentially accessible haptic feedback, in particular for providing touch based information about the environment during locomotion, is also rarely included.

Interaction

Interaction findings include just under half of the applications allowing for dominant hand selection, whilst more fine-grained alterations over interactions, such as input key customisation with key binding alterations and adjustments to input sensitivity, with for example smoothing of aiming inputs, is generally less supported.

Physical Positioning

Although trends suggest primary seated posture is generally becoming less supported, seated access is generally well supported overall in 251 titles, with many applications either adapting to seated postures or providing options to choose between standing and seated access. Software-level lying down posture support however is available in just 4 titles, supporting the belief of bed-bound users that their access needs are not considered.

User Interface

Users are given little control over resizing of text or UI elements, with more detailed analysis revealing that depth-fixed size adjustments in particular are very rare.

Output Modality

Haptic feedback is found in a large number of titles, although further analysis reveals that haptics associated with locomotion may be underexplored in comparison to interactions, whilst volume and sound controls are also well supported in over 200 titles. Adjustments to colour and brightness however are very rare, vital considerations for users who are colourblind or have low vision for example.

Social & Communication

Subtitles and closed captions are included in 101 titles, whilst only 10 applications containing control over personal space, such as allowing for boundary bubbles, highlights how potential shared virtual environment harassment concerns are often not considered. Meanwhile, no title contains full signing support.