An Accessible Serious Game-Based Platform for Process Learning of People with Intellectual Disabilities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Given your topic, you really should read Amit Pitaru's work on the subject of access and serious games:

Citation: Pitaru, Amit. “E Is for Everyone: The Case for Inclusive Game Design." The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning.

Edited by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press, 2008. 67–88. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.067

It was a little unclear to me whether all of the game on Ludominga were designed with the full iPlus methodology--please clarify.

Your definition of accessibility and the standards you used are good but insufficient. Please read Pitaru's work and include the concepts there as well, at least as additional recommended considerations. For example, physical disabilities require things like allowing the play to CONTROL the timing (e.g., how fast the spaceships fire at you in Space Invaders). these take the form of numbers that can be entered such as "Speed of Movement: 50%" and "Latency of Response." Allowing customizations over time, number, color, etc. are critical for full accessibility for those with physical and cognitive disabilities.

Your discussion and conclusions will need to be revised once you account for the factors outlined by Pitaru and others--namely, the recommendation that the games be designed so that players can modify speed, latency, color, size of icons, etc. This is currently a significant gap in your logic and design parameters and while I recognize that you cannot re-do those games, you should fully describe these parameters and make recommendations for their use as design considerations for SGs.

minor tense and singular/plural issues. Very good overall.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Given your topic, you really should read Amit Pitaru's work on the subject of access and serious games:

Citation: Pitaru, Amit. "E Is for Everyone: The Case for Inclusive Game Design." The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning.

Edited by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press, 2008. 67–88. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.067

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your recommendation of Amit Pitaru's article. We thoroughly enjoyed reading it and found it enriching to see many of our own experiences reflected in the accounts of other researchers in a different countries. This article has provided a valuable perspective on the topic of access and inclusive design of serious games, inspiring us to continue exploring and enhancing our practices in this field. We are grateful for your suggestion and will further enrich our work through a deeper understanding of prior research in the field. In addition, we refer to the author's suggestion. Pitaru, A. (2008). E is for everyone: The Case for inclusive game design. MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.067

It was a little unclear to me whether all of the game on Ludominga were designed with the full iPlus methodology--please clarify.

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. We have implemented what you have requested in the document highlighted in yellow in section 2.2. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. We appreciate your attention to detail and will take this opportunity to provide further clarification on the methodological approach followed in the development of the LudoMinga educational platform.

The LudoMinga development process was based on a comprehensive methodological approach that placed the target population, i.e. adults with intellectual disabilities who are users of a center for people with disabilities, at the center of all activities. We started with a user-centered design principle.

Our research was approached with an interdisciplinary approach, involving various professional experts in psychology, education, computer engineers, experts in video game design, programmers, and a shared vision that sought to articulate coherently the actors, approaches, components, and variables involved.

To begin with, a detailed identification of the target population's educational, emotional and cognitive characteristics was carried out, along with their specific support needs. This study allowed us to fully understand this group's particularities and adapt our approaches and strategies accordingly.

Next, we studied the most appropriate pedagogical approach to take into account. For this, the multiple intelligences model and the socio-ecological model of disability were adopted, which provided solid bases for the planning and design of the educational activities on the platform.

The design approach for the serious games was carried out using the iPlus methodology. This methodology was instrumental in gathering information on user requirements, formulating the pedagogical objectives, and the overall design of the serious game. It allowed the precise identification of the gameplay mechanics and gamification elements needed to achieve the desired learning outcomes.

 Your definition of accessibility and the standards you used are good but insufficient. Please read Pitaru's work and include the concepts there as well, at least as additional recommended considerations. For example, physical disabilities require things like allowing the play to CONTROL the timing (e.g., how fast the spaceships fire at you in Space Invaders). these take the form of numbers that can be entered such as "Speed of Movement: 50%" and "Latency of Response." Allowing customizations over time, number, color, etc. are critical for full accessibility for those with physical and cognitive disabilities.

Dear reviewer, we would like to highlight your clarity in highlighting the aspects that require more attention. Your comments have guided us in the right direction and have prompted us to go deeper into certain aspects to achieve a more solid and complete article. Your comments have been fully implemented in Section 4, "Discussion," lines 657 to 754.

Your discussion and conclusions will need to be revised once you account for the factors outlined by Pitaru and others--namely, the recommendation that the games be designed so that players can modify speed, latency, color, size of icons, etc. This is currently a significant gap in your logic and design parameters and while I recognize that you cannot re-do those games, you should fully describe these parameters and make recommendations for their use as design considerations for SGs.

Dear reviewer, once again, we sincerely thank you for your dedication and valuable contribution to our research. His comments have enriched us and have allowed us to present a higher-quality article. We are committed to academic excellence and value your support in this process. His comments have been fully implemented in Section 5, "Conclusions", lines 756 to 792.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Serious game is an interactive educational application which allows player to conquer game's goal and at the same time a player can practice skills that embedded behide the game objectives.

2. The Ludominga system was designed to facilitate the learning process of people with intellectual disabilities based on iPlus methodology.

3. This paper pointed out the important of enhancing learning accessibilty (Cognitive skills) for people with intellectual disability in section 1.

4. The research method based on iPlus (SCRUM) was described in section 2 (1. Identification 2. Pedagogy 3. Game history 4. Game play (Game cards) and 5. Refinement). The implementation of Ludominga was also described in this section.

5. The evaluation of Ludominga was shown in section 3. The platform used the WCAG as the guideline for user's accessibilities. The paper also evaluated the usabilities correspondence between CSQU and USU in 4 phases: 1. Participant identification 2. Evaluation 3. Results and 4. Conclusions.

6. The structure of paper is well organized and easy to follow. BTW, the missing part is how the Ludominga can enhance the cognitive skills of disability people since the paper only shows the evaluation of usabilites based on WCAG. The cognitive skills enhancement for disability people is the main objectives of this work.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Serious game is an interactive educational application which allows player to conquer game's goal and at the same time a player can practice skills that embedded behide the game objectives.

Dear reviewer, we welcome your comments and suggestions on our article "An Accessible Platform Based on Serious Games for Learning for People with Intellectual Disabilities." Your feedback is precious in improving the quality and relevance of our work. We address each of the points he has raised below:

We agree with your definition of serious games as interactive educational applications that allow players to achieve game objectives while practicing skills related to those objectives. We have included this definition in the corresponding section for better clarity.

2. The Ludominga system was designed to facilitate the learning process of people with intellectual disabilities based on iPlus methodology.
3. This paper pointed out the important of enhancing learning accessibilty (Cognitive skills) for people with intellectual disability in section 1.

We acknowledge that we have mentioned the iPlus methodology in connection with the design of the Ludominga platform to facilitate the learning process of people with intellectual disabilities. However, we understand that we must provide a more detailed explanation of this methodology and how it has been specifically applied in our work. In the review of the article, we expanded the description of the iPlus methodology and its connection with the design and development of the platform.

We appreciate your comment on improving cognitive accessibility for people with intellectual disabilities, as mentioned in Section 1. To address this more comprehensively, we will include an additional section that focuses explicitly on how Ludominga can improve the cognitive skills of people with intellectual disabilities. We explain in detail how the elements of serious games incorporated into the platform are designed to stimulate and develop specific cognitive skills.

After carrying out the comparative study, it was concluded that Ludominga is presented as the best option. This platform is accessible and free, which makes it easy for users to access the games. In addition, it offers a high level of customization, allowing you to create sessions tailored to the individual needs of users. The changes can be seen in lines 201 to 224 and Table 1.

4. The research method based on iPlus (SCRUM) was described in section 2 (1. Identification 2. Pedagogy 3. Game history 4. Game play (Game cards) and 5. Refinement). The implementation of Ludominga was also described in this section.

We noted your comment on the description of the iPlus-based research method (SCRUM) in section 2. In the article revision, we expanded the description of each of the stages of the research method, including a more detailed explanation of how the identification, pedagogy, game history, game itself, and refinement stages were carried out. Additionally, this section provides a more comprehensive description of the Ludominga implementation.

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your effort in providing a detailed and constructive review. His insights and perspectives have significantly strengthened our approach and enriched the results presented. His feedback has challenged our ideas and inspired us to make significant improvements. The changes can be seen from lines 325 to 345.

5. The evaluation of Ludominga was shown in section 3. The platform used the WCAG as the guideline for user's accessibilities. The paper also evaluated the usabilities correspondence between CSQU and USU in 4 phases: 1. Participant identification 2. Evaluation 3. Results and 4. Conclusions.

We welcome your additional comments and observations on our article. We appreciate your attention to the evaluation section and the methodology used to evaluate Ludominga. Next, we will address his points:

In section 3 of the article, we have presented Ludominga's evaluation. As you mentioned, we use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as a reference to ensure user accessibility. However, our explanation in the article was insufficient regarding how these guidelines were applied on the platform. The review article provides a more detailed and precise description of how we have specifically implemented WCAG in Ludominga to improve accessibility and user experience.

In addition, we appreciate your comment on evaluating the correspondence between CSQU (Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire) and USU (Usability Satisfaction Questionnaire) in the four phases: 1. Identification of participants, 2. Evaluation, 3. Results and 4. Conclusions. In the article review, we expanded on explaining these phases and provided more detail on how the assessments were conducted using these questionnaires. We also include the specific results obtained from these evaluations concerning the usability of Ludominga and its impact on the user experience.

6. The structure of paper is well organized and easy to follow. BTW, the missing part is how the Ludominga can enhance the cognitive skills of disability people since the paper only shows the evaluation of usabilites based on WCAG. The cognitive skills enhancement for disability people is the main objectives of this work.

Dear reviewer, we appreciate your appreciation of our article's well-organized and easy-to-follow structure. We also acknowledge your comment on the lack of emphasis on how Ludominga can improve the cognitive abilities of people with disabilities, as the article focuses primarily on WCAG-based usability assessment. Next, we will address this critical point:

We recognize that improving the cognitive abilities of people with intellectual disabilities is one of the main goals of our work. We regret that the explanation of how Ludominga can achieve this improvement was not clear enough in the initial article.

Thank you again for your constructive comments and your time spent reviewing. Dear reviewer, we thank you again for your valuable contribution and dedication to the review of our article. His comments have allowed us to strengthen and refine our research. We are committed to addressing the points raised and presenting an improved article version. The changes can be seen in lines 592 to 598 and Table 3.

In the review of the article, we will include a "Discussion" section and "Conclusions" focusing on how Ludominga contributes to improving the cognitive abilities of people with intellectual disabilities. We explain in detail how the elements of serious games built into the platform are designed to stimulate and develop specific cognitive skills, such as memory, attention, problem-solving, and decision-making.

We appreciate your comment and welcome your contribution to improving the clarity and relevance of our work. We value your commitment to the quality of the research and will endeavor to present an improved and more complete version of the article that adequately reflects the objectives and results related to improving cognitive abilities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study addresses the challenges and limitations faced by individuals with intellectual disabilities in the Ecuadorian context. It focuses on improving societal perception and promoting equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The research project involves various stakeholders, including experts, designers, and end-user representatives, to ensure that the platform meets the specific needs and preferences of individuals with intellectual disabilities. This approach enhances the platform's meaningful and engaging experience.

The study can compare the "LudoMinga" platform with existing similar platforms or interventions for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Including a comparative analysis would provide a benchmark for evaluating the uniqueness and effectiveness of the proposed platform.

The methodology does not provide information on the number of serious games evaluated or the specific details of the sample size used in the evaluation. Including this information would enhance the transparency and reliability of the evaluation process.

And then, authors mention that categories meeting the parameters were scored with "one (1)" and those that did not meet the parameters received a "zero (0)." However, the scoring criteria for each parameter are not elaborated upon, making it difficult to understand the specific scoring process.

Moreover, the study focuses on the Ecuadorian context, and it is unclear whether the findings and conclusions can be extrapolated to other cultural or geographical contexts. Including discussions on the potential transferability of the platform would enhance the study's applicability beyond its specific setting.

Finally, while the discussion acknowledges that developers face various challenges when evaluating accessibility and usability, it does not delve into specific challenges or provide guidance on how to overcome them. Further elaboration on common challenges and potential strategies for addressing them would be beneficial.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 The study addresses the challenges and limitations faced by individuals with intellectual disabilities in the Ecuadorian context. It focuses on improving societal perception and promoting equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The research project involves various stakeholders, including experts, designers, and end-user representatives, to ensure that the platform meets the specific needs and preferences of individuals with intellectual disabilities. This approach enhances the platform's meaningful and engaging experience.

The study can compare the "LudoMinga" platform with existing similar platforms or interventions for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Including a comparative analysis would provide a benchmark for evaluating the uniqueness and effectiveness of the proposed platform.

Dear reviewer, we appreciate your thorough review and the attention you have paid to every detail. His constructive feedback has helped strengthen our research and further refine our findings. We attach a comparative table of "Ludominga" with other platforms. A comparative study of platforms designed to acquire and strengthen cognitive skills was conducted. All analyzed platforms were accessible online via mobile or desktop using a web browser. In addition, these platforms had the pedagogical objective of reinforcing the users' cognitive abilities through games and playful activities.

Platforms with a greater diversity of games and tools were found to offer access to most of their content through a paid subscription. On the other hand, the reports of the users' sessions turned out to be fundamental indicators for evaluating the patient's progress. Some platforms, such as MindMate, only provided a record of daily activities, while others, such as Rehametrics and Elevate, provided one-off performance information. In contrast, Ludominga, NeuronUP, and Cognifit provided detailed reports on the progress of the games, providing more information to specialists about the users.

A relevant aspect to consider in this study was the personalization of activities and games. In this sense, the Ludominga and NeuronUP platforms modified various factors to adapt the work sessions to each patient's rhythm. Furthermore, these platforms were the only ones to incorporate usability and accessibility standards in developing their games and in the platform itself. Likewise, they were the only ones that allowed scalable management, covering organizations, professionals, and individual users. In contrast, other platforms only allowed user management.

After carrying out the comparative study, it was concluded that Ludominga is presented as the best option. This platform is accessible and free, which makes it easy for users to access the games. In addition, it offers a high level of customization, allowing you to create sessions tailored to the individual needs of users. The changes can be seen in lines 201 to 224 and Table 1.

The methodology does not provide information on the number of serious games evaluated or the specific details of the sample size used in the evaluation. Including this information would enhance the transparency and reliability of the evaluation process.

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your effort in providing a detailed and constructive review. His insights and perspectives have significantly strengthened our approach and enriched the results presented. His feedback has challenged our ideas and inspired us to make significant improvements. The changes can be seen from lines 325 to 345.

And then, authors mention that categories meeting the parameters were scored with "one (1)" and those that did not meet the parameters received a "zero (0)." However, the scoring criteria for each parameter are not elaborated upon, making it difficult to understand the specific scoring process.

Dear reviewer, we thank you again for your valuable contribution and dedication to the review of our article. His comments have allowed us to strengthen and refine our research. We are committed to addressing the points raised and presenting an improved article version. The changes can be seen in lines 592 to 598 and Table 3.

Moreover, the study focuses on the Ecuadorian context, and it is unclear whether the findings and conclusions can be extrapolated to other cultural or geographical contexts. Including discussions on the potential transferability of the platform would enhance the study's applicability beyond its specific setting. Finally, while the discussion acknowledges that developers face various challenges when evaluating accessibility and usability, it does not delve into specific challenges or provide guidance on how to overcome them. Further elaboration on common challenges and potential strategies for addressing them would be beneficial.

Dear reviewer, we appreciate your kind guidance and any suggestions you have offered to address limitations or areas requiring further development. Your critical feedback has helped us identify areas for improvement and raise the overall quality of our work. Thank you once again for your time and support in this process. Your guidance and experience have been invaluable, and we hope that we can count on your continued assistance in future revisions. We have made the changes in sections 4 and 5 of "Discussion" and "Conclusions".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf