Development of User Feedback-Based Optimized Encoding System for 3D-Printed Tactile Maps
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and important work.
Its strength is the pragmatic, stepwise approach to a design challenge and engaging participants in a collaborative way as co-investigators.
The areas of the results that are descriptive are clear and sensible. Where the authors have tried to quantify and aggregate performance, there are errors in terms of analysis, presentation and ultimately – interpretation.
While I think it is essential this paper be supported to publication, my major concern is with the conclusion the later generation maps would be more readable to ‘new’ participants without the opportunity to learn as the participants here did. This frustrates the ultimate conclusion that the design elements proposed are likely valuable without a period of learning. I think rather than a fatal blow to the work, it is just important to recognise that the conclusions assume people will have the opportunity to learn how to read maps, rather than assuming the recommended encodings are more intuitive to the untrained or unexperienced user.
Abstract
It would help to state a clearer aim and/or objective/s, summarising what is in the introduction.
Introduction
Why only US epidemiology here? It would make sense to describe global blindness prevalence estimates, or add a few words or a sentence arguing why the paper should be understood as relevant only to the US population.
The paragraph starting at line 52 is unnecessary.
Line 56: ‘there has been a wide range of research’ is not the most compelling start to the background. Start at ‘Tactile maps have been found…’ Throughout, delete words like ‘it has been shown that’ or ‘studies show’. These are redundant as it is self evident you are reporting on the literature.
Line 68; delete ‘be’
Much of references 10-15 (and 5) or thereabouts repeat similar points, before the argument that they can improve quality of life. I suggest starting with the more interesting and important ‘improve quality of life through alternative ways to navigate’ before describing the key underlying principles: ‘sensory maps, reducing stimulus, accurate non visual representation of the physical world, etc’ which for the basis of your design-thinking.
The paragraph beginning at line 114 or so seems to be the crux of the problem and should appear earlier in the argument. To me, this is what the work is really about. The sentence ‘These features seem to be determined by the limitations of the traditional production method rather 129 than the user’s needs.’ At line 128 summarises the entire challenge really well. Consider moving this argument earlier in the introduction. The exploration of related literature and the value of tactile maps in general follows from these points.
The citation and argument at 166 repeats earlier information in the introduction
‘Here we present our results’ – line 171: indeed, you present a process and results – the process is as interesting and useful as the results themselves.
The statement at line 169 is a conclusion and is best left for concluding remarks after presenting the results.
172. Participants and recruitment should be a distinct sub-heading. Include a statement on IRB approval and informed consent (how it was sought and under what auspices) about here.
I find the written results up to section 3.7 to be clear, fascinating and exciting. I have no substantive comments to make.
Thereafter, the charts are very hard to read visually (I expect this is especially important to address given the subject matter). The column names pixelate at zoom, and worse, it isn’t clear what the individual columns or clusters of columns actually represent without referring back to the paragraph on the previous page. The graphs need to be much clearer both visually and conceptually. It is very difficult to make sense of the quantities with a1-e1 overlayed in between aC-eC.
If the comparison is isolation/combined readability, those are the columns, not clusters of columns. If the comparison is aggregate readability over map generations, use a line – probably just delete the first 2 ‘door’ graphs.
More concerningly, and my major issue with this section of the results, is the role of learning. Is the effect generational, or based on learning and iterative practice on different maps? Without randomising the order of presentation on an unrelated group without that engagement, it is impossible to conclude the later generations are more usable, or whether the process of learning meant they *became* more readable after that process. This needs to be addressed in the discussion at least.
The conclusion is too long. Much of it either repeats or should be moved to a limitations section in the discussion.
See error at line 682 (digit ‘5’ falls onto next line)
Author Response
On behalf of all coauthors, I would like to thank the reviewers for their time and the helpful comments they provided to improve this manuscript. After thorough consideration, we have addressed the issues raised by the reviewers as follows:
--------Reviewer Comments--------
Reviewer 1
Comment 1. While I think it is essential this paper be supported to publication, my major concern is with the conclusion the later generation maps would be more readable to ‘new’ participants without the opportunity to learn as the participants here did. This frustrates the ultimate conclusion that the design elements proposed are likely valuable without a period of learning. I think rather than a fatal blow to the work, it is just important to recognise that the conclusions assume people will have the opportunity to learn how to read maps, rather than assuming the recommended encodings are more intuitive to the untrained or unexperienced user.
Reply: Each map and symbol were given to the participant at random and oriented at random. Every map/path were only seen once by each participant. Some of the participants joined the study when all generations of the maps were already available. It is important to mention that when they were given different generations of maps in random order, they were still preferring later generations of the maps. This confirms that this preference was caused by improvement of the maps, and not by improvement of the map reading through multiple meetings.
Comment 2. It would help to state a clearer aim and/or objective/s, summarising what is in the introduction.
Reply: We shortened the abstract and wrote a better overview of the study.
Comment 3. Why only US epidemiology here? It would make sense to describe global blindness prevalence estimates, or add a few words or a sentence arguing why the paper should be understood as relevant only to the US population.
Reply: We added information about worldwide statistics.
Comment 4. The paragraph starting at line 52 is unnecessary.
Reply: It was removed.
Comment 5. Line 56: ‘there has been a wide range of research’ is not the most compelling start to the background. Start at ‘Tactile maps have been found…’ Throughout, delete words like ‘it has been shown that’ or ‘studies show’. These are redundant as it is self evident you are reporting on the literature.
Reply: The introduction was rewritten.
Comment 6. Line 68; delete ‘be’
Reply: It was fixed.
Comment 7. Much of references 10-15 (and 5) or thereabouts repeat similar points, before the argument that they can improve quality of life. I suggest starting with the more interesting and important ‘improve quality of life through alternative ways to navigate’ before describing the key underlying principles: ‘sensory maps, reducing stimulus, accurate non visual representation of the physical world, etc’ which for the basis of your design-thinking.
Reply: The introduction was rewritten.
Comment 8. The paragraph beginning at line 114 or so seems to be the crux of the problem and should appear earlier in the argument. To me, this is what the work is really about. The sentence ‘These features seem to be determined by the limitations of the traditional production method rather 129 than the user’s needs.’ At line 128 summarises the entire challenge really well. Consider moving this argument earlier in the introduction. The exploration of related literature and the value of tactile maps in general follows from these points.
Reply: The introduction was rewritten.
Comment 9. The citation and argument at 166 repeats earlier information in the introduction
Reply: The introduction was rewritten.
Comment 10. ‘Here we present our results’ – line 171: indeed, you present a process and results – the process is as interesting and useful as the results themselves.
Reply: Thank you. We updated the statement.
Comment 11. The statement at line 169 is a conclusion and is best left for concluding remarks after presenting the results.
Reply: It was moved.
Comment 12. 172. Participants and recruitment should be a distinct sub-heading. Include a statement on IRB approval and informed consent (how it was sought and under what auspices) about here.
Reply: The section was updated.
Comment 13. I find the written results up to section 3.7 to be clear, fascinating and exciting. I have no substantive comments to make.
Reply: Thank you.
Comment 14. Thereafter, the charts are very hard to read visually (I expect this is especially important to address given the subject matter). The column names pixelate at zoom, and worse, it isn’t clear what the individual columns or clusters of columns actually represent without referring back to the paragraph on the previous page. The graphs need to be much clearer both visually and conceptually. It is very difficult to make sense of the quantities with a1-e1 overlayed in between aC-eC.
If the comparison is isolation/combined readability, those are the columns, not clusters of columns. If the comparison is aggregate readability over map generations, use a line – probably just delete the first 2 ‘door’ graphs.
Reply: We updated the figures and the figure captions to make them more readable.
Comment 15. The conclusion is too long. Much of it either repeats or should be moved to a limitations section in the discussion.
Reply: We shortened the conclusion
Comment 16. See error at line 682 (digit ‘5’ falls onto next line)
Reply: Thank you. We fixed the typo.
Reviewer 2 Report
The present empirical study presents interest for those who study the orientation and mobility aids for individuals with visual impairments, especially tactile maps.
Introduction:
The structure of the paragraphs seems abstract/loose. For instance, 1st paragraph is really difficult to follow.
The proposition/statement in lines 114-116 needs reference(s) so that it can be accepted.
The authors should read and include the following references especially when reviewing previous researches (for instance, in the paragraph-lines 114-130). These papers refer to a very similar – extended – research addressing the kind of information that should be included in tactile maps.
(2003) The World of Touch: Results of an International Survey of Tactile Maps and Symbols, The Cartographic Journal, 40:3, 259-263, DOI: 10.1179/000870403225012961
McCallum, D., Ungar, S., & Jehoel, S. (2006). An evaluation of tactile directional symbols. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 24(2), 83-92.
Lee, C. L. (2019). An evaluation of tactile symbols in public environment for the visually impaired. Applied ergonomics, 75, 193-200.
Papadopoulos, K., Charitakis, K., Koustriava, E., Kouroupetroglou, G., Stiefelhagen, R., Stylianidis, E., & Gumus, S. S. (2020). Environmental information required by individuals with visual impairments who use orientation and mobility aids to navigate campuses. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 114(4), 263-276.
Procedure:
A lot of information – necessary to understand the design of the research – is missing. For instance:
· What was the scale of the symbols?
· How larger and how smaller were the symbols in each case? (lines 228-229)
· How many tactile encodings on how many 3D-printed plates?
· It should be mentioned how the tasks performed by the participants (lines 246-248) were scored
· “a five-point Likert survey” (line 249): How many questions structured the survey? Which were these questions specifically?
In addition,
· “raised text explanations” (line 240)”: What is this?
· “An observer followed the participants and documented their use of the map, navigation…” (lines 289-290): Were there any specific questions/criteria to document the use of the map and the navigation? I am afraid that these criteria should be predefined to avoid any subjectivity in judgements.
· No ethical issues and relative measures taken are mentioned.
· Overall, I do not find the dipole answering system (yes/no) appropriate enough to support the improvement of the encodings… The authors should explain in detail how they guided to optimal encodings/maps based on this design. Maybe they should consider the following questions: If the answers were “no” in the questions of part A & B then a replacement probably should take place. How will the researchers decide the appropriateness of the new symbol/encoding? Even if the answers were “yes” to some questions and “no” to some others, what should be the criteria to improve/replace the encoding? How do they know that the new symbol/encoding will be suitable especially over another?
Results:
· I am not sure that all this description of the symbols is well placed into the Results section. I would prefer it in the procedure section so that it is easier to follow the procedure
· Again, I cannot understand how the questions addressed to the participants lead to numeric results (i.e. “The door heights were between 2mm to 8mm (optimal height ~5mm). The diameter for a circular door was between 4mm and 15mm (optimal ~6mm)”).
· Although the number of the participants is limited basic inferential statistical analysis could be applied. Not even descriptive statistics are given. This, is a huge inadequacy of the paper…
Overall:
The paper needs proofreading, a lot of (typographical?) errors were detected in language (e.g. line 18, 43, 68, 76, 78 and so on)
Author Response
On behalf of all coauthors, I would like to thank the reviewers for their time and the helpful comments they provided to improve this manuscript. After thorough consideration, we have addressed the issues raised by the reviewers as follows:
--------Reviewer Comments--------
Reviewer 2
Comment 1. Introduction: The structure of the paragraphs seems abstract/loose. For instance, 1st paragraph is really difficult to follow.
Reply: The introduction was rewritten.
Comment 2. The proposition/statement in lines 114-116 needs reference(s) so that it can be accepted.
Reply: The reference was added.
Comment 3. The authors should read and include the following references especially when reviewing previous researches (for instance, in the paragraph-lines 114-130). These papers refer to a very similar – extended – research addressing the kind of information that should be included in tactile maps.
Jonathan Rowell & Simon Ungar (2003) The World of Touch: Results of an International Survey of Tactile Maps and Symbols, The Cartographic Journal, 40:3, 259-263, DOI: 10.1179/000870403225012961
McCallum, D., Ungar, S., & Jehoel, S. (2006). An evaluation of tactile directional symbols. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 24(2), 83-92.
Lee, C. L. (2019). An evaluation of tactile symbols in public environment for the visually impaired. Applied ergonomics, 75, 193-200.
Papadopoulos, K., Charitakis, K., Koustriava, E., Kouroupetroglou, G., Stiefelhagen, R., Stylianidis, E., & Gumus, S. S. (2020). Environmental information required by individuals with visual impairments who use orientation and mobility aids to navigate campuses. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 114(4), 263-276.
Reply: Thank you for providing these highly relevant references. They were added to the manuscript.
Comment 4. Procedure:
A lot of information – necessary to understand the design of the research – is missing. For instance:
What was the scale of the symbols?
How larger and how smaller were the symbols in each case? (lines 228-229)
Reply: This was very specific to individual symbols. For example, the door heights were between 2mm to 8mm (optimal height ~5mm). This means that 5mm height was perceived as appropriate for most of the participants. The optimized dimensions were posted in the figure 8.
Comment 5. How many tactile encodings on how many 3D-printed plates?
Reply: Each experimental session required dozens of 3D-printed plates with multiple symbols printed at different scales together with different maps representing different map generations.
Comment 6. It should be mentioned how the tasks performed by the participants (lines 246-248) were scored
Reply: The tasks were not scored. The users used the maps to complete the tasks and then were evaluating map difficulty level.
Comment 7. “a five-point Likert survey” (line 249): How many questions structured the survey? Which were these questions specifically?
Reply: There was only one question about map difficulty level. The values were from 1- very easy, to 5 – very difficult.
Comment 8. In addition, “raised text explanations” (line 240)”: What is this?
Reply: We mean “embossed textual explanation”. It was changed in the manuscript.
Comment 9. “An observer followed the participants and documented their use of the map, navigation…” (lines 289-290): Were there any specific questions/criteria to document the use of the map and the navigation? I am afraid that these criteria should be predefined to avoid any subjectivity in judgements.
Reply: The main criteria of success was that the participants was able to independently complete a navigation task. In all experiments the users were able to do that. In addition to that the observers were noting how many times the users were looking at the map during the navigation. Many of them studied the map beforehand, but did not use it during the navigation, while others could check it between 1 and 3 times. We did not optimize for faster completion of the route because different participants were working with different speed, so it would not be very indicative marker of success.
Comment 10. No ethical issues and relative measures taken are mentioned.
Reply: We added information about IRB approval to the text of the manuscript.
Comment 11. Overall, I do not find the dipole answering system (yes/no) appropriate enough to support the improvement of the encodings… The authors should explain in detail how they guided to optimal encodings/maps based on this design. Maybe they should consider the following questions: If the answers were “no” in the questions of part A & B then a replacement probably should take place. How will the researchers decide the appropriateness of the new symbol/encoding? Even if the answers were “yes” to some questions and “no” to some others, what should be the criteria to improve/replace the encoding? How do they know that the new symbol/encoding will be suitable especially over another?
Reply: The goal of the readability questions was to determine a set of symbols that can be approved by the majority of the users. This was critical, since if a user cannot understand the symbol in isolation, s/he would not be able to recognize it in a map. Therefore, the symbols were improved till they were almost universally approved. Similarly, agreement regarding representativeness of the symbol was very important for finalizing the encodings.
Comment 12. Results:
I am not sure that all this description of the symbols is well placed into the Results section. I would prefer it in the procedure section so that it is easier to follow the procedure
Reply: The description was moved.
Comment 13. Again, I cannot understand how the questions addressed to the participants lead to numeric results (i.e. “The door heights were between 2mm to 8mm (optimal height ~5mm). The diameter for a circular door was between 4mm and 15mm (optimal ~6mm)”).
Reply: More details has been added to the manuscript.
Comment 14. Although the number of the participants is limited basic inferential statistical analysis could be applied. Not even descriptive statistics are given. This, is a huge inadequacy of the paper…
Reply: We added this information to the Figure 7 caption: Red dots represent the mean values of the difficulty reported by all participants for the given generation of the map (1-8). The error bars represent standard deviations calculated for those measurements. For other tasks this analysis would be less relevant, since we have been improving encodings till 14-15 participants were approving both readability and representation of the encodings.
Comment 15. Overall:
The paper needs proofreading, a lot of (typographical?) errors were detected in language (e.g. line 18, 43, 68, 76, 78 and so on)
Reply: Thank you. We worked on further polishing of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented publication concerns a specific form of supporting the blind and visually impaired by compensating for the lack of information about the architectural environment. The authors' research includes haptic typhlological aids, in which visual content important for orientation and locomotion is conveyed in an alternative way, using tactile representations of a city fragment or building interiors. Interestingly, researchers describe a special type of such aids, differing from the most commonly used tactile illustrations in that they are encreased beyond the level of traditional typhlographics to a form resembling a 3D model.
The aim of the article is to optimize the coding of specific elements of architectural space equipment, based on the selection of variants from among the markings that have improved the comfort and efficiency of use to the highest degree. The research method was based on the iteration process, i.e. multiple repetitions of the experiment in various forms and multi-stage analysis of the feedback obtained from the participants in order to obtain the set with the best readability.
The submitted article is a very valuable scientific text. The structure of the text is very good, clear and understandable. All elements of the work have their proper place and proportions. The research results have been described in a very clear and substantially complete manner. As for reporting, the reviewer has only a few small comments that you will find at the end of the review.
I would also like to emphasize the very high substantive value of this work. The authors show a very deep knowledge and true understanding of the cognitive problems characteristic of blind people. It should be noted that although the subject of orientation and mobility of blind and visually impaired people appears regularly in scientific texts, unfortunately many of these publications are superficial, showing only good intentions, but complete ignorance of the authors. The researchers whose work I am reviewing very carefully analyze the mechanism of space mapping by the blind, as well as understand very well why the tactile reproduction of space cannot be a translation of an "ordinary" drawing (this is the most common mistake of novices). Such adaptations require such measures as: generalization, reductionism and the selection of essential elements, adjusting the scale, closing figures, changing the convention, using abbreviations, appropriate separation, adjusting to the "resolution" of touch, etc. The authors of this work are fully aware of this that the typhlological map is a separately designed representation that requires multiple testing in terms of clarity and unambiguity of the message. I really appreciate the fact that you also notice a completely different priority, important for visually impaired people. The mind of such a person naturally looks for information not only about the objects on the route of the march, but also about the paths (obstacle-free spaces) and about the directions of possible mobility, safe zones, and the end of the route.
Unfortunately, many modern aids do not take this into account. Some plans feature single arrows signaling the entrances to the rooms. My objection is that they are often marked with an equilateral triangle, which makes it impossible to determine the direction of the entrance, because such a triangle looks similar on all sides. I am very glad that you found a way and your triangles navigate the recipient in a specific direction. Architecture is a hierarchical system. Directionality is a very important feature of shaping architectural objects - there are privileged directions, main trajectories of movement, entrance to subordinate rooms, one-way routes - all these are important tips on how to use the space. I am very glad that you are paying attention to this fact and that you are trying to properly emphasize the movement on your plans. I am glad that you give this aspect an emotional dimension (I myself research the emotional aspect in cognitive experiences, also in haptic blind people). You do this by "dynamic" marking of convex "dots" and intermediate arrows, thus gaining the attention and interest of the recipient. The element of the end of the road and the indication of the safe area is also interesting for me, also emphasized in a cognitively clear and emotionally adequate way.
The fact that you have studied not only individual characters, but entire sequences of codes also testifies to your excellent preparation for taking up this topic. This is very important because when viewing the map, the information is not isolated, but is a system of interrelated stimuli, the legibility of which depends on the context and the vicinity of other objects. There is also the problem of over stimulation or cognitive fatigue. I really appreciate this aspect of the study.
What I want to emphasize - this work is valuable not only because the authors deal with the problems of users of space exposed to social exclusion, but above all because of the full professionalism of the authors and their responsibility and research integrity.
As a reviewer, I have a few small comments and doubts that I want to share with you.
1. As the author of a book on haptic models, I have some discomfort with the use of the word 3D model in relation to the typhlological aids you present (it appears occasionally in the text of your work). In my opinion, they are still somewhere on the scale between the convex illustration (in my country we call them more and more not 2, but 2.5 D) and the full model (3D), which shows (faithfully or simplified) the spacial shape of the prototype.
It seems to me that the purpose of your help is not so much to convey the shape of a three-dimensional space (it would not be convenient or purposeful), but to bring closer the spatial nature of the experience of moving around in an object. Therefore, you do not focus on precise representation of spatial relations, but on emphasizing the experience of: flatness, verticality, slants, bends, rhythms of stairs, rotation of the opening doors, etc. Therefore, it is not about mapping space, but about building an adequate association with various tactile and kinesthetic activities. In my opinion, it is still some other, perhaps unnamed form of haptic representation. In a word, I would suggest writting that these maps "resemble a model", or perhaps try to give some own, additional name characterizing this "type of models" (as there are models that show the mechanism of action of something, not its visual shape).
2. This is related to the paragraph above. I would like to ask you to specify how you limited the level of walls in your plans (the height to which the walls were raised). If I understood you well, it wasn't about the exact proportions, but about experiencing of verticality of the wall. What does the limit value of this height depend on? It is probably different in the case of narrow corridors that are difficult to see with your fingers, and large spaces. I encountered this problem while examining models, but also typhlographs, on which elements were sometimes too large or too small to be conveniently viewed by touch. One way to overcome this problem was to modify scale. We do not always deal with the reducing the image according to a uniform scale factor. Sometimes different reductions are applied to one direction, another to the other, and another to the third. Therefore, it is also worth adding precisely whether you use faithful distance relations and room proportions, or whether it is the so-called contaminated scale (information on this can be found in the text: A.Kłopotowska, M.Magdziak, Tactile Architectural Drawings - Practical Application and Potential of Architectural Typhlographics, Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, No. 11, pp. 1-19, No: 6216. DOI: 10.3390 / su13116216).
3. Perhaps what I will write is due to linguistic differences. Reading Readability questions, I couldn't quite understand question 3. Of course, you can't change it, because it has already been asked, but maybe we can write an explanation somewhere next to this text, what you mean by the phrase: appear to increase or decreace in elevation. Is it about changing the height of the room or building along the observer's route? Is it also about different ground level on the pavement or on the floor? It would be good to explain it.
4. Please pay attention to line 682, if anything is missing.
I hope that responding to these comments will help to further improve the quality and readability of your article, which is a very important scientific work.
Thank you for your work for visually impaired people and I wish you many more professional successes.
Best regards
Author Response
On behalf of all coauthors, I would like to thank the reviewers for their time and the helpful comments they provided to improve this manuscript. After thorough consideration, we have addressed the issues raised by the reviewers as follows:
Comment 1. The presented publication concerns a specific form of supporting the blind and visually impaired by compensating for the lack of information about the architectural environment. The authors' research includes haptic typhlological aids, in which visual content important for orientation and locomotion is conveyed in an alternative way, using tactile representations of a city fragment or building interiors. Interestingly, researchers describe a special type of such aids, differing from the most commonly used tactile illustrations in that they are encreased beyond the level of traditional typhlographics to a form resembling a 3D model.
The aim of the article is to optimize the coding of specific elements of architectural space equipment, based on the selection of variants from among the markings that have improved the comfort and efficiency of use to the highest degree. The research method was based on the iteration process, i.e. multiple repetitions of the experiment in various forms and multi-stage analysis of the feedback obtained from the participants in order to obtain the set with the best readability.
The submitted article is a very valuable scientific text. The structure of the text is very good, clear and understandable. All elements of the work have their proper place and proportions. The research results have been described in a very clear and substantially complete manner. As for reporting, the reviewer has only a few small comments that you will find at the end of the review.
I would also like to emphasize the very high substantive value of this work. The authors show a very deep knowledge and true understanding of the cognitive problems characteristic of blind people. It should be noted that although the subject of orientation and mobility of blind and visually impaired people appears regularly in scientific texts, unfortunately many of these publications are superficial, showing only good intentions, but complete ignorance of the authors. The researchers whose work I am reviewing very carefully analyze the mechanism of space mapping by the blind, as well as understand very well why the tactile reproduction of space cannot be a translation of an "ordinary" drawing (this is the most common mistake of novices). Such adaptations require such measures as: generalization, reductionism and the selection of essential elements, adjusting the scale, closing figures, changing the convention, using abbreviations, appropriate separation, adjusting to the "resolution" of touch, etc. The authors of this work are fully aware of this that the typhlological map is a separately designed representation that requires multiple testing in terms of clarity and unambiguity of the message. I really appreciate the fact that you also notice a completely different priority, important for visually impaired people. The mind of such a person naturally looks for information not only about the objects on the route of the march, but also about the paths (obstacle-free spaces) and about the directions of possible mobility, safe zones, and the end of the route.
Unfortunately, many modern aids do not take this into account. Some plans feature single arrows signaling the entrances to the rooms. My objection is that they are often marked with an equilateral triangle, which makes it impossible to determine the direction of the entrance, because such a triangle looks similar on all sides. I am very glad that you found a way and your triangles navigate the recipient in a specific direction. Architecture is a hierarchical system. Directionality is a very important feature of shaping architectural objects - there are privileged directions, main trajectories of movement, entrance to subordinate rooms, one-way routes - all these are important tips on how to use the space. I am very glad that you are paying attention to this fact and that you are trying to properly emphasize the movement on your plans. I am glad that you give this aspect an emotional dimension (I myself research the emotional aspect in cognitive experiences, also in haptic blind people). You do this by "dynamic" marking of convex "dots" and intermediate arrows, thus gaining the attention and interest of the recipient. The element of the end of the road and the indication of the safe area is also interesting for me, also emphasized in a cognitively clear and emotionally adequate way.
The fact that you have studied not only individual characters, but entire sequences of codes also testifies to your excellent preparation for taking up this topic. This is very important because when viewing the map, the information is not isolated, but is a system of interrelated stimuli, the legibility of which depends on the context and the vicinity of other objects. There is also the problem of over stimulation or cognitive fatigue. I really appreciate this aspect of the study.
What I want to emphasize - this work is valuable not only because the authors deal with the problems of users of space exposed to social exclusion, but above all because of the full professionalism of the authors and their responsibility and research integrity.
Reply: Thank you so much for your kind word. We are honored to be reviewed by such knowledgable specialist in the area.
Comment 2. As the author of a book on haptic models, I have some discomfort with the use of the word 3D model in relation to the typhlological aids you present (it appears occasionally in the text of your work). In my opinion, they are still somewhere on the scale between the convex illustration (in my country we call them more and more not 2, but 2.5 D) and the full model (3D), which shows (faithfully or simplified) the spacial shape of the prototype.
It seems to me that the purpose of your help is not so much to convey the shape of a three-dimensional space (it would not be convenient or purposeful), but to bring closer the spatial nature of the experience of moving around in an object. Therefore, you do not focus on precise representation of spatial relations, but on emphasizing the experience of: flatness, verticality, slants, bends, rhythms of stairs, rotation of the opening doors, etc. Therefore, it is not about mapping space, but about building an adequate association with various tactile and kinesthetic activities. In my opinion, it is still some other, perhaps unnamed form of haptic representation. In a word, I would suggest writting that these maps "resemble a model", or perhaps try to give some own, additional name characterizing this "type of models" (as there are models that show the mechanism of action of something, not its visual shape).
Reply: We tried to incorporate all these great suggestions into different sections of the manuscript.
Comment 3. This is related to the paragraph above. I would like to ask you to specify how you limited the level of walls in your plans (the height to which the walls were raised). If I understood you well, it wasn't about the exact proportions, but about experiencing of verticality of the wall. What does the limit value of this height depend on? It is probably different in the case of narrow corridors that are difficult to see with your fingers, and large spaces. I encountered this problem while examining models, but also typhlographs, on which elements were sometimes too large or too small to be conveniently viewed by touch. One way to overcome this problem was to modify scale. We do not always deal with the reducing the image according to a uniform scale factor. Sometimes different reductions are applied to one direction, another to the other, and another to the third. Therefore, it is also worth adding precisely whether you use faithful distance relations and room proportions, or whether it is the so-called contaminated scale (information on this can be found in the text: A.Kłopotowska, M.Magdziak, Tactile Architectural Drawings - Practical Application and Potential of Architectural Typhlographics, Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, No. 11, pp. 1-19, No: 6216. DOI: 10.3390 / su13116216).
Reply: Thank you for the reference to this highly relevant publication. The encodings for the wall was indeed not defined by a precise proportion, but by ability of the users to recognize them as walls. Different heights were tried and 5 mm was perceived as a suitable height by majority of the participants. The proportions were not always preserved. In case of very narrow corridors the spacing could be disproportionally increased to insure that the information about the presence of the corridor can be reliably perceived. More information about that was added to different parts of the manuscript.
Comment 4. Perhaps what I will write is due to linguistic differences. Reading Readability questions, I couldn't quite understand question 3. Of course, you can't change it, because it has already been asked, but maybe we can write an explanation somewhere next to this text, what you mean by the phrase: appear to increase or decreace in elevation. Is it about changing the height of the room or building along the observer's route? Is it also about different ground level on the pavement or on the floor? It would be good to explain it.
Reply: Thank you. We specified that it was done for stairs (e.g. Figure 3 j or j).
Comment 5. Please pay attention to line 682, if anything is missing.
Reply: Thank you. We fixed that.
Comment 6. I hope that responding to these comments will help to further improve the quality and readability of your article, which is a very important scientific work. Thank you for your work for visually impaired people and I wish you many more professional successes.
Reply: Thank you very much for your kind words.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
-
