Virtual Task Environments Factors Explored in 3D Selection Studies
Letter Of Changes: Dear Program Chair,
We thank you and the reviewers for your valuable time and insightful comments on our paper. These comments significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work. We have considered each comment and addressed them carefully. We believe the revised submission meets your high standards and addresses the points raised.
Please refer to the point-by-point responses below, addressing the reviewers' comments and concerns.
Reviewers' Comments to the Authors:
Reviewer 1
Overall, the paper is very much of topical relevance to the 3D user interface communities and will likely foster discussion at GI this year.
Author response: Thank you.
Comment from Reviewer 1 highlighting a listing style of references in Table 1 in the paper.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed the tables as they are now listed without sub-categorization.
Comment from Reviewer 1 asking for justification about new parameters in Tables 2 and 3, reasoning for their separation into two distinct categorizations, and suggesting merging Tables 2 and 3.
Author response: We clarified why the data was split into two tables: Table 2 includes task environment parameters based on LaViola et al.'s definitions and assesses user selection performance with these parameters. Table 3 lists new task environment parameters identified in research that aren't covered by Tables 1 and 2, as also noted in our text.
Comment from Reviewer 1 suggesting reducing the discussion length.
Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we reduced the discussion length.
Reviewer 2
This is an interesting paper that provides guidance on what different 3D selection techniques and studies from the literature fit into various categorical parameters. The paper is well written and easy to follow and has an extensive related work section. The work the authors have done has the potential to be useful for 3D user interface developers and researchers trying to understand the 3D UI selection landscape.
Author response: Thank you.
Comment from Reviewer 2 suggesting reducing the discussion length.
Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we reduced the discussion length.
Comment from Reviewer 2 suggesting adding a justification about how the authors came up with their parameters.
Author response: We manually divided the papers into three groups based on the task environment used by the authors.
Reviewer 3
The topic is timely and the presentation quality commendable.
Author response: Thank you.
Comment from Reviewer 3 highlighting a listing style of references in tables in the paper.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We now list papers without sub-categorization.
Comment from Reviewer 3 suggests refining the distinction between distance and direction to the target and depth description in Table 2 to increase readability.
Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we included the following information in the text “In virtual environments, target depth refers to the spatial distance extending from the user to a designated point of interest, impacting the perception of objects in terms of size, location, and movement within the virtual space.”
Comment from Reviewer 3 suggests explaining in detail how the parameters of Tables 2 and 3 were proposed.
Author response: The parameters in Table 2 are the combination of two or more of LaViola’s task parameters. Table 3 highlights the parameters that cannot be defined by LaViola’s task parameters.
Comment from Reviewer 3 asking for an explanation of how multiple parameters from Table 1 combined to make parameters for Table 2 and an explanation for the new parameters presented in Table 3.
Author response: In the text, we explained which parameters in Table 1 can be used to define the parameters in Table 2.
Comment from Reviewer 3 asking does VR/AR Games parameters presented in Table 3 represent a distinct category or if is it subsumed under Application Specific Environments parameters as presented in Table 2 and the relationship between Height and Distance and Direction to the target needs explanation.
Author response: In the paper, we explained why VR/AR Games are a distinct category.
The revised text reads as follows, “The core difference between VR/AR games and other parameters is that, in a game, a user's goal is to win, such as eliminating the competitor while following the game rules, whereas in other parameters user is doing a task following the experimenter's instructions without the explicit goal of winning.”
We also explained the relationship between Height and Distance and Direction to the target in the Height section.
Comment from Reviewer 3 asking for additional content about where new parameters cannot be described by the ones defined in Tables 1 and 2.
Author response: We included the explanation in the text to describe the need for additional parameters.
Keywords: Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, 3D User Interfaces, Selection
TL;DR: This study analyzes 909 HCI papers from major repositories to classify virtual task environments in 3D selection methods, offering insights into user studies and advancing virtual interaction understanding.
Abstract: In recent years, there has been a race among researchers, developers, engineers, and designers to come up with new interaction techniques for enhancing the performance and experience of users while interacting with virtual environments, and a key component of a 3D interaction technique is the selection technique. In this paper, we explore the environmental factors used in the assessment of 3D selection methods and classify each factor based on the task environment. Our approach consists of a thorough literature collection process, including four major Human-Computer Interaction repositories—Scopus, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library and created a dataset of a total of 909 papers. Drawing inspiration from the parameters outlined by Laviola et al. we manually classified each of those papers based on the task environment described in the papers. In addition, we explore the methodologies used in recent user studies to assess interaction techniques within various task environments, providing valuable insights into the developing landscape of virtual interaction research. We hope that the outcomes of our paper serve as a valuable resource for researchers, developers, and designers, providing a deeper understanding of task environments and offering fresh perspectives to evaluate their proposed 3D selection techniques in virtual environments.
Submission Number: 28
Loading