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

Rebecca Jeong

dblp:264/7526 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

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
1 paper
Usable security · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usable security › security warnings
security warning design
0.412020
'Lime', 'Open Lock', and 'Blocked': Children's Perception of Colors, Symbols, and Words in Cybersecurity Warnings · CHI 2020
Usable security
security warnings
0.112020
'Lime', 'Open Lock', and 'Blocked': Children's Perception of Colors, Symbols, and Words in Cybersecurity Warnings · CHI 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

ranking · 0.4interviews · 0.4card sorting · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 'Lime', 'Open Lock', and 'Blocked': Children's Perception of Colors, Symbols, and Words in Cybersecurity Warnings
abstract
Cybersecurity warnings are frequently ignored or misinterpreted by even experienced adults. While studies have been conducted to examine warning design for adults, there is little data to establish recommendations for children. We conducted user studies with 22 children (ages 10-12) and with 22 adults. We compare their risk perception of warning design parameters (signal colors, symbols, words) via card sorting and ranking activities followed by interviews. While our findings suggest similarities in how both groups interpret the design parameters (e.g., red, skull, and fatal convey danger), we also uncovered potential concerns with items currently used as security indicators (e.g., both groups had mixed interpretations of the open lock and police officer symbols). Individual risk perception, particularly for children, appears dependent on personal preferences and experience. Our findings suggest implications and future research directions for the design of cybersecurity warnings for children.
Rebecca Jeong, Sonia Chiasson
CHI1