Assisting Hearing and Physically Impaired Students in Navigating Immersive Virtual Reality for Library Orientation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present the design and development of a virtual reality (VR) platform to help hearing and physically impaired students in navigating and utilizing library services at a university. The VR-ISLS (Virtual Reality for Impaired Students in Library Services) platform incorporates assistive technology features such as sign language interpretation, customizable audio cues, vibration feedback, and various locomotion controls.
The authors used the System Usability Scale (SUS) to evaluate the overall usability of the virtual reality platform. They used a satisfaction questionnaire to collect feedback on the accessibility and usability of key features within the VR-ISLS platform. The authors also gathered insights into students' perceptions and feedback on the application’s effectiveness as a tool for promoting library services tailored to students with impairments using an open-ended questionnaire.
Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, the authors should consider the following suggestions/comments to further improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
1. Lines 21 - 23: The phrase 'Research and Development approach' is not appropriate. Rewrite this sentence.
2. Line 138: "Table 1 is examples of physical disabilities." Replace 'is' with 'provides'.
3. Figure 2 caption: "The blueprint of first floor and physical environment of the library for impaired students." Instead of 'for impaired students' use the phrase 'for hearing and physically impaired students'.
4. Table 4 caption: "Physical Environment of the Library for Impaired Students". Instead of 'for impaired students' use the phrase 'for hearing and physically impaired students'.
5. Lines 384 - 386: "In this study, the VR system received an average SUS score of approximately 77 out of 100 from eight participants, as shown in Figure 7 and Table 7." Did only 8 participants provide responses for the SUS scale? However, Table 7 lists N = 20.
6. Lines 398 - 399: "The satisfaction questionnaire results, shown in Figure X and Table 8, indicate generally positive ratings for the VR platform’s assistive features." It should be Figure 8.
Author Response
Comment 1: Lines 21-23: The phrase 'Research and Development approach' is not appropriate. Rewrite this sentence.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the sentence to improve clarity and accuracy by replacing the phrase "Research and Development approach" with "iterative development process," which more accurately describes the methodology used in this study.
Comment 2: "Table 1 is examples of physical disabilities." Replace 'is' with 'provides'.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced 'is' with 'provides'.
Comment 3: Figure 2 caption: "The blueprint of first floor and physical environment of the library for impaired students." Instead of 'for impaired students' use the phrase 'for hearing and physically impaired students'.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the caption of Figure 2 to "The blueprint of the first floor and physical environment of the library for hearing and physically impaired students."
Comment 4: Table 4 caption: "Physical Environment of the Library for Impaired Students". Instead of 'for impaired students' use the phrase 'for hearing and physically impaired students'.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the caption of Table 4 to "Physical Environment of the Library for hearing and physically impaired students."
Comment 5: Lines 384-386: "In this study, the VR system received an average SUS score of approximately 77 out of 100 from eight participants, as shown in Figure 7 and Table 7." Did only 8 participants provide responses for the SUS scale? However, Table 7 lists N = 20.
Response 5: Apologies for our mistake. We have corrected the reference to participants from 8 to 20 on line 402.
Comment 6: Lines 398-399: "The satisfaction questionnaire results, shown in Figure X and Table 8, indicate generally positive ratings for the VR platform’s assistive features." It should be Figure 8.
Response 6: Apologies for our mistake. We have corrected "Figure X" to "Figure 8."
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current study aims to develop and evaluate the feasibility of a VR system for students with hearing and physical impairments to facilitate library orientation.
Indeed, the topic is interesting. It is crucial to promote digital literacy services in academic libraries and make academic libraries more inclusive. This study has a significant potential for future research. It has practical application.
The title is relevant to the study’s objectives. Previous research is mentioned/ The gap is explained. It would be useful to comment on the evaluation methods of the study.
The introduction outlines the significance of the study and the potential contribution.
The second section provides the necessary definitions of VR. I fully agree with the point of view of the 2.2 and 2.3 sections. A few studies recognize the important role of society in the quality of life of people with such difficulties. The way of presentation helps the reader realize the significance of the study. The use of Inclusive language is an important topic too that the researcher takes into account.
The third section adequately describes the objectives of the study.
The fourth section analyzes in detail the design of the VR system using relevant figures.
The research was conducted by a team of experts and the study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee. As regards the participants, it would be useful to analyze in more detail the exclusion criteria. Except for visual impairments, did you include other exclusion criteria? The use of VR is closely related to several risks that it is necessary to take into account.
The results are analyzed in detail.
The discussion provides several useful interpretations.
The conclusions are sufficient.
Author Response
comment 1: The research was conducted by a team of experts and the study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee. As regards the participants, it would be useful to analyze in more detail the exclusion criteria. Except for visual impairments, did you include other exclusion criteria? The use of VR is closely related to several risks that it is necessary to take into account.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added more details about the exclusion criteria in lines 353–354.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors"Assisting Hearing and Physically Impaired Students in Navigating Immersive Virtual Reality for Library Orientation" is an interesting proposal for publication in the "technologies" journal.
Some points:
1) Αt the end of “1. Introduction” write analytically the next parts of the article.
2) I can not understand the order of presentation of the reports. Start normally with [1] and continue...
3) Related works are not related works for the subject but a taxonomy of hearing and physical disabilities. It is ok as meaning, but I believe RQ must be presented first.
4) Figure 1. The overall process of implementing the VR application: please produce a better flow chart!
5) The result of the Satisfaction Questionnaire: how is this produced?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
No basic problems
Author Response
comment 1:Αt the end of “1. Introduction” write analytically the next parts of the article.
Response 1:Thank you for the suggestion. We have added an analytical outline of the next parts of the article in lines 58–67.
comment 2:I can not understand the order of presentation of the reports. Start normally with [1] and continue...
Response 2:Apologies for our mistake. We have corrected the referencing issue in the manuscript. References now start sequentially from [1] and progress accordingly.
comment 3:Related works are not related works for the subject but a taxonomy of hearing and physical disabilities. It is ok as meaning, but I believe RQ must be presented first.
Response 3:Thank you for your feedback. While the Related Works section primarily discusses the taxonomy of hearing and physical disabilities, we intended this to provide essential context for understanding the specific challenges and requirements that guided the design of the VR platform. This background ensures that the study's focus on accessibility and assistive features is well-founded.
The placement of the Research Questions in the subsequent section (Purpose of the Study) was chosen to present them after establishing the necessary context and gaps addressed by this research. However, to improve clarity, we have added a statement in the Related Works section to explicitly connect it to the objectives of the study and the research questions.
comment 4:Figure 1. The overall process of implementing the VR application: please produce a better flow chart!
Response 4:Thank you for the feedback. We have revised Figure 1 to improve the quality of the flow chart.
comment 5:The result of the Satisfaction Questionnaire: how is this produced?
Response 5:Thank you for your comment. The results of the Satisfaction Questionnaire were produced through a structured analysis process. Participant responses were collected using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate various assistive features, including the user interface, audio cues, text display, vibration feedback, locomotion controls, and the sign language interpreter. We have added a brief explanation of this process in Section 5.3.2, specifically on lines 415–417, to clarify how the results were derived.
