EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Zach Zwald
dblp:402/2284
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 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.
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Visualization and visual analytics · 100% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Usability and user experience research · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Visualization and visual analytics › visualization evaluation
trust in visualization |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Do You "Trust" This Visualization? An Inventory to Measure Trust in Visualizations · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2026 |
Visualization and visual analytics
visualization evaluation |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Do You "Trust" This Visualization? An Inventory to Measure Trust in Visualizations · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
trust game · 2.0psychometric validation · 2.0exploratory factor analysis · 2.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Do You "Trust" This Visualization? An Inventory to Measure Trust in VisualizationsabstractTrust plays a critical role in visual data communication and decision-making, yet existing visualization research employs varied trust measures, making it challenging to compare and synthesize findings across studies. In this work, we first took a bottom-up, data-driven approach to understand what visualization readers mean when they say they "trust" a visualization. We compiled and adapted a broad set of trust-related statements from existing inventories and collected responses to visualizations with varying degrees of trustworthiness. Through exploratory factor analysis, we derived an operational definition of trust in visualizations. Our findings indicate that people perceive a trustworthy visualization as one that presents credible information and is comprehensible and usable. Building on this insight, we developed an eight-item inventory: four core items measuring trust in visualizations and four optional items controlling for individual differences in baseline trust tendency. We established the inventory's internal consistency reliability using McDonald's omega, confirmed its content validity by demonstrating alignment with theoretically-grounded trust dimensions, and validated its criterion validity through two trust games with real-world stakes. Finally, we illustrate how this standardized inventory can be applied across diverse visualization research contexts. Utilizing our inventory, future research can examine how design choices, tasks, and domains influence trust, and how to foster appropriate trusting behavior in human-data interactions. Huichen Will Wang, Kylie R. Lin, Andrew Cohen, Ryan Kennedy, Zach Zwald, Carolina Nobre, Cindy Xiong Bearfield |
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. | 5 |