Design Dimensions of Co-Located Multi-Device Audio Experiences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is clear, well written and deals with an interesting topic. 

On line 279 I think that the definition of loose synchronisation should be improved. > 100 ms may include also very large values. Is this interpretation correct? You say the the timing is not precise. Do mean that the sync happens in a range (e.g. from 2 to 3 s)? I would need further explanation about this.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments! Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract and Introduction:

The work explores pre-existing approaches to using immersive and interactive technologies for audio experiences with the intent to improve understanding of good design practices. The output of this is a design framework with seven key aspects identified and considered. This is clearly and concisely explained in the abstract. The only issue I had was that the seven dimensions are listed, but the abstract refers to four “categories” and it is unclear what these refer to at this stage.

The introduction makes several preparatory assertions. First, that interconnected muti-device usage in everyday contexts has proliferated due to developments in IoT, mobile smart devices and wearables. Second, that multi-device usage for audio-visual consumption is increasing popular, particularly in social contexts. Both these points are convincing and set the scene in identifying a large-scale sociocultural value in multi-device audio experience. The subsequent assertion, that there is a need to identify new experience opportunities, is stated rather matter-of-factly. Whilst personally, I absolutely agree with this assertion, that need could be more explicitly stated here as there isn’t a particularly clear ‘definition of problem’ to justify the importance or timeliness of the work.

I found the work to be very well-structured and clear throughout. As such, I did think that the paper organisation paragraph (51-59) wasn’t really necessary. Similarly, the preface on lines 121-122.

Related Work:

This section gives a balanced review of literature and software artefacts. Positions here include: 1) the observation that relevant literature largely prioritises the visual modality and that both audio alone and audio in tandem with visuals requires further exploration; 2) inconsistent terminology is a confounding issue. I agree with both of these positions, that help to establish project-value and go some way to addressing one of my criticisms of the introduction.

Approach & Analysis:

Scope is well-defined and the explanations given are convincing. Survey and literature search descriptions explicitly connect to the RQs and the search methodology, though brief, covers the necessary elements. My only criticism would be a request for explicitly justifying the use of a survey over alternative qualitative methods. Presumably, the priority is for large sample sizes and because this is in many ways, exploratory and inductive research – but I would have liked to see a rationale explicitly stated here.

No power calculation is included, and 43 respondents feels a little low, but I don’t feel that this is to the extent that the results lose meaningful value. Analysis method is well-described and fit for purpose. The list of themes feels very comprehensive, and these are also well-presented and clear.

Design dimensions, Application patterns & Discussion:

As with the themes, the 7 dimensions are comprehensive and well-explained throughout. There are a lot of points within this section and the authors’ attention to careful structuring is appreciated. The Application patterns section presents example use cases and I would argue effectively demonstrates the completeness of the framework. This section also highlighted (for me) that, overall, the work provides notable academic application in facilitating a means of structuring a gap analysis to determine which areas for multi-device audio usage require focussed research attention. The identification of invalid combinations is a useful inclusion. I had a go at looking for additional instances and couldn’t find any. All points raised in the consideration of co-located audio and AAR are appropriate and clearly stated.

The decision to mix the results in with the survey form within the appendix I guess does minimise repetition, but I would argue to be an unusual move and would have expected a results section within the main body of text more cleanly progressing from methodology, to results, to explanation of the framework’s construction.

Overall:

Based on the above points, I would argue that this work is particularly strong in terms of originality and quality of presentation. Significance of content is a little more subjective and relative. Whilst I don’t feel the work is ground-breaking it does have clear value to future R&D – though there are a few places where I think this value could be trumpeted a bit more. Similarly, in terms of scientific soundness, I would argue the method could have been more powerful but that it is still largely appropriate for this stage in the research narrative. Lastly, I would expect that the work would certainly be of interest to many readers, particularly as it has far-reaching relevance to pretty much anyone who consumes music and audio content.

Recommendations summary:

·         Identify the four “categories” in the abstract

 

·         Include an explicit ‘definition of problem’ to justify the importance or timeliness of the work before the research questions are stated, possibly through reference to key points in section 2

·         Brief rationale for use of survey method over alternatives

·        In the appendix, the content under the Aim and Instructions sections is identical

·        Consider structure with regards to statement of results

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments! Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx