Study on the Design of a Water Dispenser for Visually Impaired Families

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the Reviewer opinion the research paper entitled “Study on the Design of a Water Dispenser for the Visually Impaired Families” is good.

Based on the inclusive design concept, a diverse analysis of household users' operating ability and water dis-penser preferences were carried out. Subsequently, guided by the analysis, a new water dispenser product was developed. The method used was observation and interview to extrapolate the needs of visually impaired families, while questionnaire research was used to understand user prefer-ences. On the premise of meeting the different abilities of users in visually impaired families, the design practice improves the user’s experience of water dispensers, and provides practical method reference, which has value for related product design.

Some comments which greatly enhance the understanding of the paper and its value are presented below. Specific issues that require further consideration are:

1. The title of the manuscript is matched to its content.
2. The Introduction generally covers the cases.
3. The methodology was clearly presented.
4. In the Reviewer’s opinion, the current state of knowledge relating to the manuscript topic has been presented, but the author's contribution and novelty are not enough emphasized.
5. Experimental program and results looks interesting and was clearly presented.
6. In the Reviewer’s opinion, the bibliography, comprising 18 references, is more less representative.
7. An analysis of the manuscript content and the References shows that the manuscript under review constitutes a summary of the Author(s) achievements in the field.
8. In the Reviewer’s opinion the manuscript is well written, and it should be published in the journal after minor revision.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer:

We sincerely thank you for the valuable comments on our manuscript. The comments are significant helpful in improving our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript carefully according to your suggestions. We hope that you will find our responses satisfactory and convincing. The responses to comments are listed below:

 

Point 1: The title of the manuscript is matched to its content.

 

Response 1: The comments are highly appreciated.

 

Point 2: The Introduction generally covers the cases.

 

Response 2: Thank you very much for your comments

 

Point 3: The methodology was clearly presented.

 

Response 3: Thank you again for your comments on our manuscript, which gives us great confidence.

 

Point 4: In the Reviewer’s opinion, the current state of knowledge relating to the manuscript topic has been presented, but the author's contribution and novelty are not enough emphasized.

 

Response 4: Thanks! The comment is very professional and it is important for the improvement of our research work. At your suggestion, we added a corresponding discussion section to the text (Kindly see Page 2, Line 52-67), in which we emphasized the novelty of the article, including two points: focusing on the use scenarios of visually impaired families, building a design frame-work that meets the diverse needs of users based on their ability. And This study involves the verification of practical results, adding the evaluation of users' ability in the usability testing stage of existing water dispensers, the verification method of inclusion mean and availability mean can more objectively reflect the overall availability of water dispensers to users of various ability levels. Please see the article for more details

 

Point 5: Experimental program and results looks interesting and was clearly presented.

 

Response 5: We thank you very much for your recognition of this article, and we will try our best to modify this article to make it better

 

Point 6: In the Reviewer’s opinion, the bibliography, comprising 18 references, is more less representative.

 

Response 6: We sincerely thank you for your valuable advice! We agree with you. We have increased the number of references to 32, including the demonstration of the novelty of the article (kindly see page 2, line 61-64), the relevant research on design exclusion theory (kindly see page 2, line 73-80) compare our study with other similar studies for better understanding (kindly see page 2-3, line 86-111).

 

Point 7: An analysis of the manuscript content and the References shows that the manuscript under review constitutes a summary of the Author(s) achievements in the field.

 

Response 7: Thank you very much for your comments

 

Point 8: In the Reviewer’s opinion the manuscript is well written, and it should be published in the journal after minor revision.

 

Response 8: We sincerely thank you for the valuable comments on our manuscript. We hope that you will find our responses satisfactory and convincing.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Study on the Design of a Water Dispenser for the Visually Impaired Families” is well written. This can be considered worth publishing in journal “sustainability” after following revisions:

1. The objectives of the study should be presented in a more clear way.
2. Can author provide a “questionnaire survey” from used in Table 2.
3. Author should compare their study with other similar studies for better understanding.
4. Author should provide the limitations of this study.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer:

We sincerely thank you for the valuable comments on our manuscript. The comments are significant helpful in improving our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript carefully according to your suggestions. We hope that you will find our responses satisfactory and convincing. The responses to comments are listed below:

 

Point 1: The objectives of the study should be presented in a more clear way.

 

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for this valuable comment! We agree with your opinion. According to your kind suggestion, In order to put forward the research goal in a more clear way, based on the perspective of inclusive design, this paper discusses the following three research goals: (1) people with visual impairment have higher self-esteem and more sensitivity than ordinary people, so they should investigate their needs in a softer way; (2) On the basis of considering the diversity of household users' operating ability level and preference of water dispensers, the common and different needs of users should be met; (3) In the product verification stage, the simple and average data processing method of the availability index lacks consideration of the diversity of user capabilities. Facing this situation, consideration of user capabilities should be included in the data processing of the availability test.

 

Point 2: Can author provide a “questionnaire survey” from used in Table 2.

 

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We are sorry for not providing the “questionnaire survey” from used in Table 2. We put the questionnaire form in Appendix A. The following is the detailed content of the questionnaire:

 

Research on the preference of table water dispenser for visually impaired families
1. Your gender
□ Male				□ Female
2. Your age
3. Which type of user are you?
□ Senior(60+)
□ Young and middle-aged(20-60)
□ Visually impaired
4. Please enter your mobile phone number
5.Where is the drinking water equipment often placed at home?
□ Living room
□ Kitchen
□ Bedroom
□ Dining room
□ Study
□ else
6. Acceptable price of water dispenser
□ Less than 200 yuan
□ 200-500 yuan
□ 500-1000 yuan
□ More than 1000 yuan
Table top water dispenser is a new type of water dispenser that can be placed on the table more compact than the traditional vertical bucket water dispenser. It is roughly divided into three parts: water tank, operation panel and water receiving area. The capacity of the water tank is between 2 and 5 litres. Its biggest feature is instant heating instant drinking, according to the set temperature, within a few seconds to heat the water to the temperature
7. For the function of the water dispenser, what is your requirement?
	very unacceptable		not accept		general	accept		very acceptable
Water quality detection	□		□		□	□		□
Water shortage reminder	□		□		□	□		□
Water volume memory	□		□		□	□		□
Water temperature memory	□		□		□	□		□
Large screen display	□		□		□	□		□
Water volume setting	□		□		□	□		□
Voice control	□		□		□	□		□
Phone control	□		□		□	□		□
8.What is your preference for the operating mode of the water dispenser panel?
	very unacceptable		not accept		general	accept		very acceptable
Phone operation	□		□		□	□		□
Physical button	□		□		□	□		□
Touch operation	□		□		□	□		□
Physical knob	□		□		□	□		□
9.What is your preference for the following water temperature regulation methods?
	very unacceptable		not accept		general	accept		very acceptable
Phone settings	□		□		□	□		□
Digital representation	□		□		□	□		□
Conventional three gears	□		□		□	□		□
5 degrees per adjustment	□		□		□	□		□
Show how to make milk	□		□		□	□		□
10.What is your preference for the following information feedback methods of water dispenser operation?
	very unacceptable		not accept		general	accept		very acceptable
Anthropomorphic voice	□		□		□	□		□
Mechanical sound	□		□		□	□		□
Indicator light	□		□		□	□		□
Screen text	□		□		□	□		□

 

 

Point 3: Author should compare their study with other similar studies for better understanding.

 

Response 3: Thanks! The comment is very professional and it is important for the improvement of our research work. According to your kind suggestion, in order to compare our study with other similar studies to better understand, We searched for the relevant research on Design Exclusion Theory (kindly see Page 2, Line 73-80) Assistive technology and related drinking water dispenser products and technologies for the visually impaired (kindly see Page 2-3, line 86-111). Based on this, design strategies are obtained for product development, such as chang-ing touch operation to physical operation to adapt to the ability level of the visually impaired. Please see the article for more details

 

Point 4: Author should provide the limitations of this study.

 

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We are sorry for not provide the limitations of this study. For this reason, we summarized the deficiencies of this study (kindly Page 12, Line 450-460). The sample size of user survey and test is not rich enough. Due to the limited re-sources, although the visually impaired people contacted in this study are representa-tive to some extent, they are not enough to cover all user characteristics. The research on the structure and technology of the functional support of the water dispenser is not thorough and detailed enough. The verified model fails to fully realize the set function and users cannot go through the whole operation process during the test due to the limitation of the cost, leading to some error in the verification test result. In the analy-sis of user competence-availability indicators, this calculation method can evaluate product inclusion more effectively. However, the behavior and ability of users will also involve personal habits, experience and other factors in real life scenarios, so it is dif-ficult to completely exclude the influence of these factors in the process of usability testing.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised accordingly