Exploring Extended Realities in Environmental Artistic Expression through Interactive Video Projections
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an excellent paper, the review would like to see this paper to be published subject correction of reference. The reviewer would like to see the paper be published subject to:
Line 32. HCI, it seems that this is the first time HCI appears in this paper. Please use Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
The review would suggest author avoid using ‘I’.
Line 61 ‘… it encompasses also screens…’
line 246. 3. HCI and Interactivation. HCI seems to be a broad term to use in here.
There is missing information of reference.
Author Response
Thank you for your review, and your kind words about the paper, it was great to hear!
I appreciate also the critical comments, which I have addressed:
Line 32. HCI, it seems that this is the first time HCI appears in this paper. Please use Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
This was indeed the case, I have removed it from this location (as it was not appropriate here) and instead where it is introduced in the proper location (start of section 3), used the full term.
The review would suggest author avoid using ‘I’.
In most cases I have rephrased the text around where the first person was used, to make it more neutral, avoiding to use 'I'. However, because some work is presented that has been carried out by the author and is very personal in nature, sometimes it is unavoidable to use the first person, but this is now only occurring in a very limited number of cases.
Line 61 ‘… it encompasses also screens…’
This typo has been corrected (as well as many others).
line 246. 3. HCI and Interactivation. HCI seems to be a broad term to use in here.
There is missing information of reference.
HCI is indeed a broad term, though it is in the title of the special issue, I have now added a description, and added several references.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is titled – “Exploring Extended Realities in Environmental Artistic Expression through Interactive Video Projections”. It aligns with the scope of the special issue to which it has been submitted. The paper discusses the role of artistic expression and practices in extending realities. It presents a reflection and framework for VR/AR/MxR, Virtual Reality to Augmented or Mixed, or Extended Realities as a continuum from completely virtual to mixed to completely real. It also reflects on the role of contemporary art practices and their role in extending or augmenting realities, from figurative to abstract, street art, to the scale of landscape art. The paper presents a lot of information which is in the form of a reflection of the author on these topics. Most of this information is expected to be already known information to researchers in this field. So, I am not sure of the novelty of the work. The following are my detailed comments:
1. The Introduction is too short and written like a conference paper. The author defines the focus area as – “using projections to extend the real world”. Please elaborate what are some of the challenges in this focus area that need to be addressed to highlight the relevance of doing this work.
2. The author states – “This is a technique also used in design - to project textures on objects, interior models, and architectural models, and in theatres to create mixed environments” This discussion should be elaborated as this is just information and how that information is relevant/important is not discussed. Please explain how projecting textures on objects, interior models, etc. helps to address real-world problems? What are some of the use-cases?
3. Missing references – Several fact-based statements throughout the paper are missing supporting references. Specifically, in this statement - Interaction is defined as a mutual influence and exchange between people and technology, by using sensors (input) and actuators (output), potentially addressing people's multiple sensory modalities (such as sight, touch, hearing, movement), and being influenced by people's multiple expressive modalities (such as gestures, speech, movement) (multimodality)” These facts should be supported by relevant references. Suggested citations for “using sensors (input) and actuators (output)”: https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan10030039, for “sensory modalities”: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052271
4. I have concerns about several images that are included in the paper. For instance in Figures 5, 6, and 9 – multiple individuals can be seen in the images. Did the author collect informed consent from these individuals to include their images in a publication? If yes, please state the details of the consent. In Figure 2 the photo of a building is provided. If this is private property please state details about the consent obtained from the owner to include photos of their property in a publication.
5. The results section needs to be significantly revised. In terms of results, just a set of photos taken from different events are provided. Scientific results should be novel findings. I find it difficult to understand how these photos present novel findings. For instance, people attending these events have already seen the infrastructures/interactions shown in the photos. So, I don’t see any novelty in the results section.
6. Unless relevant and novel results are provided by a comprehensive revision of the results section – I strongly recommend changing the article type to “Communications” (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/BDCC/instructions)
7. Please add at least one paragraph in the Discussion section to elaborate on the usefulness of this paper. What are some of the potential applications/use cases of this work? How does it address research gaps in this field?
Author Response
Thank you for this very insightful and detailed feedback. This has enabled me to greatly improve the paper, and make it all much clearer - which I should have done in the first place, before submitting it for review!
Below I will respond and reflect on each of the points raised, using the numbers from the sections in the review.
1) Indeed the Introduction was too short. I have extended it, covering the challenges in the focus area and the relevance of this work (also throughout the paper, as requested, and the Discussion section, see below).
2) I have extended the paragraph about projecting on models in architectural and product design, and added references to one of the key researchers in this area.
3) Missing references in the section on interaction theory: I have added several references to back up the claims. I thank the reviewer for their suggestions, but I felt that the references that I have added are more appropriate (though I will use the suggested references in other publications - I do work on interactive stroke rehabilitation and falls prevention where the first reference is very useful, and the second might be useful for a project on domestic robots and animated expression, thank you).
4) The people that can be seen in the pictures are exhibition visitors who have given consent to be photographed, it is standard practice in Australia to inform visitors of this. In some cases they are also students or colleagues, and as such have given consent.
The building is in a public space, a busy square in that city.
5) The 'results' section - indeed this was not an appropriate label, this section was not about results in the scientific sense. I have removed that label, and also rewritten a lot of it to make it more neutral and objective. The photos are only meant to support and complement the text, the writing is the most important part.
6) see above, and below
7) The Discussion section has been rewritten and extended, a full paragraph has been added to elaborate on the usefulness of this research and activities
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been updated as per most of my comments and feedback from the previous round. I have one comment at this point.
From the references section, it can be seen that as many as 10 papers co-authored by "Bongers, A. J." have been cited (references 3, 29, 38, 39, 41, 48, 49, 50, 52, and 53). This seems too many! Please replace at least 2 papers from this list with the 2 references suggested in the last review round.
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer's comments:
There were indeed a lot of references to my own work, I always try to minimise that and only refer to my earlier work if it is relevant for the current context (when the work presented builds on earlier work).
I had another look and I have removed 2 references to my own work (at the end of section 2):
38 Bongers, A. J. Electronic Musical Instruments: Experiences of a New Luthier, Leonardo Music Journal, 2007, Vol. 17, pp9-16.
39 Bongers, A.J. and Harris, Y.C., A Structured Instrument Design Approach: The Video-Organ. In: Proceedings of the Conference on New Instruments for Musical Expression (NIME), Dublin Ireland, 2002
Instead, I have added two references (for the topic of electronic musical instruments):
33 Paradiso, J. New Ways to Play: Electronic Music Interfaces. IEEE Spectrum, 1997, 34/12, pp18-30
34 Miranda, E. R.; Wanderley, M. M. New Digital Musical Instruments: Control and Interactions Beyond the Keyboard. A-R Editions, 2006
I also de-emphasised the reference 48 (to my recent book), although it is still there it is not mentioned as such in the text in section 3, it was indeed too prominent
I hope this satisfies the request.
I also had another look at the section on HCI, particularly on the topics of I/O and multimodality, which has been in my area of expertise and which I have been contributing to since the mid 1990s; hence the inclusion of some of my work but I agree with the reviewer that it would be inappropriate to put too much emphasis on that. So instead I have highlighted the importance of other sources, for which I have included references (see below).
As for the 2 references suggested by the reviewer, as I wrote in my previous response these are excellent papers and great contributions to knowledge, but I think I found better references for these topics, as I indicated in my previous response, and some more I added in this re-submission as I agree that it was still not clear enough. These are the sources I generally use for these topics:
For “using sensors (input) and actuators (output)” I have added:
40 Wilson, D. W. Sensor- and Recognition Based Input for Interaction. In: Jacko, J. A. Ed., The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook - fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications. 3rd Edition, CRC Press, 2012, Chapter 7, pp133-156
For “sensory modalities” I have added:
41 Schomaker, L.; Münch, S.; Hartung, K. Eds. A Taxonomy of Multimodal Interaction in the Human Information Processing System. Report of the ESPRIT project 8579: MIAMI. 1995
42 Kress, G. R.; Leeuwen, T. J. van, Multimodal Discourse, the modes and media of contemporary communication. Oxford University Press, 2001
43 Kress, G. R. Multimodality – a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge, 2010
For Human-Computer Interaction:
36 Dix, A.; Finlay, J.; Abowd, G.; Beale, R. Human-Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall, 3rd ed. 2004
37 Jacko, J. A. Ed., The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook - fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications. 3rd Edition, CRC Press, 2012
38 Sharp, H.; Rogers, Y.; Preece, J. Interaction Design - beyond human-computer interaction. 5th Edition, John Wiley & Sons., 2019
(I also fixed the numbering of the references.)
I thank the reviewer again for the feedback and criticisms, it has been a great help in improving the paper. I hope this is sufficient, and to the satisfaction of the reviewer.
