## 4 Results
Secondly, all documentation experts commented on the need for _markup or annotation tools_ for the DocPanel. The TextBox tool was used to take the notes, but as one could not attach a note to a specific page or a task in the DocPanel, it was thought of as quite clumsy. Users commented that attaching notes in the same way as with the commenting features in Adobe Acrobat would be a good addition to the DocPanel tool. Thirdly, users liked the idea of a floating window that you can move freely in the virtual environment. However, some users commented that the window was too small, and they would like it to be resizable so that you can freely decide what size suits you the best. The participants discussed multiuser VR collaboration in length and agreed that it enhances both the documentation review process and the risk assessment process when compared to the current practices. The participants noticed an increased level of social presence and concentration on the task. Despite being physically located in different parts of the country or the world, the participants noted that VR would give a sense of being in the same room. One participant commented the following: _\"This is much more visual than the current process. You are forced to participate; you can't read emails and so forth at the same time, but you have to concentrate on the task at hand.\"_ The participants also suggested that desktop-based access to VR would be beneficial, calling people participating this way _silent members_ or _observers_. The desktop participants would be then able to follow the review process in VR and also possibly take notes. One documentation expert suggested that an observer could be the one taking notes in the instructions outside of the VR in, for example, the PDF file. The VR participants would be then able to concentrate on reading and reviewing the instructions in the DocPanel tool, and already existing tools would be used to annotate and mark up the file by an observer. This type of hybrid setup would offer an easy adoption of VR, as good commenting tools already exist. However, it would require that an extra person is always available as an observer taking notes, which might prove problematic resourcing-wise. One documentation expert noted that if the session was recorded, they could watch it afterwards and make the needed changes in the instructions while watching the recording. All the test participants agreed that even though COVE-VR would be useful for documentation review, you cannot review very long instructions in it but need to take breaks in between. Reviewing the whole instructions (e.g., the overview of the whole maintenance of a certain component) in VR would take quite some time with frequent breaks. Furthermore, many participants commented that documentation review in VR would mostly benefit the early draft reviews and entirely new tasks where you concentrate more on a specific task. The participants agreed that risk assessments in VR would enhance the current process where the equipment to be risk assessed is not always available or accessible. They noted that it would be especially good for early risk assessments when the actual physical prototypes rarely exist. However, from a risk assessment point of view, the whole equipment needs to be modelled in VR in a way that it can be interacted with. In our tests, only certain components were modelled in such a way, and the risk assessment experts commented that you have to be able to interact with the full model or then have a blank virtual room with just the component you are reviewing in it. The risk assessment process takes the surroundings and environment into account, and the risk assessment for the method for replacing a component, for example, is seldom carried out on its own but rather reviewed in the context. Risk assessment experts also commented that haptic gloves and motion feedback would enhance the user experience, as you could also feel the objects you are touching.