Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Peter J. Caven
dblp:339/6241
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-1986-4031ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
2 papers |
Usable security · 100% | |
| Computer networks
2 papers |
Internet of things and sensor networks · 100% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Usability and user experience research · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Usable security
security labels |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | Usability, Efficacy, and Acceptability of the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark · CHI 2025 Comparing the Use and Usefulness of Four IoT Security Labels · CHI 2024 |
Internet of things and sensor networks › iot networks
consumer iot |
0.5 | 2 | 2025 | Usability, Efficacy, and Acceptability of the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark · CHI 2025 Comparing the Use and Usefulness of Four IoT Security Labels · CHI 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
survey · 2.3comprehension measurement · 2.3cognitive load measurement · 2.3usability evaluation · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Usability, Efficacy, and Acceptability of the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark
Peter J. Caven, Ambarish Gurjar, Zitao Zhang, Xinyao Ma, L. Jean Camp |
CHI | 1 |
| 2024 | Comparing the Use and Usefulness of Four IoT Security LabelsabstractThere are currently multiple proposed security label designs for consumer products, with each prioritizing different security and privacy factors. These differences risk making product comparisons more confusing than informative. Standardized labels could potentially resolve this by informing consumers of a product's security features at the point of purchase. But which standard? This survey, of 500 participants, studied four label designs and measured comprehension, response time, acceptability, and cognitive load. We gauged understanding of participant perception and preferences using three smart devices: light bulbs, cameras, and thermostats. We identified preferences and behaviors before, during, and after label use for product selection. At first, participants believed more information-dense labels would better support their purchasing behavior; however, after they evaluated and compared products, participants gravitated towards less cognitively demanding designs. We identified how participants utilized and prioritized label elements to provide recommendations for US label design efforts. Peter J. Caven, Zitao Zhang, Jacob Abbott, Xinyao Ma, L. Jean Camp |
CHI | 1 |