Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a design framework for data-driven, biophilic and socio-technical design approaches that support wellbeing in hybrid working environments, developed through a co-design process with smart building users. Although it is an interesting topic, the writing method and presentation of the article require review. The issues to be improved are listed below.

• Firstly, it is not possible to follow the reference system. It is unclear what the numbering is based on. Too many collective references have been used, and it is not entirely clear how this literature has been evaluated.
• In addition, many of the images taken from other sources and not redrawn in the literature section are unnecessary in terms of the integrity of the text. There are many unnecessary images in the article.
• Furthermore, the ‘inspiration cards’ figures, which are unclear how they were determined and are illegible, should be both explained and provided with information.
• Although stated in the study's limitations, it is unclear why the study was limited to only six people and how the accuracy level for the sample set was determined.
• Furthermore, as no connection is established between the demographic information and the study, the reason for including this information in the article is unclear.
• What a smart workplace involves should be explained at the beginning of the study.
• It is not possible to draw many general conclusions from the six sample design studies in this study. In this sense, these outputs can only be considered as a basis for broader studies, so the results section needs to be reconsidered. Furthermore, the status of this study in relation to other existing studies and how it affects the literature at this point should be addressed in the discussion section with references. Although some references have been added, they have not been addressed as contributions to or critiques of the literature.
• To enhance the readability of the study, it is recommended that a more straightforward narrative be employed. For those encountering the subject for the first time, the use of long sentences and complex language has rendered the article challenging to comprehend.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their careful consideration of our work. Below, our responses to the key points raised by the reviewer.

• Firstly, it is not possible to follow the reference system. It is unclear what the numbering is based on. Too many collective references have been used, and it is not entirely clear how this literature has been evaluated.

Apologies for the issue. Some collective references have been reduced, while other collective references have been expanded where necessary, unpacking specific works. The authors are more than happy to change the citations’ formatting if the paper gets accepted and change of citations formatting is requested for publishing.

• In addition, many of the images taken from other sources and not redrawn in the literature section are unnecessary in terms of the integrity of the text. There are many unnecessary images in the article.

The images used visually support some of the literature mentioned in the background section. We have made edits to illustrate these links better – see page 4, paragraph 5.

• Furthermore, the ‘inspiration cards’ figures, which are unclear how they were determined and are illegible, should be both explained and provided with information.

Inspiration Cards were meant to function as speculative prompts, to support creativity and the participants’ thinking around 3-dimensional interactive objects. Clarifications have been made in the methods section (page 10, paragraph 2 and page 12, paragraph 1) and in the relevant figure caption – Figure 10, pages 12-13.

• Although stated in the study's limitations, it is unclear why the study was limited to only six people and how the accuracy level for the sample set was determined.

For the purposes of qualitative work, the purpose is not a necessarily a representative sample, but a more in-depth and focused exploration of people’s experiences – for which, the number of participants was appropriate. Participants recruited were all building occupants of the same smart building. They were recruited based on their interest in the study, and with the authors trying to satisfy inclusion criteria in terms of gender, ethnicity and professional backgrounds.

• Furthermore, as no connection is established between the demographic information and the study, the reason for including this information in the article is unclear.

Providing demographic information is a standard practice in HCI research. The reasons for this are multiple, including supporting generalizability of findings, ensuring inclusivity & diversity, uncovering potential biases and inequities in technology use and outcomes, meeting ethical and reporting standards, and providing the context for understanding user experiences. In our case, it stems from a need of following standard HCI research practice and ethical reporting standards, be transparent about inclusivity & diversity, and providing context for findings interpretation – e.g. participants from Asian countries might be more comfortable being monitored in the workplace than participants from western countries, and this impacts the solutions they come up with. Edits have made to the table to better comply with reporting standards – page 14.

• What a smart workplace involves should be explained at the beginning of the study.

We acknowledge this is an important point, we have included a definition at page 1, paragraph 2.

• It is not possible to draw many general conclusions from the six sample design studies in this study. In this sense, these outputs can only be considered as a basis for broader studies, so the results section needs to be reconsidered. Furthermore, the status of this study in relation to other existing studies and how it affects the literature at this point should be addressed in the discussion section with references. Although some references have been added, they have not been addressed as contributions to or critiques of the literature.

The point about findings being preliminary as well as the relationship to past findings have been better highlighted in the limitations and the discussion section – for example, see edits in section 4.1, pages 21-23.

• To enhance the readability of the study, it is recommended that a more straightforward narrative be employed. For those encountering the subject for the first time, the use of long sentences and complex language has rendered the article challenging to comprehend.

We apologize for any lack of clarity from our behalf. We have made edits in various points in the manuscript to simplify and clarify our narrative – see for example sections 2.5 and 4.1.  

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary of the paper

This paper explores future human–building interactions in workplace settings through a card-based design workshop approach that foregrounds wellbeing, data use, and physical interaction. The authors present a purpose-designed card kit and report on two workshops in which participants used the cards to generate speculative scenarios and concepts for future workplaces. The resulting design artefacts and discussions are synthesised to identify themes that inform design considerations for integrated health and wellbeing in the built environment. The paper positions itself at the intersection of architecture and human–computer interaction and aims to make both empirical and methodological contributions through its use of speculative, participatory design methods.

Framing as co-design and design fiction

The paper positions its methodological contribution through two closely related framings: (1) the use of co-design as the primary design approach, and (2) the positioning of the card kit, particularly the Inspiration cards, within a design fiction framework. While both framings are well motivated and relevant to the research aims, the way they are currently articulated does not appear to align with how the methods are enacted in practice. This represents a major framing issue that affects how the contribution should be interpreted.

First, with respect to co-design, the study employs a structured, researcher-led workshop using a highly pre-configured card kit to elicit speculative concepts from participants. Participants contribute ideas, scenarios, and artefacts, which are subsequently re-analysed by the researchers through thematic analysis. While this is a common approach in design research (although please see my comments below about re-analysis of information generated through co-design), it aligns more closely with participatory or generative design workshops than with co-design as an epistemological stance. In many co-design traditions, analytical work and meaning-making are understood to be distributed across the design process and its participants, particularly through cycles of divergence and convergence during the workshop itself. In the present study, interpretive authority appears to reside primarily with the researchers through post-hoc analysis, and it is not clear how participants are involved in shaping, validating, or negotiating the resulting themes. Clarifying this distinction (or reconsidering the use of the co-design framing) would strengthen conceptual coherence.

Second, the positioning of the work within a design fiction framework, and the description of the Inspiration cards as diegetic prototypes, is not sufficiently substantiated by the way the cards are used. Design fiction and diegetic prototypes typically involve artefacts that exist within a coherent fictional world and are treated as real within that diegesis, supporting suspension of disbelief (e.g., Bleecker et al., “The Manual of Design Fiction” and related work – which is somewhat surprisingly absent from the reference list). In this study, the Inspiration cards appear to function primarily as speculative prompts that illustrate potential future technologies to stimulate imagination, rather than as in-world artefacts embedded in a sustained fictional context (please also see my comments below about the readability of the inspiration cards included in the paper). This use is more consistent with speculative design or speculative futures approaches than with design fiction in the stricter sense.

Taken together, these issues suggest that the paper would benefit from a reframing of its methodological positioning. The work is compelling as a participatory, speculative exploration of future human–building interactions, supported by a card-based elicitation method. However, the current framing as co-design and design fiction appears to overstate the epistemological and methodological commitments enacted in the study. Addressing this, either by more clearly justifying these framings or by repositioning the work within participatory speculative futures, would significantly strengthen the clarity, rigour, and contribution of the paper, particularly given its interdisciplinary positioning between architecture and HCI.

To assist with your thinking in this regard, I am providing some further detail about specific issues that I have identified.

Cards as Diegetic Prototypes

The paper positions the Inspiration cards as diegetic prototypes. However, the current figures do not allow the reader to see or read the content of the cards, making it difficult to assess how they function as artefacts within a fictional world. In design fiction, diegetic prototypes are typically understood as objects that exist within a coherent fictional context and are treated as real in that world (e.g., Bleecker, The Manual of Design Fiction).

Could the authors clarify how the Inspiration cards are intended to operate diegetically specifically, whether they are framed and used as in-world artefacts rather than as generative or inspirational prompts? Providing readable versions of the cards (e.g., higher-resolution figures or supplementary material) would help substantiate this positioning.

Based on what I am able to discern from the paper, the cards appear to function primarily as generative prompts rather than in-world artefacts, aligning more closely with speculative or generative co-design methods than with design fiction per se.  This needs further explanation.

Methodological Concerns

The paper reports a multi-stage analytic process in which material produced through co-design workshops is subsequently subjected to thematic analysis and visual thematic analysis, citing Buruk and Hamari (2021). However, there are two closely related concerns that would benefit from clarification: (1) the methodological grounding of the thematic analysis itself, and (2) how this post-hoc analytic move aligns with the epistemological commitments implied by a co-design framing.

First, while the paper states that thematic analysis and visual thematic analysis were conducted, it is not clear which analytic tradition or methodological framework underpins this work. Buruk and Hamari use thematic structuring primarily as a means of synthesising and communicating design outcomes, rather than as a formally articulated interpretive method. In the present paper, it remains ambiguous whether the authors are undertaking an interpretive form of thematic analysis (which would typically require explicit discussion of analytic procedures, reflexivity, and interpretive decision-making), or whether the analysis is more accurately characterised as a design-led synthesis or annotated-portfolio-style analysis of artefacts produced during co-design. Greater clarity about how themes were generated and refined, and how interpretation was conducted would strengthen the methodological transparency of the study.

Second, and relatedly, the paper’s analytic approach raises an epistemological question about the role of post-hoc researcher-led analysis in co-design. Co-design is often understood as an inherently analytical process, in which participants collectively engage in cycles of divergence, convergence, and meaning-making during the design activity itself. From this perspective, analytical work is distributed across the co-design process and its participants, rather than occurring solely through subsequent researcher interpretation. The paper would benefit from clarifying how the researchers’ re-analysis of co-design outputs builds on, rather than potentially overriding or abstracting away from, the analytical work already performed by co-designers during the workshops. In particular, it would be helpful to understand whether and how participants were involved in validating, refining, or negotiating the resulting themes, and how the authors conceptualise the relationship between co-design as a knowledge-generating practice and thematic analysis as an interpretive act.

Addressing these points would strengthen the coherence between the paper’s co-design framing, its analytic strategy, and its knowledge claims, and would help readers better assess the contribution of the work.

Stated Contribution

The paper claims a methodological contribution through the development of a card-kit that brings wellbeing, data use, and physical interactions together to support co-design in the built environment. However, the discussion does not currently evaluate the effectiveness, utility, or limitations of the card-kit as a methodological instrument within the co-design process.

While the cards are clearly described and illustrated as part of the design process, it remains unclear how they functioned in practice: for example, how participants engaged with them, whether certain cards were more generative than others, or how the card-kit influenced the nature, scope, or direction of the design outcomes. Without such reflection, it is difficult to assess the methodological contribution of the card-kit beyond its existence as a design artefact.

In addition, the paper would benefit from a more reflexive consideration of how the framing, content, and structure of the card deck may have shaped participants’ thinking during co-design. Card-based tools inevitably foreground certain concepts, values, and assumptions, and can steer ideation in particular directions. Reflecting on these influences would strengthen the methodological contribution and provide valuable insight for other researchers seeking to adopt or adapt the approach.

Addressing these points would help substantiate the claimed methodological contribution and clarify what new knowledge the paper offers regarding the use of card-based co-design tools in human–building interaction research.

Other notes

• The co-design workshop was described as being both 1 hour (abstract) and 90 minutes (para 2.3) – this needs to be consistent.
• The participants were stated to be occupants of the same “smart workplace building”. The nature of the building needs to be more fully described.  I wonder if this is connected to the final paragraph in the discussion which has been de-identified.  However, some description of at least what makes the place a “smart workplace building”.
• There needs to be greater clarity of the co-design workshops:
  • The first stage of the co-design workshops involved participants individual forming a scenario of an interactive experience – was this a past experience or a speculative experience?
  • The second stage of the co-design workshop involved participants being divided into groups of two, choose one scenario and then “work on it together for another ten (10) minutes” – what did “work on it together” entail?
• Table 1 reports demographic information including gender, age, and nationality of participants. However, these attributes do not appear to be used or reflected upon in the analysis or discussion. In this context, it would be helpful for the authors to clarify the purpose of collecting and reporting this information. If demographic characteristics are not analytically relevant to the study’s aims or interpretation of findings, the necessity of including them is unclear. Conversely, if these attributes were considered meaningful (e.g., in shaping perspectives during co-design, or in interpreting design outcomes), this should be explicitly discussed.
• There are occasional formatting issues e.g. on page 19 quote text is not italicised and non-quote text is. On page 20 the figure caption appears to be body text.
• Discussion was comprehensive and well connected to the results but there needs to be some consideration of how the positioning of the card deck may have influenced what the thinking of the participants in co-design.

Conclusion

Overall, this paper addresses an important and timely topic at the intersection of architecture and human–computer interaction, and the authors have undertaken a thoughtful and creative exploration of future workplace wellbeing through design-led inquiry. The development of the card kit and the ambition to bridge wellbeing, data practices, and physical interaction in the built environment are valuable contributions, and the work has clear potential to inform future research and practice. Addressing the framing, methodological, and epistemological issues outlined above would significantly strengthen the paper, clarifying its contribution and ensuring greater coherence between its conceptual positioning and enacted methods. With these revisions, the work could make a meaningful and robust contribution to interdisciplinary research on future human–building interactions.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their careful consideration of our work, and their thoughtful comments for this work's improvement. Below our responses to key points raised by the reviewer.

• Framing as co-design and design fiction
• First, with respect to co-design, the study employs a structured, researcher-led workshop using a highly pre-configured card kit to elicit speculative concepts from participants. Participants contribute ideas, scenarios, and artefacts, which are subsequently re-analysed by the researchers through thematic analysis. While this is a common approach in design research (although please see my comments below about re-analysis of information generated through co-design), it aligns more closely with participatory or generative design workshops than with co-design as an epistemological stance [...]

We have made clarifications to respond to the reviewer's methodological concern about the use of co-design methodology. We acknowledge that co-design and participatory design as terms might have differences between HCI research and Architectural research domains. Here, we choose to frame co-design and participatory design as they are framed within HCI research, given that the focus of our work is on the design of technology within the built environment, rather than the design of the built environment independently of technological solutions.

In HCI research, participatory design (PD) and co-design both belong within participatory research methodology, are closely related and often used interchangeably. However, they have different historical roots, emphases, and levels of conceptual precision. In participatory design (PD), users participate in the design process, particularly in decision-making that affects them. Emerging in 1970s–80s Scandinavia, participatory design is strongly related to workplace democracy, labour rights, and power redistribution; hence having a strong political and ethical emphasis on power, agency and voice. The key message in PD is that “those affected by technology should have a say in its design” which urges the long-term engagement of participants in the design process through diverse, iterative ways – from problem definition, to envisioning solutions, to critically reflecting upon designs etc. In HCI research, PD is often used when emphasising on the democratization of design with its ethical or political dimensions being foregrounded.

Co-design, on the other hand, treats participants as equal creative partners. It stems from a design/service design practice and, with its popularity peaking in the 2000s, is less political than PD. In co-design, participants are treated as co-designers; there is a strong focus on creativity, making and collective ideation. Co-design is often workshop-based and shorter-term / more narrow in focus, with an emphasis on shared authorship and creative collaboration rather than power-distribution. To elevate non-experts into design experts, materials and toolkits are widely used in co-design practice, which is exactly what we employ.

Given the traditions that PD and co-design stem from, we still feel that our work closely resembles co-design rather than participatory design (PD), while we acknowledge that both approaches are part of a broader participatory research methodology.

To satisfy the reviewer and avoid any methodological unclarity, we have provided a framing of co-design as a participatory research practice which focuses on collaborative creativity and authorship– see section 2.1, pages 8-9. We clarify that by co-design we mean a participatory research practice that is supported by materials to engage non-designers into co-designing solutions. We understand co-design is a narrow subset of participatory research practice – which is much broader by nature. We clarify that what we describe is not a co-creation practice - whereby users iteratively and generatively shape both the problem space, design solutions and the interpretation of those solutions over time. Our focus and described process is much more controlled and narrow in the sense that we provide users with predefined materials to further speculate and collaboratively shape solutions within a pre-defined design space, however, this fits within co-design methodology; while claiming our practice as a participatory design or co-creation approach would be an over-claim – since we did not aim to involve the participants over prolonged time, for problem definition, or data interpretation (which fit within participatory design and co-creation research approaches).

Relevant literature: John Vines, Rachel Clarke, Peter Wright, John McCarthy, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470716

• Second, the positioning of the work within a design fiction framework, and the description of the Inspiration cards as diegetic prototypes, is not sufficiently substantiated by the way the cards are used. [...] In this study, the Inspiration cards appear to function primarily as speculative prompts that illustrate potential future technologies to stimulate imagination, rather than as in-world artefacts embedded in a sustained fictional context (please also see my comments below about the readability of the inspiration cards included in the paper). This use is more consistent with speculative design or speculative futures approaches than with design fiction in the stricter sense.

To our knowledge, speculative design and design fiction are two closely related, yet distinct, fields within the broader umbrella of futures design. Both fields are concerned with the future, and both employ imagination and creativity to explore possibilities beyond the constraints of current reality. Their approaches, objectives, and methodologies reveal subtle differences. Speculative Design, a term popularized by Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby through their work at the Royal College of Art in London, is a practice that uses design to speculate about future possibilities. It's about creating hypothetical scenarios and artifacts that challenge the status quo, provoke thought, and stimulate debate about the future. Design Fiction, often associated with the work of Julian Bleecker and Bruce Sterling, is a similar but distinct practice. It involves creating fictional scenarios and narratives, often encapsulating them in specific objects or 'diegetic prototypes' – items that exist primarily within a narrative framework to provoke discussion about their implications. Design Fiction is more narrative-driven, using storytelling techniques to immerse the audience in a hypothetical future.

After careful though, we agree with the reviewer that we present here is closer related to speculative design rather than design fiction. The whole co-design activity takes a speculative direction, and the design and use of Inspiration cards were to support speculation, imagination and creativity further. We have therefore adjusted the framing of the Inspiration cards as speculative prompts in the associated image caption. We have also made relevant adjustments in the methodology section – providing details on speculative design rather than design fiction – see page 10. Overall, clarifications have been made in the methods section (page 10, paragraph 2 and page 12, paragraph 1) and in the relevant figure caption – Figure 10, pages 12-13.

Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press.

Joseph Lindley. 2015. Researching Design Fiction With Design Fiction. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 325–326. https://doi.org/10.1145/2757226.2764763

• Cards as Diegetic Prototypes 

Thank you for these clarifications. The function of the Inspiration cards is re-framed to speculative prompts, following your suggestions above.

• Methodological Concerns

There are two closely related concerns that would benefit from clarification: (1) the methodological grounding of the thematic analysis itself, and (2) how this post-hoc analytic move aligns with the epistemological commitments implied by a co-design framing.

(1) While the paper states that thematic analysis and visual thematic analysis were conducted, it is not clear which analytic tradition or methodological framework underpins this work.

We understand the reviewer’s concerns and apologise for the lack of clarity regarding methodology and data analysis approaches followed. We made relevant edits in section 2.5, pages 14-15. Specifically, we clarify that we coded the textual and visual data independently in the first round of analysis. In terms of the visual data, we applied codes to visual outcomes (MIRO canvases containing cards and sketches) – an annotated portfolio style analysis. We then reviewed and clustered the codes of both textual and visual data together. We then conducted an inductive thematic analysis based on the whole coded dataset, whereby themes emerged from the data itself, resulting in the high-level themes described in the paper.

(2) Second, and relatedly, the paper’s analytic approach raises an epistemological question about the role of post-hoc researcher-led analysis in co-design.

This is an interesting point of reflection for us; however, we do feel it again highlights the differences between the reviewer’s and ours understanding of the co-design methodology. To our knowledge, co-design activities are narrower in scope than other forms of participatory research, and do not necessarily include participants in the data interpretation process. Following Vines et al., some forms/approaches of participatory research might do this, especially if there is long-term involvement of participants with an emphasis on power-redistribution and participants’ agency over the outcomes of the design research. However, this is not a pre-requisite for conducting co-design as a creative activity and was not relevant with what this work was after – which was to conduct a specific workshop following a speculative co-design methodology and using a custom made card kit, in order to speculate on design futures in the context of the hybrid smart workplace. As a result, the analysis and interpretation of the process and outcomes was therefore driven by the researcher/design expert, as it felt more appropriate for the focus and the purpose of this work.

John Vines, Rachel Clarke, Peter Wright, John McCarthy, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470716

• Stated Contribution
• The discussion does not currently evaluate the effectiveness, utility, or limitations of the card-kit as a methodological instrument within the co-design process.

We acknowledge the above limitation and have enriched the Limitations section with relevant details, including our reflections on how participants engaged with the card-kit, the impact of the card-kit in the design process - including considerations on potential biases, values and assumptions - in support of its methodological contribution. The preference on using specific cards is mentioned within the findings – e.g. “bring nature” card– and is further discussed in limitations - e.g. the reference on nature and improving air quality might have been heavily impacted by COVID-19 concerns due to the timing that this research took place. The card-kit was developed on the premise on visually bringing PROWELL wellbeing categories together with physical interaction affordances, which we think is methodologically novel (hence justifying a methodological contribution); however, as we state in the limitations, we only present preliminary findings and the card kit needs to be further evaluated with teams of experts before further use and development.

• Other notes
• • The co-design workshop was described as being both 1 hour (abstract) and 90 minutes (para 2.3) – this needs to be consistent.

  Apologies for the lack of clarity, it has been corrected in the abstract.

  • The participants were stated to be occupants of the same “smart workplace building”. The nature of the building needs to be more fully described.  I wonder if this is connected to the final paragraph in the discussion which has been de-identified.  However, some description of at least what makes the place a “smart workplace building”.

  We have included the definition at page 1, paragraph 2.

  • There needs to be greater clarity of the co-design workshops:
  • The first stage of the co-design workshops involved participants individual forming a scenario of an interactive experience – was this a past experience or a speculative experience?

  Clarifying this point, the workshop did not investigate past experiences and is rather speculative – see edits in page 13

  • The second stage of the co-design workshop involved participants being divided into groups of two, choose one scenario and then “work on it together for another ten (10) minutes” – what did “work on it together” entail?

  Clarifying this point, the participants discussed their individual scenarios and chose one to develop further together (into a more detailed scenario and an artifact sketch). This happened in order to help them maturing their scenarios, and during the sketching process (as some might have felt uncomfortable this individually). Edits have been made at page 13.

   

  • Table 1 reports demographic information including gender, age, and nationality of participants. However, these attributes do not appear to be used or reflected upon in the analysis or discussion. In this context, it would be helpful for the authors to clarify the purpose of collecting and reporting this information. If demographic characteristics are not analytically relevant to the study’s aims or interpretation of findings, the necessity of including them is unclear. Conversely, if these attributes were considered meaningful (e.g., in shaping perspectives during co-design, or in interpreting design outcomes), this should be explicitly discussed.

  Providing demographic information is a standard practice in HCI research. The reasons for this are multiple, including supporting generalizability of findings, ensuring inclusivity & diversity, uncovering potential biases and inequities in technology use and outcomes, meeting ethical and reporting standards, and providing the context for understanding user experiences. In our case, it stems from a need of following standard HCI research practice and ethical reporting standards, be transparent about inclusivity& diversity, and providing context for findings interpretation – i.e. people from Asian countries might be more comfortable being monitored in the workplace than western countries, and this impacts the solutions they come up with. Edits have made to the table to better comply with reporting standards – page 14.

   

  • There are occasional formatting issues e.g. on page 19 quote text is not italicised and non-quote text is. On page 20 the figure caption appears to be body text.

  We acknowledge the formatting issues. Some of the formatting has been edited; we will proofread and correct all formatting issues in the case of acceptance.

  • Discussion was comprehensive and well connected to the results but there needs to be some consideration of how the positioning of the card deck may have influenced what the thinking of the participants in co-design.

  Relevant edits in the limitations section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As I mentioned before, this study presents a design framework for data-driven, biophilic and socio-technical design approaches that support wellbeing in hybrid working environments. This article still has problems with its referencing system.  A proper reference system must be established because the article cannot have a reference system starting from 70. Furthermore, I don't think there needs to be so many images that aren't the author's own work.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their time and consideration. 

We have formatted the citation and referencing style to follow an in-house sequential approach, as per IEEE referencing system.

If the reviewer wishes us to follow a different standard, please specify which and we will do so.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for their efforts in addressing the issues that I have raised in my initial review.

I am satisfied that these edits have addressed all of the issues that I have raised.  Co-design is a term that has been gradually expanded over time to encompass design approaches that do not really, in my opinion, involve authentic engagement in the actual design of what is being designed.  It is more aligned with the notion of 'consultation' and sometimes 'tokenism'.  Due to this expansion, it is important to be very clear of the nature of participant involvement when stating that you used a co-design approach so that readers do understand the true nature of your process.  This also helps to address any methodological concerns e.g. post-analysis of co-design outputs. 

I do apologise for being a little 'strong' on this point, but as a HCI researcher who most often bases their work in co-design philosophy, I do have an issue with many HCI researchers claiming 'co-design' when their approach falls far short.

As a very small point, there are still a few formatting issues e.g. section 2.2 "deck13".  I'm unsure if the 13 is a reference or is a comment that I cannot see.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their thorough considerations.

Attempting to address their final requested clarification, we have made edits in Section 2.1, page 10 (last paragraph). 

We have also made some formatting edits as requested. 

We hope these changes satisfy the reviewer.