An inclusive avatar needs more than an extra checkbox

From experiences to design guidance

Kexin Zhang and colleagues combined a literature review with interviews involving 60 participants with disabilities. They developed initial guidance across appearance, body dynamics, assistive technology, surrounding features and customization control, then evaluated it with 10 VR practitioners. The resulting paper presents 17 guidelines. The evaluation examines the guidance’s usefulness and coverage; it does not certify that a particular avatar product is accessible.

The model has to live in a room

A body is more than its thumbnail. An assistive device can look convincing in an editor and behave awkwardly when the avatar sits, turns, reaches, or meets another person. A feature intended to help someone express identity may become difficult to use if it cannot be adjusted independently. That is why an avatar review needs both a close look at the asset and a walk through ordinary interactions.

For an editorial desk, this changes the question asked of an inclusive launch. Instead of simply repeating the number of new options, ask what happens after someone selects one. Can the person change its appearance? Does it remain legible at common viewing distances? Can its behavior be controlled? Who evaluated it, and in what situations? Those questions make coverage more useful without pretending that a journalist can speak for every person who might use the feature.

Use a guideline as a starting point

Guidelines help teams remember issues that enthusiasm for a polished model can obscure. They also need interpretation with the people affected by a design. A checklist filled out by a developer is not the same thing as an accessible experience reported by users. Keep the research method, the implementation decision, and the eventual user feedback separate. That gives a team something concrete to improve and gives readers a fair way to judge whether a representation promise has become a usable feature.