Invisible but Understandable: In Search of the Sweet Spot between Technology Invisibility and Transparency in Smart Spaces and Beyond

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addresses an important and timely problem area. The contribution is low however due to a lack of grounding in existing literature, a very limited empirical study (workshop), and what seems to be a digitally corrupted formatting of the manuscript itself which makes text chunks go missing and become misformatted.

The work's main contribution is to highlight various aspects of the challenges in finding the sweet spot between too much and too little transparency in automatic processes.

- The "Room Intelligence" concept needs a better framing in existing smart space and intelligent assistant literature instead of being anchored through a reference to one of the the main author's own recent publications. The co-authoring computer scientists should be able to support the main author with this. For example:

p4: Regarding explainable AI in the smart spaces context I miss a reference to Belotti & Edwards (xxxx) and their concept of intelligibility.

p4-5: Regarding the idea of a coherent UI that hides the cacaphony of multiple UIs and acts as mediator I miss a reference to the vast literature on "Intelligent Assistants" within wearable computer research, and intelligent user interface research, which contains many proposals for systems imagined to mediate the surrounding world in a uniform way to users.

- The results section is hard to read due to formatting errors and assumed missing text pieces (see detailed comments below).

Detailed comments

-----------------

- Unmotivated double spaces throughout the manuscript, e.g. p1 "more than anything else the void is precious"

- Pieces of text missing, e.g.:

p2 "the car would wait before engaging evasive maneu-"

p3 "It takes many ... presumably better than"

p4 "How-

ble if they acted in a consistent way and communicated their thoughts and intentions openly. Accordingly, organizational transparency and openness are acknowledged as key components of trust in the public relations literature [Rawlins 2007; 2008], and "commu-

2020]."

p4 "competence component may depend

communi-

cated."

- Other formatting errors, like a suspected intended bulleted list on p5

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Nevertheless, some drawbacks are still not be addressed:

(1) The English writing of the paper is required to be improved. Please check the manuscript carefully for typos and grammatical errors. The reviewer found some typos and grammatical errors within this manuscript, which have been excluded from my review. In addition, the English structure of the article, including punctuation, semicolon, and other structures, must be carefully reviewed.

(2) The authors have to compare their results with the other literature and present those differences.

(3) The authors have to add some real applications to compare with other published articles.

(4) Future recommendations should be added to assist other researchers to extend the presented research analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision can be accepted.

Author Response

Thanks a lot again for your helpful suggestions regarding our manuscript. We are very happy to hear that you see the improvements in our revised manuscript and that it can be accepted for publication