Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Peter J. Caven

dblp:339/6241 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usable security
security labels
1.622025
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
0.522025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Usability, Efficacy, and Acceptability of the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark
Peter J. Caven, Ambarish Gurjar, Zitao Zhang, Xinyao Ma, L. Jean Camp
CHI1
2024 Comparing the Use and Usefulness of Four IoT Security Labels
abstract
There 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
CHI1