<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Accessibility and Tabletop Gaming: Randomizers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boldpueblo.com/dazed/2009/11/accessibility-randomizers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boldpueblo.com/dazed/2009/11/accessibility-randomizers/</link>
	<description>Game Geekery for 4e D&#38;D (and Alternity!)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 04:17:48 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://boldpueblo.com/dazed/2009/11/accessibility-randomizers/comment-page-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boldpueblo.com/dazed/?p=76#comment-19</guid>
		<description>For brailling playing cards using a &quot;playing card slate&quot; which are available for under $20 from specialty stores that sell adaptive products makes much more sense than using a braille embosser. Most embossers would not be able to accept playing cards because they can only use tractor-fed paper. For cards that don&#039;t have much information it&#039;s easy to use this slate to braille directly on the cards. For cards with too much information to fit you can braille some sort of identification code on the card itself, and have a longer document that lists all the cards and complete information for each. For cards that you don&#039;t want to braille on directly (e.g., if the blind person doesn&#039;t own the game), you can braille onto those clear plastic card protectors and put the cards inside them (although that might make shuffling a bit tricky), or even construct a completely alternate deck of cards on index cards that mirrors the regular deck, to be used only by the blind player when they need it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For brailling playing cards using a &#8220;playing card slate&#8221; which are available for under $20 from specialty stores that sell adaptive products makes much more sense than using a braille embosser. Most embossers would not be able to accept playing cards because they can only use tractor-fed paper. For cards that don&#8217;t have much information it&#8217;s easy to use this slate to braille directly on the cards. For cards with too much information to fit you can braille some sort of identification code on the card itself, and have a longer document that lists all the cards and complete information for each. For cards that you don&#8217;t want to braille on directly (e.g., if the blind person doesn&#8217;t own the game), you can braille onto those clear plastic card protectors and put the cards inside them (although that might make shuffling a bit tricky), or even construct a completely alternate deck of cards on index cards that mirrors the regular deck, to be used only by the blind player when they need it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Accessibility and Tabletop Gaming: Rulebooks &#171; Dazed (save ends)</title>
		<link>http://boldpueblo.com/dazed/2009/11/accessibility-randomizers/comment-page-1/#comment-17</link>
		<dc:creator>Accessibility and Tabletop Gaming: Rulebooks &#171; Dazed (save ends)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boldpueblo.com/dazed/?p=76#comment-17</guid>
		<description>[...] And yes, sure, there are problems with any automated analysis like this, but they&#8217;re just trying to provide an approximation. The general rule is this: The more readable your writing, the more people who are able to play. Next in the series: Randomizers (e.g., dice) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] And yes, sure, there are problems with any automated analysis like this, but they&#8217;re just trying to provide an approximation. The general rule is this: The more readable your writing, the more people who are able to play. Next in the series: Randomizers (e.g., dice) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
