pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.02132 · v1 · submitted 2025-09-02 · 💻 cs.HC

Shared Control for Game Accessibility: Understanding Current Human Cooperation Practices to Inform the Design of Partial Automation Solutions

Dragan Ahmetovic , Matteo Manzoni , Filippo Corti , Sergio Mascetti This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 20:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords shared controlgame accessibilityautomationsoftware agentshuman cooperationvideo gamesdesign guidelinesdisability support
0
0 comments X

The pith

Shared control practices from disabled gamers can guide the design of software agents to automate assistance and reduce reliance on human helpers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how shared control currently works in video games, where players with disabilities delegate inaccessible controls to another person. Interviews with 14 participants who have used this approach reveal that it opens up otherwise unplayable games but creates problems around availability, consistency, and privacy. Participants expressed interest in replacing the human assistant with software agents, yet they specified requirements such as reliability, customization options, and ways to handle edge cases. These findings are used to propose guidelines that future automation systems should follow to preserve the benefits of shared control while removing the need for a live helper.

Core claim

Shared control is essential for enabling access to otherwise inaccessible games, but its reliance on human support is a key limitation. Through interviews with 14 individuals with lived experience, the study maps current cooperation practices, the accessibility challenges addressed, and the conditions under which support could be automated. Participants welcomed software agents to handle delegated controls while identifying concrete limitations and design requirements for such systems.

What carries the argument

Interviews with 14 participants experienced in shared control, used to extract current practices and derive automation design guidelines.

If this is right

  • Automation can remove the need for a human assistant while retaining the accessibility benefits of shared control.
  • Design guidelines must address player concerns around trust, adaptability, and handling of complex game situations.
  • Partial automation solutions become feasible for games that are currently inaccessible without human help.
  • Insights from human cooperation can directly shape the behavior of software agents in real-time game support.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same interview method could be applied to other accessibility domains, such as shared control in robotics or navigation tools.
  • Prototyping and user testing of agents that follow the derived guidelines would provide a direct way to measure improvements in game access.
  • Connections exist to broader questions of human-AI teaming in entertainment and daily living assistance.

Load-bearing premise

The practices and requirements described by these 14 interviewees are representative enough to serve as reliable guidelines for building automated systems.

What would settle it

Deploying a software agent built from the reported guidelines and finding that it fails to enable gameplay for a new group of users with similar disabilities would challenge the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02132 by Dragan Ahmetovic, Filippo Corti, Matteo Manzoni, Sergio Mascetti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Relationship between shared control, human cooperation, and partial automation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Shared control is a form of video gaming accessibility support that allows players with disabilities to delegate inaccessible controls to another person. Through interviews involving 14 individuals with lived experience of accessible gaming in shared control, we explore the ways in which shared control technologies are adopted in practice, the accessibility challenges they address, and how the support currently provided in shared control can be automated to remove the need for a human assistant. Findings indicate that shared control is essential for enabling access to otherwise inaccessible games, but its reliance on human support is a key limitation. Participants welcomed the idea of automating the support with software agents, while also identifying limitations and design requirements. Accordingly, this work contributes insights into current practices and proposes guidelines for developing automated support systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from semi-structured interviews with 14 individuals who have lived experience using shared control for video game accessibility. It examines current human cooperation practices, the accessibility barriers these practices address, the limitations of relying on human assistants, and participants' perspectives on replacing or augmenting that support with software agents. The authors synthesize these insights into design requirements and guidelines for partial automation systems that could enable more independent play.

Significance. If the qualitative findings prove robust, the work supplies concrete, user-grounded insights into an under-explored accessibility mechanism and translates them into actionable guidelines for automated shared-control agents. This has direct relevance for HCI and game-accessibility research, potentially reducing dependence on human helpers and expanding playable game titles for players with motor, cognitive, or other impairments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The manuscript states that interviews were conducted and themes extracted but supplies no information on recruitment strategy, inclusion criteria, participant demographics (disability categories, gaming experience, game genres), interview protocol or guide, analytical procedure (e.g., inductive thematic analysis steps, coding process), or rigor measures such as member checking or saturation assessment. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claims about practices, limitations, and automation requirements rest entirely on the trustworthiness of this qualitative process.
  2. [Results] Results / Discussion: The claim that the 14 interviewees' reported practices and stated requirements can reliably inform software-agent design guidelines assumes the sample captures necessary variation across impairment types and game contexts. The paper does not report sample diversity, the range of disabilities represented, or evidence of thematic saturation, leaving open the possibility that key perspectives (e.g., cognitive vs. motor impairments or specific genres) are missing and could alter the identified design requirements.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction could briefly note the qualitative approach (e.g., 'thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews') to give readers an immediate sense of the evidence base.
  2. [Findings] Participant quotes in the findings would benefit from consistent attribution (e.g., P1, P2) and clearer linkage to the specific themes or guidelines they support.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the transparency and robustness of our qualitative study. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional methodological details and sample descriptions where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The manuscript states that interviews were conducted and themes extracted but supplies no information on recruitment strategy, inclusion criteria, participant demographics (disability categories, gaming experience, game genres), interview protocol or guide, analytical procedure (e.g., inductive thematic analysis steps, coding process), or rigor measures such as member checking or saturation assessment. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claims about practices, limitations, and automation requirements rest entirely on the trustworthiness of this qualitative process.

    Authors: We agree that the original Methods section was insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we have added a full description of recruitment (via targeted posts in disability-focused gaming communities and accessibility advocacy networks), inclusion criteria (adults with disabilities who have direct experience with or considered using shared control for gaming), a demographics table covering disability categories (motor, cognitive, sensory, and multiple), gaming experience levels, and preferred genres, the semi-structured interview protocol with example questions, the reflexive thematic analysis procedure (following Braun and Clarke’s six phases with two independent coders), and rigor measures including iterative codebook refinement and an audit trail. We did not conduct member checking, which we now explicitly note as a limitation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results / Discussion: The claim that the 14 interviewees' reported practices and stated requirements can reliably inform software-agent design guidelines assumes the sample captures necessary variation across impairment types and game contexts. The paper does not report sample diversity, the range of disabilities represented, or evidence of thematic saturation, leaving open the possibility that key perspectives (e.g., cognitive vs. motor impairments or specific genres) are missing and could alter the identified design requirements.

    Authors: We accept that greater transparency about sample composition is required. The revised manuscript now includes an expanded participant description and table showing the distribution of impairment types (primarily motor impairments with smaller numbers of cognitive and sensory), gaming experience, and genres played. We also added a brief analysis of theme consistency across subgroups. However, we did not perform a formal saturation assessment during data collection; we instead relied on the depth of data obtained from 14 participants, which aligns with sample sizes in comparable HCI accessibility studies. This choice and its implications for the design guidelines are now discussed as a limitation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: qualitative interview study with no derivations or self-referential loops

full rationale

The paper reports an exploratory qualitative study based on interviews with 14 participants who have lived experience of shared control in accessible gaming. All central claims—regarding current practices, accessibility challenges addressed, limitations of human support, participant openness to automation, and proposed design guidelines—are presented as direct outputs of thematic analysis of the interview data. There are no equations, fitted parameters, predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes. No self-citation chains or load-bearing references to prior author work are used to justify the core findings. The derivation is inductive from external participant statements and remains self-contained against the collected data; concerns about sample representativeness pertain to generalizability rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative interview study; the central claim rests on the assumption that self-reported experiences from a small purposive sample can be translated into general design guidelines without quantitative validation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Participant accounts of current shared-control practices accurately reflect real usage patterns and accessibility barriers.
    Invoked when the authors treat interview responses as the basis for both understanding current practices and deriving automation requirements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5659 in / 1174 out tokens · 45802 ms · 2026-05-18T20:16:49.110673+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    8BitDo. n.d.. 8BitDo Lite SE. https://www.8bitdo.com/lite-se

    work page

  2. [2]

    Activision. 2003. Call of Duty. Video game series. https://www.callofduty.com

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Juan Aguado-Delgado, José-Maria Gutierrez-Martinez, José R Hilera, Luis De-Marcos, and Salvador Otón. 2020. Accessibility in video games: a systematic review. Universal Access in the Information Society 19, 1 (2020), 169–193

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Dragan Ahmetovic, Daniele Riboli, Cristian Bernareggi, and Sergio Mascetti. 2021. RePlay: Touchscreen interaction substitution method for accessible gaming. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction . 1–12

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Paul G Backes and Kam S Tso. 1990. UMI: An interactive supervisory and shared control system for telerobotics. In Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 1096–1101

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Kevin Bierre, Jonathan Chetwynd, Barrie Ellis, D Michelle Hinn, Stephanie Ludi, and Thomas Westin. 2005. Game not over: Accessibility issues in video games. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction . 22–27

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    2004.Accessibility in Games: Motivations and Approaches

    Kevin Bierre, Michelle Hinn, Teresa Martin, Michael McIntosh, Tess Snider, Katie Stone, and Thomas Westin. 2004.Accessibility in Games: Motivations and Approaches. White paper. International Game Developers Association Game Accessibility Special Interest Group. White paper

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Mark Brown and Sky LaRell Anderson. 2021. Designing for disability: Evaluating the state of accessibility design in video games. Games and Culture 16, 6 (2021), 702–718

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Michelle A Brown and I Scott MacKenzie. 2013. Evaluating video game controller usability as related to user hand size. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia and Human Computer Interaction . 1–9

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    ByoWave. n.d.. Proteus Controller. https://byowave.com/products/proteus-controller

    work page

  11. [11]

    Jared E Cechanowicz, Carl Gutwin, Scott Bateman, Regan Mandryk, and Ian Stavness. 2014. Improving player balancing in racing games. In Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computer-human interaction in play . 47–56

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Gabriele Cimolino, Sussan Askari, and TC Nicholas Graham. 2021. The role of partial automation in increasing the accessibility of digital games. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CHI PLAY (2021), 1–30

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Gabriele Cimolino, Renee Chen, Carl Gutwin, and TC Nicholas Graham. 2023. Automation Confusion: A Grounded Theory of Non-Gamers’ Confusion in Partially Automated Action Games. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Gabriele Cimolino and TC Nicholas Graham. 2022. Two heads are better than one: A dimension space for unifying human and artificial intelligence in shared control. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–21

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Gabriele Cimolino, Carl Gutwin, and T.C. Graham. 2022. Impact of Awareness Cues on Trust in Human-AI Shared Control. In TRAIT: Workshop on Trust and Reliance in AI–Human Teams, at CHI 2022 . ACM

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    ConsoleTuner. n.d.. Titan Two. https://www.consoletuner.com/products/titan-two

    work page

  17. [17]

    Flex Controller. n.d.. Flex Controller. https://www.flex-controller.com

    work page

  18. [18]

    Mat Dalgleish. 2023. Who Can Play? Rethinking Video Game Controllers and Accessibility. In Disability and Video Games: Practices of En-/Disabling Modes of Digital Gaming . Springer, 43–71

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Guillermo del Toro. 2013. Pacific Rim. Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures. (Motion picture)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Paul Dietz and Darren Leigh. 2001. DiamondTouch: a multi-user touch technology. In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology . 219–226

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    Anca D Dragan and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2013. A policy-blending formalism for shared control. The International Journal of Robotics Research 32, 7 (2013), 790–805

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    Nintendo EAD. 2017. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Video game, released on Nintendo Switch

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Sony Interactive Entertainment. 2023. PS5 Access Controller. https://www.playstation.com/accessories/access-controller

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Daniela Feth, Binh An Tran, Raphaela Groten, Angelika Peer, and Martin Buss. 2009. Shared-control paradigms in multi-operator-single-robot teleoperation. In Human Centered Robot Systems: Cognition, Interaction, Technology . Springer, 53–62

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    My Zelda Cane

    David Gonçalves, Manuel Piçarra, Pedro Pais, João Guerreiro, and André Rodrigues. 2023. " My Zelda Cane": Strategies Used by Blind Players to Play Visual-Centric Digital Games. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–15

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    David Gonçalves, André Rodrigues, Mike L Richardson, Alexandra A De Sousa, Michael J Proulx, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2021. Exploring asymmetric roles in mixed-ability gaming. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Deepak Gopinath, Siddarth Jain, and Brenna D Argall. 2016. Human-in-the-loop optimization of shared autonomy in assistive robotics. IEEE robotics and automation letters 2, 1 (2016), 247–254

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Bastian Ilsø Hougaard, Ingeborg Goll Rossau, Jedrzej Jacek Czapla, Mozes Adorjan Miko, Rasmus Bugge Skammelsen, Hendrik Knoche, and Mads Jochumsen. 2021. Who willed it? decreasing frustration by manipulating perceived control through fabricated input for stroke rehabilitation BCI games. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CHI PLAY (202...

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Not There Yet

    Jeremy Zhengqi Huang, Hriday Chhabria, and Dhruv Jain. 2023. “Not There Yet”: Feasibility and Challenges of Mobile Sound Recognition to Support Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility . 1–14

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Susan Hwang, Adrian L Jessup Schneider, Daniel Clarke, Alexander Macintosh, Lauren Switzer, Darcy Fehlings, and TC Nicholas Graham. 2017. How game balancing affects play: Player adaptation in an exergame for children with cerebral palsy. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on designing interactive systems. 699–710

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    JoyToKey. n.d.. JoyToKey. https://joytokey.net/en

    work page

  32. [32]

    Eamonn Keogh and Abdullah Mueen. 2011. Curse of dimensionality. In Encyclopedia of machine learning . Springer, 257–258

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2017. Research methods in human-computer interaction . Morgan Kaufmann

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Mingjun Li, Haotian Cao, Xiaolin Song, Yanjun Huang, Jianqiang Wang, and Zhi Huang. 2018. Shared control driver assistance system based on driving intention and situation assessment. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 14, 11 (2018), 4982–4994

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Lasecki, Kyle I

    Anna Loparev, Walter S. Lasecki, Kyle I. Murray, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2014. Introducing shared character control to existing video games. In International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    William Lu. 2008. Evolution of video game controllers. Roseville: Prima Publishing 2 (2008)

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Dario Maggiorini, Marco Granato, Laura Anna Ripamonti, Matteo Marras, and Davide Gadia. 2017. Evolution of game controllers: Toward the support of gamers with physical disabilities. In International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications . Springer, 66–89

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Matteo Manzoni, Dragan Ahmetovic, and Sergio Mascetti. 2024. Personalized Facial Gesture Recognition for Accessible Mobile Gaming. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs . Springer, 120–127

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Jesse J Martinez, Jon E Froehlich, and James Fogarty. 2024. Playing on hard mode: Accessibility, difficulty and joy in video game adoption for gamers with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Lucas Medeiros and Flavio Coutinho. 2015. Developing an Accessible One-Switch Game for Motor Impaired Players. Proceedings of SBGames (2015), 236–239

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Microsoft. 2017. Xbox Controller Assist (formerly Xbox Copilot) . https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/account-profile/accessibility/copilot

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Microsoft. 2025. Gaming Copilot. https://news.xbox.com/2025/08/06/gaming-copilot-beta-begins-rolling-out-to-xbox-insiders-on-game-bar-today

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Microsoft. n.d.. Xbox Adaptive Controller. https://www.xbox.com/accessories/controllers/xbox-adaptive-controller

    work page

  44. [44]

    Bonan Min, Hayley Ross, Elior Sulem, Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Thien Huu Nguyen, Oscar Sainz, Eneko Agirre, Ilana Heintz, and Dan Roth. 2023. Recent advances in natural language processing via large pre-trained language models: A survey. Computing Surveys (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Sarah Mosely, Raeda Anderson, George Usmanov, John Morris, and Ben Lippincott. 2022. Video game trends over time for people with disabilities. The Journal on Technology and Persons with Disabilities 232 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Tutan Nama and Debasis Samanta. 2024. QC Speller: User Interface Design of a Hands-Free Touch-Free Speller with Brain Electroencephalogram Sensory Rhythm. Transactions on Accessible Computing (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Nintendo. 1998. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Video game, originally released on Nintendo 64, and later on Nintendo GameCube. https://www.nintendo.co.jp/n01/n64/software/zelda/index.html

    work page 1998

  48. [48]

    Youn Soo Park and Roberto Manduchi. 2024. A Functional Usability Analysis of Appearance-Based Gaze Tracking for Accessibility. In Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    PlatinumGames. 2014. Bayonetta. Video game, originally released on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and later on Nintendo Wii U, Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    PlatinumGames. 2014. Bayonetta 2. Video game, originally released on Nintendo Wii U and later on Nintendo Switch

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    PlayAbility. n.d.. PlayAbility. https://www.playability.gg

    work page

  52. [52]

    Priori Data. 2025. How Many Gamers Are There in 2025? Latest Stats . https://prioridata.com/number-of-gamers/

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Marco C Rozendaal, Bram AL Braat, and Stephan AG Wensveen. 2010. Exploring sociality and engagement in play through game-control distribution. Ai & Society 25 (2010), 193–201

    work page 2010

  54. [54]

    SIMA Team, Maria Abi Raad, Arun Ahuja, Catarina Barros, Frederic Besse, Andrew Bolt, Adrian Bolton, Bethanie Brownfield, Gavin Buttimore, Max Cant, Sarah Chakera, Stephanie C. Y. Chan, Jeff Clune, Adrian Collister, Vikki Copeman, Alex Cullum, Ishita Dasgupta, Dario de Cesare, Julia Di Trapani, Yani Donchev, Emma Dunleavy, Martin Engelcke, Ryan Faulkner, F...

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Warhorse Studios. 2018. Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Video game, released on Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Philipp Sykownik, Katharina Emmerich, and Maic Masuch. 2017. Exploring patterns of shared control in digital multiplayer games. In International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment . Springer, 847–867. 26 Ahmetovic et al

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    Gareth Terry, Nikki Hayfield, Victoria Clarke, Virginia Braun, et al. 2017. Thematic analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology 2, 17-37 (2017), 25

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    Turn 10 Studios. 2023. Forza Motorsport Accessibility Support . https://support.forzamotorsport.net/hc/en-us/articles/20964254277267-Forza- Motorsport-Accessibility-Support

    work page arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Rodrigo Vicencio-Moreira, Regan L Mandryk, Carl Gutwin, and Scott Bateman. 2014. The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of aim-assist techniques in first-person shooter games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 937–946

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    VoiceAttack. n.d.. VoiceAttack. https://voiceattack.com

    work page

  61. [61]

    Dakuo Wang, Elizabeth Churchill, Pattie Maes, Xiangmin Fan, Ben Shneiderman, Yuanchun Shi, and Qianying Wang. 2020. From human-human collaboration to Human-AI collaboration: Designing AI systems that can work together with people. In Extended abstracts of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–6

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Xbox. n.d.. Xbox Adaptive Joystick. https://www.xbox.com/accessories/controllers/xbox-adaptive-joystick

    work page

  63. [63]

    Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2019. Explainable AI: A brief survey on history, research areas, approaches and challenges. In CCF international conference on natural language processing and Chinese computing . Springer, 563–574

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Bei Yuan, Eelke Folmer, and Frederick C Harris Jr. 2011. Game accessibility: a survey.Universal Access in the information Society 10, 1 (2011), 81–100

    work page 2011