The Complexity of Simple Goals: Case Study of a User-Centred Thermoregulation System for Smart Living and Optimal Energy Use

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the Manuscript ID sustainability-529582

The article seems to be an important contribution to reducing energy use at homes. Below are some comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript.

·       Please use in the title (line 4) and throughout the text (e.g. line 12, 76, 103, 105, 137, 139, 151, 262, 283, etc.) “energy use” instead of “energy consumption”, since energy can not be consumed (Lawrence et al, 2019, p. 4)

Lawrence, A., Thollander, P., Andrei, M., Karlsson, M., 2019. Specific Energy Consumption / Use (SEC) in Energy Management for Improving Energy Efficiency in Industry: Meaning, Usage and Differences. Energies 2019; 12, 247:1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12020247.

·       Please explain all the abbreviations in the abstract and in the text the first time the abbreviations are used. For example:

o   IoTs (lines 13, 42),

o   UX (lines 23, 37),

o   ICT (line 42)

·       Please fill in the text that was intended in the ”()” or delete ”()” (line 280).

·       Please include more information about the respondents in the section - 3.1. Methods. Descriptive statistics about the respondents, their living conditions (e.g. house, apartment, yearly energy use, etc.) would help to understand what the results of your research represent. How were the respondents chosen? Why them? Please motivate why the respondents were the most suitable for answering your questions.

·       Please provide the questions and a copy of the questionnaire in the appendix.

·       Please extend the explanation of the tabell 1. How was the table constructed, what are the different  terms in in the table, etc. For example, please specify what skills were considered as being low technological skills and what skills were considered as being medium technological skills.

·       Please extend the discussion section by relating your results with the results from other scientific studies.

·       Please discuss what practical implications of your results.

Author Response

The text “energy consumption” has been replaced with “energy use” where required.

Abbreviations have been explained the first time the abbreviations are used.

”()” (line 280) has been deleted.

More information about respondants in section 3.1 has been added and the choice criteria have been explained.

A copy of the questionnaire has been provided.

User profiles including skills and preferences summarized in Tabel 1 are explained before the table presentation.

The discussion section has been implemented,

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction section should be improved in terms of setting a clear objective of the paper. It is not very clear what authors intended to study in the paper. Please, also check the numbering of the sub-chapters.

The users inquiry is quite limited and cannot be used for a new equipment design. (interface design). However, these results can be further used by setting some recommendations for interface improvements for example of the existing equipment.

The so-called workflow presented in figure 9 should be much more better explained and the results of this design should be presented.

It is not clear, at all, if the results of the research led to development of a new user interface for home control systems

The discussion and conclusion section should be based on data. So, please include data.

Overall, recommendation is that the authors should re-think the structure of paper, state a clear research objective, explain the methodology of research, analyze the results and clearly present conclusions.

There should be also paid attention to what section of the journal the paper is submitted and the content of the paper should correspond to it.

Author Response

The introduction section has been improved specifying the role of interaction designers and the aim of the paper, that is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the design driven approach through the exemplification by the reported case study.

The numbering of the sub-chapters has been corrected

The intent of the users inquiry towards the redesign of the existing control system and user interface, the involvement of TEPORE partners and the choice of the survey subject has been explained in section 3.1. More information about the Degradi cooperative are given in section 3.

The workflow presented in figure 9 has been explained and the results section has been implemented.

The discussion and conclusion section has been deepened listing the achievements of the TEPORE project and explicating advancements and risks of the proposed control system.

The paper is proposed for the special issue entitled "The Future of Design for Sustainability". 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I think that the article is suitable for publication.

Sincerely, Reviewer

Author Response

the authors thank for support

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments/suggestions for authors:

Please check the paper format (e.g. sub-chapter 3.2, caption of figure 7

I would also recommend including the final paragraph of section 3 (page 17) into section 4 Conclusions.

Author Response

the authors applied all the changes suggested, fixing the formal failure of figures and moving the last part of chapter 3 into chapter 4