A Review of Accessibility and Sustainability in Augmented Reality Tabletop Gaming Experiences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review paper is one of the few papers that critically examines the intersection between AR, accessibility and environmental sustainability within Tabletop Gaming experiences. Most of the prior research is mostly focused on the AR/MR immersion or gameplay enhancement while the proposed work addresses important elements such as exploring accessibility, addressing sustainability aspects and broadening the research focus.

By combining these dimensions, the paper presents a unique framework for future AR research in Tabletop Gaming that moves beyond gameplay enhancement to embrace inclusivity while also addressing ecological responsibility.

The paper explores how modern Augmented reality can transform Tabletop Gaming Experiences by enhancing accessibility, promoting environmental sustainability. As tech companies will soon start to release AR/MR consumer glasses, not HDM (such as Meta Quest 3/ Apple Vision) I consider that this will be the perfect opportunity for companies that develop tabletop gaming experiences to transition to digital content that will blend with Tabletop.

Within the introduction the authors have presented various hobbyist systems, but also highlighted their practical limitations (ergonomics, battery life and overall usability).

The authors evaluate the AR experiences based on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 which is important as it provides a useful framework for assessing digital accessibility, focusing on elements that make the content perceivable, operable, understandable and robust.

I consider that this research is important as AR/MR applications could represent a solution that will end the conflict between independent artists and game publishers over physical miniatures. One of the most well-known companies Games Workshop has issues 250 lawsuits against independent creators that make use of digital sculpting and 3D printing to create tabletop miniatures. The most recent lawsuit that has started to get a lot of attention within the tabletop community is between Ghamak and Games Workshop.

This research is significant because the adoption of AR/MR technologies could make Tabletop Gaming Experiences more inclusive, immersive, and environmentally responsible. However, a key challenge lies in the economic interests of major game publishers, who rely on the sale of physical miniatures and maintain a quasi-monopoly over their production. Transitioning to fully digital AR/MR platforms would enhance immersion and reduce environmental impact, but it could also disrupt these revenue streams and affect players and collectors who have invested in physical game components. This tension highlights the need to balance technological innovation with the economic realities of the tabletop gaming industry.

It is likely that the initial stages of AR/MR integration in tabletop gaming will focus on augmenting existing physical miniatures, rather than fully replacing them. This approach preserves the current production and sales of miniatures while enhancing gameplay through digital overlays. Advanced 3D model tracking within AR/MR could further animate these miniatures, adding movement, effects, and interactivity that would be impossible with purely physical components. This transitional strategy allows the industry to adopt immersive technologies while maintaining existing revenue streams and supporting players’ investment in physical game elements.

Within the literature review section, it is clearly demonstrated that AR within TTGEs has been explored both for recreational as well as educational context. The extended literature review indicates that this technology has a significant potential to enhance TTGEs and I am sure that with the release of the new generation of Meta glasses – Orion AI Glasses paired with a neural wristband, companies that are within the TTGEs will start to develop various AR/MR applications.

As presented within the paper, AR has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of tabletop gaming by decreasing reliance on physical components such as miniatures, boards and packaging with contribute significantly to carbon emission through production and shipping. However, AR does not eliminate emissions entirely. If head-mounted displays (HMDs) or new glasses such as Orion AI Glasses are required, additional manufacturing increases the carbon impact, while mobile or tablet-based AR systems offer a lower-impact alternative, as most players already own compatible devices. Considering that smart phones are very popular, it is mostly that within the first phases of AR tabletop the large companies will develop AR application intended for smartphones and tablets and only afterwards will they start to develop AR/MR application intended for glasses once these will start to become popular within consumers.

Despite this potential, there is no existing literature specifically analyzing the environmental impact of AR TTGEs, creating a clear opportunity for future research to explore how AR could make tabletop gaming more environmentally sustainable.

In my opinion as a review paper, the authors should include the most popular AR application for tabletop games within their research. Out of the most well known table top AR enhanced gaming experiences the authors present Ardent Roleplay within the introduction, but there are other popular solutions such as Mirrorscape, Tilt Five, AR Board Games and others. The most popular one is Mirrorscape which features 3D Buildings, animated models, online lobbies all aimed at blending traditional gaming with modern AR technologies, and it offers support for various devices making it accessible to a wide audience.

It would be beneficial to adjust the style of Table 2 to provide more space for the WCAG adherence column, allowing these details to be more prominent. Additionally, instead of listing “Use of color” as a WCAG adherence category which is somewhat inherent to digital overlays.

Within WCAG, the issue of color appear under the Perceivable principle within the guidelines “Distinguishable” and this guideline states that color should not be only mean of conveying information.

It may be clearer to explicitly reference the official WCAG principles: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust, and, where applicable, include the specific guidelines or success criterion (e.g., text alternatives, distinguishable visual content, natural gesture interaction (hand tracking or neural wristband interaction etc.). This will make the accessibility considerations more structured, standardized, and easier to interpret.

The review paper provides an interesting and valuable overview of AR applications in tabletop gaming, highlighting both accessibility and sustainability considerations. However, the WCAG principles are not consistently or clearly defined within the case study research summarized in Table 2, making it difficult for readers to fully assess how each AR system aligns with established accessibility standards.

I consider that these issues could be addressed in a revision by explicitly defining the WCAG principles within each case study and aligning the accessibility observations with the official categories: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. This would make the review more structured and provide readers with a clearer understanding of how each AR system meets accessibility standards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your kind words on our paper! We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work based on your recommendations. Please see attached an updated version of our manuscript. For your convenience, all changes have been highlighted to make them easier to locate. We have also updated the title (as per the Editor's feedback) to better align it with the focus of the paper. 

Comment 1:

In my opinion as a review paper, the authors should include the most popular AR application for tabletop games within their research. Out of the most well known table top AR enhanced gaming experiences the authors present Ardent Roleplay within the introduction, but there are other popular solutions such as Mirrorscape, Tilt Five, AR Board Games and others. The most popular one is Mirrorscape which features 3D Buildings, animated models, online lobbies all aimed at blending traditional gaming with modern AR technologies, and it offers support for various devices making it accessible to a wide audience.

Response:

We have now included a new section (2.1.1) to include discussion of these, including some of the individual applications for the Tilt Five that allow for AR TTGE's! Thank you for these recommendations, they were fascinating to read about and we are now fully considering using a Tilt Five for potential future research!

Comment 2:
It would be beneficial to adjust the style of Table 2 to provide more space for the WCAG adherence column, allowing these details to be more prominent. Additionally, instead of listing “Use of color” as a WCAG adherence category which is somewhat inherent to digital overlays.

Response:
We have updated Table 2 accordingly and moved the discussion of WCAG adherence into a new table, Table 3, to allow for full space to discuss it without it being compressed by column sizes! Furthermore, as per feedback from Reviewer 2, we have also expanded this to include discussion of the XAUR guidelines too.

Comment 3:

Within WCAG, the issue of color appear under the Perceivable principle within the guidelines “Distinguishable” and this guideline states that color should not be only mean of conveying information.

It may be clearer to explicitly reference the official WCAG principles: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust, and, where applicable, include the specific guidelines or success criterion (e.g., text alternatives, distinguishable visual content, natural gesture interaction (hand tracking or neural wristband interaction etc.). This will make the accessibility considerations more structured, standardized, and easier to interpret.

Response:
You are completely correct and our previous acknowledgement of these was somewhat vague. We have elaborated on this further by including the exact guidelines that each study adheres to (along with numbering), as well as adding a description of how it fits those guidelines. We have done this for both the WCAG2.1 and XAUR guidelines. 

Comment 4:
I consider that these issues could be addressed in a revision by explicitly defining the WCAG principles within each case study and aligning the accessibility observations with the official categories: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. This would make the review more structured and provide readers with a clearer understanding of how each AR system meets accessibility standards.

Response:
We hope that our changes satisfy your feedback and that the paper is now clearer! 

Thank you so much for your review and we hope you enjoy our updated manuscript!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an under-explored intersection: Augmented Reality, Tabletop Gaming, Accessibility, and Sustainability. The paper is interesting, well-intentioned, and timely. Its interdisciplinary theme (AR, gaming, accessibility, sustainability) fits the journal’s aims. However, there exist several issues that must be addressed, especially in terms of scientific rigour and analytical depth. These are as follows.

1) Regarding the scientific soundness and technical quality of the paper, the review is detailed, well-researched, and well-structured, but its methodological basis is weakly defined. The study design, search strategy, and selection process for included works are not documented according to established frameworks. This limits transparency and reproducibility. Furthermore, the authors’ conclusion—that most of the proposed objectives were unfulfilled due to scarcity of research—is potentially valid (a fact that would increase impact) but insufficiently supported by evidence or a formal search process. Without a clear method for how studies were identified, screened, and excluded, it is not possible to confirm that the absence of literature truly reflects a research gap or a limitation in the search approach itself. With that said, the technical discussion is insightful. The summaries of AR works and accessibility concerns are accurate, quite relevant, and demonstrate technical familiarity with tracking methods and other technologies. However, the referenced projects are not always relevant to the actual areas of interest since they refer to applications of AR in other domains and not to tabletop gaming. In addition, the inclusion of sustainability frameworks is unconventional but conceptually interesting and broadens the discussion. Nevertheless, it is not easily verifiable since it lacks evidence-based support. To improve overall quality, explicitly state how databases were searched (Scopus, Web of Science, ACM, IEEE Xplore, etc.), with date ranges, search terms, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. If the review is narrative, declare it as such and justify the qualitative synthesis method. Also, to the reviewer's understanding, there exist many works that have not been included in this review that explore the intersection of AR and tabletop games. The authors should significantly expand their references and bibliographic inclusion criteria to discuss other related studies relevant to their area of interest, and not focus on AR in other domains (for example, section 2.4 appears totally out of context in the current review scope).

2) In terms of novelty, few papers focus on the combination of AR, tabletop gaming, and accessibility/sustainability. However, originality in the approach (rather than topic) is limited. The review does not introduce a novel taxonomy, conceptual model, or classification framework of AR applications in tabletop gaming. The authors should synthesize their findings into a meta-framework that categorizes studies by type of AR implementation, player interaction, and purpose (entertainment, educational, accessibility-oriented) and elaborate on the proposed research direction as a structured agenda. Overall, avoid stating that the research objectives “could not be achieved.” Instead, frame this as identification of a critical research gap (perhpas even from the Introduction section). Emphasize what can be learned from the absence of data (e.g., propose a structured research roadmap) for future work and research opportunities. Moreover, introduce clusters, taxonomies, or typologies that classify AR tabletop research by goals (learning, immersion, accessibility) or other characteristics (e.g., navigation, interaction, type of tracking technology, interface design). In general, as the title suggests, the review should be about AR and tabletop gaming experiences. As such, there is no need to concentrate on accessibility and sustainability and lose sight of the rest of the aspects that could be part of the study. 

3) Following the previous comment and concerning the contribution, the recognition that AR for tabletop gaming has gaps in accessibility and sustainability research is an important observation. However, these claims remain largely diagnostic rather than constructive, identifying a lack of research without providing a conceptual map for future work. The authors could enhance significance by analytically connecting accessibility frameworks (e.g., WCAG, Universal Design for Learning, or ISO 9241-210) to the AR case studies beyond descriptive mention, and proposing an evaluation matrix for future researchers to measure accessibility and sustainability that is more suitable to AR systems. In general, develop a comparative evaluation linking AR implementation type to accessibility dimension and sustainability potential. Discuss the limits of WCAG for AR in detail and propose preliminary metrics tailored to AR interactivity in tabletop gaming. Add visual summaries (e.g., concept maps or tables) that integrate accessibility, sustainability, and AR modalities and discuss their interrelations in tabletop gaming contexts. The lack of such productive relationships is a major flaw of the paper. In its current form, these aspects read as independent from each other, a fact that significantly reduces the overarching dimension of the review, which must connect these elements together, beyond what is already included in Table 2, which is very limited, underexplored, and superficially discussed. Otherwise, the authors should revise their entire manuscript to avoid statements that connect these aspects. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is generally fine, and the overall tone is appropriate throughout. Still, there are stylistic redundancies, some long sentences, and frequent parenthetical abbreviations (often repeated) that disrupt reading flow. The authors should also delete repetitive explanatory text (e.g., defining AR functionality or TTRPG context multiple times). Overall, reduce redundancy, merge paragraphs with overlapping ideas, and simplify long sentences for better readability. The manuscript could benefit from a thorough proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your kind words on our paper! We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work based on your recommendations. Please see attached an updated version of our manuscript. For your convenience, all changes have been highlighted to make them easier to locate. We have also updated the title (as per the Editor's feedback) to better align it with the focus of the paper. 

Comment 1:
1) Regarding the scientific soundness and technical quality of the paper, the review is detailed, well-researched, and well-structured, but its methodological basis is weakly defined. The study design, search strategy, and selection process for included works are not documented according to established frameworks. This limits transparency and reproducibility. Furthermore, the authors’ conclusion—that most of the proposed objectives were unfulfilled due to scarcity of research—is potentially valid (a fact that would increase impact) but insufficiently supported by evidence or a formal search process. Without a clear method for how studies were identified, screened, and excluded, it is not possible to confirm that the absence of literature truly reflects a research gap or a limitation in the search approach itself. With that said, the technical discussion is insightful. The summaries of AR works and accessibility concerns are accurate, quite relevant, and demonstrate technical familiarity with tracking methods and other technologies. However, the referenced projects are not always relevant to the actual areas of interest since they refer to applications of AR in other domains and not to tabletop gaming. In addition, the inclusion of sustainability frameworks is unconventional but conceptually interesting and broadens the discussion. Nevertheless, it is not easily verifiable since it lacks evidence-based support. To improve overall quality, explicitly state how databases were searched (Scopus, Web of Science, ACM, IEEE Xplore, etc.), with date ranges, search terms, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. If the review is narrative, declare it as such and justify the qualitative synthesis method. Also, to the reviewer's understanding, there exist many works that have not been included in this review that explore the intersection of AR and tabletop games. The authors should significantly expand their references and bibliographic inclusion criteria to discuss other related studies relevant to their area of interest, and not focus on AR in other domains (for example, section 2.4 appears totally out of context in the current review scope).

Response:
We agree wholeheartedly and thank you for raising this. We have now added details of our methodology for how papers were identified and selected for this paper, which have now been included in the Introduction section. This includes the databases we searched and the terms used to identify studies. Furthermore, we have also included a new section (2.1.1) to include additional discussion of existing commercial tools and applications for Augmented Reality for Tabletop Gaming Experiences (as per a recommendation from Reviewer 1). Section 2.4 has had its introductory paragraph edited to contextualise how it fits into the scope of our paper.

Comment 2:

2) In terms of novelty, few papers focus on the combination of AR, tabletop gaming, and accessibility/sustainability. However, originality in the approach (rather than topic) is limited. The review does not introduce a novel taxonomy, conceptual model, or classification framework of AR applications in tabletop gaming. The authors should synthesize their findings into a meta-framework that categorizes studies by type of AR implementation, player interaction, and purpose (entertainment, educational, accessibility-oriented) and elaborate on the proposed research direction as a structured agenda. Overall, avoid stating that the research objectives “could not be achieved.” Instead, frame this as identification of a critical research gap (perhpas even from the Introduction section). Emphasize what can be learned from the absence of data (e.g., propose a structured research roadmap) for future work and research opportunities. Moreover, introduce clusters, taxonomies, or typologies that classify AR tabletop research by goals (learning, immersion, accessibility) or other characteristics (e.g., navigation, interaction, type of tracking technology, interface design). In general, as the title suggests, the review should be about AR and tabletop gaming experiences. As such, there is no need to concentrate on accessibility and sustainability and lose sight of the rest of the aspects that could be part of the study. 

Response:
As you have suggested, we have now included a meat framework (Table 4) to synthesize our findings. This discusses the varying types of AR implementation, their typical use cases in existing literature, accessibility characteristics, sustainability potential, the challenges we have observed from existing literature, and references to the example studies we have used as the basis for these points. We have also included your proposed roadmap of potential future research to assist in addressing the gaps we have identified in this review. Additionally, we apologise if there was any confusion regarding the topic of the paper, the editor raised that the title of it did not necessarily reflect the content and so we have changed it accordingly. The focus of the paper is specifically for accessibility and sustainability within the field of AR for tabletop games. We hope this is now better reflected in the title and content of the paper.

Comment 3: 3) Following the previous comment and concerning the contribution, the recognition that AR for tabletop gaming has gaps in accessibility and sustainability research is an important observation. However, these claims remain largely diagnostic rather than constructive, identifying a lack of research without providing a conceptual map for future work. The authors could enhance significance by analytically connecting accessibility frameworks (e.g., WCAG, Universal Design for Learning, or ISO 9241-210) to the AR case studies beyond descriptive mention, and proposing an evaluation matrix for future researchers to measure accessibility and sustainability that is more suitable to AR systems. In general, develop a comparative evaluation linking AR implementation type to accessibility dimension and sustainability potential. Discuss the limits of WCAG for AR in detail and propose preliminary metrics tailored to AR interactivity in tabletop gaming. Add visual summaries (e.g., concept maps or tables) that integrate accessibility, sustainability, and AR modalities and discuss their interrelations in tabletop gaming contexts. The lack of such productive relationships is a major flaw of the paper. In its current form, these aspects read as independent from each other, a fact that significantly reduces the overarching dimension of the review, which must connect these elements together, beyond what is already included in Table 2, which is very limited, underexplored, and superficially discussed. Otherwise, the authors should revise their entire manuscript to avoid statements that connect these aspects. 

Response:

We would like to apologise for any ambiguity here. We were vague in how we addressed the WCAG2.1 principles in Table 2, and Table 2 was far too dense with its content. We have since split Table 2 into two tables, with Table 2 now summarising the studies we have explored, and Table 3 containing the exploration of accessibility principles. The WCAG2.1 principles have been further explored, with the exact guidelines being referenced by name and number, and a summary provided below of how these studies adhered to these principles. Additionally, we also included another set of guidelines (as per your suggestion), the XR Accessibility User Requirements (XAUR) from the Worldwide Web Consortium. XAUR managed to elude us at first as it was classed under Extended Reality, therefore avoiding our search terms. We have now compared each study against both sets of guidelines and discussed these further, along with later discussion regarding their efficacy and limitations. We hope that Table 3 and the subsequent discussion of it satisfies your review comment.

Comment 4:
The quality of English is generally fine, and the overall tone is appropriate throughout. Still, there are stylistic redundancies, some long sentences, and frequent parenthetical abbreviations (often repeated) that disrupt reading flow. The authors should also delete repetitive explanatory text (e.g., defining AR functionality or TTRPG context multiple times). Overall, reduce redundancy, merge paragraphs with overlapping ideas, and simplify long sentences for better readability. The manuscript could benefit from a thorough proofreading.

Response: We have reviewed the English of our writing and cleaned up some grammatical errors, run-on sentences and generally awkward paragraphs. We also searched through the paper and found a repetition (HMD was defined twice). This has now been corrected and should make for a better reading experience.

Thank you for your feedback and we hope you enjoy reading our updated manuscript!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have greatly improved the manuscript by addressing all the suggestions from my initial review.

Table 2 has been updated according to the suggestion and also some of the discussion of WCAG adherence have been moved within Table 3. This also includes now aspects regarding XUAR guidelines.

The paper has been greatly improved. The inclusion of additional AR tabletop gaming applications and the updated tables, now aligned with WCAG and XAUR principles. The paper is much clearer and more structured.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your kind words on our manuscript! We are grateful for your review!

We have now submitted a new version with an additional expansion to Section 4, as per suggestions from Reviewer 2, including a more expanded Future Roadmap and a list of reporting guidelines for future studies.

Thanks again and we hope you enjoy the updated manuscript!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially improved their work according to feedback and clearly sharpened the contributing elements. Some additional aspects to consider are the following.

1) While Table 4 is a strong start, the future roadmap that follows is comparatively weak. Based on the identified characteristics and challenges, the authors should highlight more clearly implementation priorities, aspects that improve accessibility/sustainability and in general introduce guidelines or identified good practices that close the gap of existing and flawed AR TTGE types and projects in order to help future initiatives towards more accessible and sustainable solutions.

2) These guidelines can be in the form of bullets (as is the case now) but could also be organized in different themes based on the taxonomy of Tables 3 and 4 in order to make the AR TTGE more perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. This in turn will help to better connect all sections together into a concise flow.

3) In Section 4 (Discussion), explicitly distinguish between gaps due to absolute lack of work and those due to limitations of current frameworks (e.g., regarding WCAG’s focus, what is truly inapplicable, and why?).

4) If possible, based on the previous comment, also provide data reporting guidelines for future empirical work, i.e., what should be measured and how to support accessibility and sustainability as well as enhance their analysis.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is better. Sentence structure has also improved. The authors are advised to further improve their phrasing by shortening a few very long sentences. This will increase readability. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you again for your comments! We are glad to hear you feel our work has been substantially improved, and are again grateful for your suggestions! We have again highlighted changes in yellow to make them easier to locate in the updated draft. Please see below the following responses:

Comment 1: While Table 4 is a strong start, the future roadmap that follows is comparatively weak. Based on the identified characteristics and challenges, the authors should highlight more clearly implementation priorities, aspects that improve accessibility/sustainability and in general introduce guidelines or identified good practices that close the gap of existing and flawed AR TTGE types and projects in order to help future initiatives towards more accessible and sustainable solutions.

Response: We have now improved the roadmap as per your suggestions! We have expanded on the roadmap with guidelines based on the WCAG2.1 principles. As per your suggestion, we have used bulletpoints. We have also used the XAUR guidelines to inform these points, with citation of each referenced guideline to ensure these are substantiated by the prior frameworks. We believe these will be valuable to future studies into AR for accessibility. Thank you for this suggestion, it proved to be a very tidy way of presenting our findings and keeping them neatly consolidated. 

Comment 2: These guidelines can be in the form of bullets (as is the case now) but could also be organized in different themes based on the taxonomy of Tables 3 and 4 in order to make the AR TTGE more perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. This in turn will help to better connect all sections together into a concise flow.

Response: As above, these have been structured as per your suggestion.

Comment 3: In Section 4 (Discussion), explicitly distinguish between gaps due to absolute lack of work and those due to limitations of current frameworks (e.g., regarding WCAG’s focus, what is truly inapplicable, and why?).

We have now added to the discussion section to clarify this and discuss it further! The newly added section is just above Table 4, and has been highlighted in yellow to make it easier to locate!

Comment 4: If possible, based on the previous comment, also provide data reporting guidelines for future empirical work, i.e., what should be measured and how to support accessibility and sustainability as well as enhance their analysis.

Response: We have now added section 4.2 to include these reporting guidelines as per your suggestion. We have identified Eight reporting conditions for future empirical work, which are now included as a numbered list. Thank you again for this suggestion, we believe these conditions will benefit future work!

Comment: The quality of English is better. Sentence structure has also improved. The authors are advised to further improve their phrasing by shortening a few very long sentences. This will increase readability. 

Response: We are glad to hear the readability is better! We have broken up a few of the longer sentences where identified! 

Thank you again for your suggestions and we hope you enjoy reading the updated manuscript!

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All issues have been addressed. There are no further recommendations at this stage.