This paper contributes the design of three different tangible systems aimed at <removed for anonymity>. <removed for anonymity> and <removed for anonymity> each provide a <removed for anonymity>. The paper also presents a study with 12 people who gave feedback on the designs.
Overall, the paper is an interesting and thought-provoking read. The designs and reactions from users are not earth-shattering and many of the user reactions and design considerations are fairly obvious (suggesting a study may not have been completely necessary). That being said, there are a few surprising things coming out of the work (I outline these below). Moreover, this is one of the few papers I have seen on <removed for anonymity> that actually provides some reaction from users about the design. This in itself is nice to see. I think the paper will spur further design thought in this area and push designers to publish and talk about the reactions they get from potential users. For me, this warrants a '4' and an accept.
FRAMING: The framing of the paper is a weak and the authors could have spent more time describing a clear research problem that they are focused on. Clearly it is about <removed for anonymity> and there is a need for it, but the authors don't do a good job of presenting a strong background of what that need really entails. This is evident in the somewhat short and less detailed abstract and introduction sections.
RELATED WORK: The related work feels well covered though I do not know what all publications have looked at designing <removed for anonymity>. The only notable examples that I see missing are <removed for anonymity>.
There is a large body of literature that looks at <removed for anonymity> (see <removed for anonymity> for example) that seems untapped, however, this is less relevant for a design-focused paper like this. Even still, it would have been nice to see some of this literature used to frame the paper and research problem.
THE PROTOYPES: The prototypes are all quite intriguing and border on the uncanny valley problem. This is quite nice because it gives the paper a good opportunity to explore the issue. I also like the variations that the authors have presented in their designs. They didn't stop at the most obvious solution - <removed for anonymity>. They pushed their ideas further to think of alternative designs that would similarly probe how users want to <removed for anonymity>.
STUDY METHOD: The method seems sound though some of the questions outlined in Table 1 are weak and will get obvious answers (e.g., Do you <removed for anonymity>). My only major concern would be that the vignettes are presented in very little detail yet seem to be a cornerstone of the study method. We need to better understand them in order to properly assess the study results.
RESULTS: Several of the results are somewhat obvious and it isn't clear to me that you need a study to find them out (e.g., people preferred <removed for anonymity>). I believe any good designer could have expected these findings.
Some results are also fairly speculative which do not really offer much contribution (e.g., people speculated that <removed for anonymity> - they are simply guessing)
That said, there are some interesting things that are less expected. These suggest interesting design directions and would be highly relevant for others who are designing <removed for anonymity>. For example: - mobility becomes an important design factor such that interactions can be more spontaneous - people favoured <removed for anonymity> - devices that tried to copy the behaviour of <removed for anonymity> were least preferred - the process of <removed for anonymity> created a significant memory - people wanted to couple the devices with other communication mediums
DISCUSSION: The discussion is fine, but the authors could have done a better job of pulling out the most interesting findings and showing how these could be more broadly applicable to <removed for anonymity> design. There are some key things that designers should think about based on the surprising findings that I listed above and the authors should explicitly state them.
I think most of my above concerns could be addressed pretty easily in a camera-ready version of the paper.