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
Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

S. M. Gupta

dblp:92/3893 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 1997
—ORCID · unresolved

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-authorHuman-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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 100%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Visualization and visual analytics · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usability and user experience research › visual perception
display readability		 0.011983
Effect of font and medium on recognition/confusion · CHI 1983
Usability and user experience research › visual perception
text legibility		 0.011983
Effect of font and medium on recognition/confusion · CHI 1983
Visualization and visual analytics › perception
visual perception		 0.011983
Effect of font and medium on recognition/confusion · CHI 1983

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

tachistoscopic display · 0.0confusion matrix analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1997 Machine Interference Problem With Warm Spares, Server Vacations and Exhaustive Service
S. M. Gupta
 Perform. Evaluation1
1983 Effect of font and medium on recognition/confusion
abstract
Systematic differences in recognition/confusion due to font variation is estimated by using confusion matrices of the full 26 capital letters of the English alphabet in 5 × 7 dot matrix font and “Keepsake” conventional stroke font. Average correct recognition was controlled to 50% by limiting brightness and duration of tachistoscopic displays for each font to individually determined levels for each of the four subjects. Each stimulus symbol was presented 45 times to each subject, resulting in 180 trials per letter per font.
S. M. Gupta, L. H. Geyer, J. A. Maalouf
 CHI1