Holistic Requirements Analysis for Specifying New Systems for 3D Media Production and Promotion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article reviews numerous tools for 3D media production/promotion. The topic is timely, since there are numerous tools targeted for different kinds of users, so it can be hard to choose right tools for diferent purposes.

First, the authors have done a huge work by addressing this topic in coherent manner. The list of tools included in the review looks comprehensive. Second, the survey conducted for representative users is also quite comprhensive, even there is some possible bias (country, academic users).

Methdology-wise, the study is carried out properly. Presentation of results, however, could be improved. First, the article contains numerous detailed figures, and not all of them are needed. I would like to see more focus on highlighting the most important findings instead of listing them all. Second, the conclusions are not very clear, i.e., the article does not have any clear takeaway message. Furthermore, it is not clear to whom this article is targeted to. Finally, it is questionnable if this kind of practical review would benefit being published in another format than as a scientific article. It could be, for example, an updated web-page.

In order to be published, the authors should clarify results and conclusions, and also explain which is the main audience of this work.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments as resulted to an improved version of the paper.

Reviewer

The article reviews numerous tools for 3D media production/promotion. The topic is timely, since there are numerous tools targeted for different kinds of users, so it can be hard to choose right tools for different purposes.

First, the authors have done a huge work by addressing this topic in coherent manner. The list of tools included in the review looks comprehensive. Second, the survey conducted for representative users is also quite comprehensive, even there is some possible bias (country, academic users).

Question 1: Methodology-wise, the study is carried out properly. Presentation of results, however, could be improved. First, the article contains numerous detailed figures, and not all of them are needed. I would like to see more focus on highlighting the most important findings instead of listing them all.

Answer: We have removed the figures in Section 5 that were not concluding to a clear decision. The discussion for the results is enhanced by transferring content that was mentioned in Section 6.3 Conclusions for the TO-BE scenarios in Section 5. In this manner the paper is more concise and easier to read. The Conclusions section has been enhanced with new content.

Question 2: Second, the conclusions are not very clear, i.e., the article does not have any clear takeaway message.

Answer: Conclusions has been rewritten in an overall manner taking into consideration all sections rather than deriving conclusions for each section separately. We provide certain directions that can lead entrepreneurs, researchers, and developers, towards a positive direction and to more open 3D media platforms.

Question 3: Furthermore, it is not clear to whom this article is targeted to.

Answer: We have rewritten parts of the abstract and the introduction in order to be clearer about to whom this article targets to. Our target groups are research organizations, companies and indie developers that seek to develop new platforms related to 3D content. The target of this paper is on investigating crucial features that new platforms, products and services should have in order a) to introduce novel ways of interaction with information, and b) to empower non-expert citizens in media as developers-designers-creators, and in parallel elevate the economic strength of them. The elevation of skills of non-experts in one field is considered as a crucial factor for economic growth [Gartner 2019].

Question 4: Finally, it is questionable if this kind of practical review would benefit being published in another format than as a scientific article. It could be, for example, an updated web-page.

Answer: We disagree that the paper results would be a web page, as the scientific methodology used can be used as a template for future requirements engineering approaches to new 3D media platforms. The failure rates in 3D authoring tools are very high global wise as in most of the cases the requirements engineering is missing or an empirical approach is used. It is the first time that the most advanced methodology for requirements analysis namely IEEE830 standard has been used to run an elucidation, analysis and validation procedure for new scenarios in 3D media.

Question 5: In order to be published, the authors should clarify results and conclusions, and also explain which is the main audience of this work.

Answer: This question is answered already in Question 2.

 

References

[Gartner 2019] Costello K, Rimol M (2019) Gartner Identifies the Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2020. In: Gartner IT Symposium/Xpo 2019, URL https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-10-19-gartner-identifies-the-top-strategic-technology-trends-for-2021

[The above reference is the no 4 reference in the manuscript.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Is suggested to provide for some bibliography’s about the background and previous similar studies improvement.

Is suggested to provide pictures in good quality for figg. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 10.

Is suggested to provide for general check of minor spelling (i.e. row 459 “Thedr are all 3D design…”).

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments as resulted to an improved version of the paper.

Question 1: It is suggested to provide some bibliography about the background and previous similar studies improvement.

Answer: We have added a new section, namely Section 2 where we have reviewed 4 related surveys from 2018 to 2020. The difficulty in getting more surveys in our paper is based on the fact that too old surveys may not have accurate results about innovating in 3D media as the advent of new devices, protocols, and products has been rapidly emerging in the last year (especially due to pandemics).  

Question 2: It is suggested to provide pictures in good quality for figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 10.

Answer: We have removed several figures of Section 5.3 that were not concluding to a specific trend. This provided some more space for enlarging the rest of the images and thus improving their quality.

Question 3: It is suggested to provide for general check of minor spelling (i.e. row 459 “Thedr are all 3D design…”).

Answer: Fixed. Minor spelling is completed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have then all my previous review comments into account, and the article is in very good form now.