Designing with Genius Loci: An Approach to Polyvocality in Interactive Heritage Interpretation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a comprehensive co-design case study with exceptional detail. The work demonstrated a great commitment to the study, which is exemplary. The methods are sound. The paper focuses predominantly on the co-design process (DwGL) and the three design lessons. However, the design lessons seem to be based on the authors' methods and corporation with the volunteer but less on the feedback from the users/visitors. I am wondering if there is more evidence of the effects of the proposed design on the visitors themselves -- which could help validate the design approach.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment. We follow the provided example of listing reviewers' points in black and our responses in red. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper aims to address co-designing activities with communities facilitating polyvocality at a heritage site, using three artefacts: Un/Authorised View, SDH Palimpset, and Loci stories. The authors propose the “designing with genius loci” (DwGL) approach guiding community-place discourses and interactions. Although this is an interesting theme, there are some issues that I’d recommend the authors consider in order to improve the paper and benefit from increasing readership:

• Clarify what is the outcome or method used in the title. If it is a proposal of a method, the authors should make it clear, g. a proposed method.
• The abstract should clarify the procedures undertaken to accomplish and support the proposed DwGL approach.
• Paper organisation: If the purpose is to propose the “designing with genius loci” (DwGL) (the purpose is also not clear in the paper), then the authors should emphasize why do need such an approach, what are the challenges/drawbacks in applying the co-designing techniques to place-meaning practices that lead to this need, the undertaken procedures to come up with DwGL, DwGL description, and examples of its application/validation.
• Page 4: Before presenting the rationale for the genius loci, the concept should be explained, then its application in interaction design, and methods used for heritage interpretation.
• Information about the participants’ previous relationship with the location would be also important to interpret the results and inform about possible bias.
• In the discussion, the added value of DwGL should be emphasized as well as differences in the use of co-design techniques applied to place-meaning practices. Authors should also explain the implications of DwGL in interaction design. Acknowledge limitations and future work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. We follow the provided example of listing reviewers' comments in black and our responses in red. Thank you for your time and consideration!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

line 290 - I recommend replacing the word "truth" with "fact".

Interesting and extensive article with an interesting study. I have no objections to the processing, research and interpretation of the results.
I miss more numbers in the article. I have no reservations about the use of technology (VR, AR, ...), it is another way to connect history with the present, whether in the field of philosophy or design.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. We follow the provided example of listing reviewers' comments in black and our responses in red. Thank you for your time and consideration!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf