A Task-Centred Methodology to Evaluate the Design of Virtual Reality User Interactions: A Case Study on Hazard Identification
, Ruding Lou 1, Florence Danglade 1, Pablo Figueroa 2, Jose Tiberio Hernandez 2 and Frederic Merienne 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper discusses hazard identification in VR. The topic is timely and important given the importance of safety in construction. The paper suggested for major revisions based on the following comments.
- All the references in the text are missing. Please revise them carefully in the next round of revisions.
- The VR simulations presented in this paper are not realistic. Please clearly explain why such simulations were used. The authors could use new rendering pipelines such as HDRP to create a more realistic VR simulation.
- Please elaborate on why and how participants used different VR HMDs. Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, and Oculus Quest have different graphical capabilities. How the effect of using different VR HMD was addressed in this experiment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see my comments in the document attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
The idea of work is nice and interesting but the way you have presented the work is not scientific at all. Did you check the referencing system and list of it before submission ? The same for referring figures and tables which has no number. It needs a significant proofreading as there are many confusing sentences. In addition, how can it be implemented in reality and on site ? There are many factors which play a vital role. What about the time and cost of using such method in industry ? How exactly did you validate and concluded that the proposed method is good? And many other open questions that found this paper not suitable to be published in this stage.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is recommended for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
I could see significant changes in your revision however, it is not required to give a version where previous texts are still there (red and overlined) and new one are blue. It makes it difficult to follow and read. So please send me the final version as the version i could compare and you just need to highlight the new parts.
In addition, please provide the problem statement and novelty of your works and how it can be improved in future too.
The literature review can be still improved and as you are using modern method. Therefore look for some new similar works or techniques have been done for hazard and vulnerability assessment of buildings and construction sites such as:
-A Review on Application of Soft Computing Techniques for the Rapid Visual Safety Evaluation and Damage Classification of Existing Buildings
-ML-EHSAPP: a prototype for machine learning-based earthquake hazard safety assessment of structures by using a smartphone app
-Incorporating Virtual Reality Technology in Safety Training Solution for Construction Site of Urban Cities
-Development of BIM, IoT and AR/VR technologies for fire safety and upskilling
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Many thanks.
