For this post, I will be taking a look at:
Perndorfer, Rafael. 3D Interaction Within a Multi-User Distributed Untethered Virtual Reality Training Simulation, 2017.
Level of design
The layout of the paper appears to be a generalised one that was probably mandatory, as it is not noticably designed or layouted. This makes it look like a technical book or specialised publication one would expect when reading up on something in an academic setting such as school or university. Weirldy enough, this subjectively boosts its credibility as similar looking books are usually expected to be trustworthy.
Degree of innovation
The author described the current state of technology and innovation in the specific field of VR on site training of large scale operations, which in itself is of course not innovative, however this only built the base for further steps. Later in his work, the author expands on said knowledge through his own contributions and findings. This does not completely reinvent the system, but rather builds on what was already there, which is acknowledgeable as some degree of innovation.
Independence
The thesis was presumably written independently, however it of course builds upon and depends on the system and technology that was already there in this area. Qualitative research was also conducted by surveying a specific group of people. This is independent research, but was again limited by the level of specificity of the topic, as a consequence of which the number of participants was also limited.
Outline and structure
The topic is outlined quite nicely in the first chapters of fundamentals, which also segues neatly into a state of the art research, followed by the methodology used in the independent research. This is an easily followable structure which also makes sense based on the topic.
Degree of communication
Although some formulations can become quite technical, they are always explained in enough detail to be widely understandable. Fitting pictures also back up or further explain what was stated in the text. This is often extremely useful, as only those really help visualise more complex topics.
Scope of the work
The scope is quite clearly defined from the beginning in this very specific area of VR technology. Over more than 100 pages, it is properly dealt with and supported by citations and own research.
Orthography and accuracy
Orthographically, I did not really find any major mistakes other than one “priories” instead of “priorities”. Some expressions could have been formulated better, as they often have a very distinct german origin in the way they are read. This is noticable when it comes to sentence structure, however is not much of a problem when it comes to actual content or orthography.
Literature
At first glance, the bibliography is quite heavy on the internet side, and lacking traditional books. This might initially be looked down upon, but nowadays, especially when taking into consideration the highly specific and modern nature of the topic, it is understandable that online sources provide a much more up to date view on this rapidly evolving field.
