Add remaining report comments

4-manipulation/visual-hand/5-conclusion.tex

@@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ Our results showed that a visual hand augmentation improved the performance, per
 A skeleton rendering, which provided a detailed view of the tracked joints and phalanges while not hiding the real hand, was the most performant and effective.
 The contour and mesh renderings were found to mask the real hand, while the tips rendering was controversial.
 The occlusion rendering had too much tracking latency to be effective.
-This is consistent with similar manipulation studies in \VR and in non-immersive \VST-\AR setups.
+This is consistent with similar manipulation studies in \VR and in \VST-\AR setups.
+
+\comans{SJ}{According to the results, occlusion is the most natural (in terms of realism) but least efficient for manipulation. In some cases, natural visualization is necessary. It would be beneficial to discuss these cases to help guide AR interaction designers in choosing the most appropriate visualization methods.}{TODO}
 
 This study suggests that a \ThreeD visual hand augmentation is important in \AR when interacting with a virtual hand technique, particularly when it involves precise finger movements in relation to virtual content, \eg \ThreeD windows, buttons and sliders, or more complex tasks, such as stacking or assembly.
 A minimal but detailed rendering of the virtual hand that does not hide the real hand, such as the skeleton rendering we evaluated, seems to be the best compromise between the richness and effectiveness of the feedback.

4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/1-introduction.tex

@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 \section{Introduction}
 \label{intro}
 
+\comans{SJ}{It is not entirely clear why this experiment is being conducted in an AR environment, considering both the purpose of the experiment and the
+controllability of the setup.}{TODO}
+
 Providing haptic feedback during free-hand manipulation in \AR is not a trivial issue, as wearing haptic devices on the hand might affect the tracking capabilities of the system \cite{pacchierotti2016hring}.
 Moreover, it is important to leave the user capable of interacting with both virtual and real objects, avoiding the use of haptic interfaces that cover the fingertips or palm.
 For this reason, it is often considered beneficial to move the point of application of the haptic feedback elsewhere on the hand (\secref[related_work]{vhar_haptics}).

4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/5-conclusion.tex

@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ However, the farthest positioning on the contralateral hand gave the best perfor
 The visual hand augmentation was perceived less necessary than the vibrotactile haptic feedback, but still provided a useful feedback on the hand tracking.
 This study provide evidence that moving away the feedback from the inside of the hand is a simple but promising approach for wearable haptics in \AR.
 
+\comans{SJ}{Again, it would strengthen the thesis if the authors provided a systematic guideline on how to choose the appropriate haptic feedback or visual augmentation depending on the specific requirements of an application.}{TODO}
+
 If integration with the hand tracking system allows it, and if the task requires it, a haptic ring worn on the middle or proximal phalanx seems preferable.
 However, a wrist-mounted haptic device will be able to provide richer feedback by embedding more diverse haptic actuators with larger bandwidths and maximum amplitudes, while being less obtrusive than a ring.
 Finally, we think that the visual hand augmentation complements the haptic contact rendering well by providing continuous feedback on the hand tracking, and that it can be disabled during the grasping phase to avoid redundancy with the haptic feedback of the contact with the virtual object.