• Simple and smart
  • Very interesting, but I’m curious about how it demonstrates academic contribution

Brief overview of the paper:

  • The paper discusses the concept of harvesting electricity, which allows for a prolonged experience without the need for cables connected to outlets. This is beneficial because being tethered limits the user’s motion.

What it contributes beyond previous work:

  • The paper explores techniques for batteryless computing and energy harvesting specifically for haptic devices.

What I like about it (explain why):

  • I appreciate that even the harvesting part provides a haptic experience, such as water resistance in the given example. The authors don’t require users to do anything extra; they are able to generate electricity from the haptic stimuli itself.
  • I also like the design of their “walkthrough” concept, as it gives a clear image/example of how this device could harvest electricity.

What I don’t like about it (explain why):

  • I have concerns about the user study that compares the condition of using only controllers versus using their haptic devices. This study heavily relies on the scenario provided to participants, and the results only indicate that their “island” walkthrough was well-designed enough to hide the fatigue caused by harvesting.

What I think should have been done differently (explain why):

  • It would have been better to conduct user studies with more scenarios, in addition to their “island” walkthrough. This would allow us to derive design requirements and tips for designing the harvesting sequence based on the results.

What I think should be done next (explain why):

  • The paper mentions the potential applications of this technology in VR, but I believe it can also be applied to other devices such as game controllers or everyday objects like doors. Further exploration of these applications would be beneficial.