pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14417 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 💻 cs.HC

Reflections on Traceability for Visualization Research

Jen Rogers , Derya Akbaba , James Scott-Brown , Alexander Lex , Miriah Meyer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords traceabilitytransparencydesign-oriented researchvisualizationreproducibilityautoethnographyresearch artifactsiterative design
0
0 comments X

The pith

Traceability through abundant annotated artifacts can make subjective design processes in visualization research transparent and assessable.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Traditional reproducibility does not fit visualization research that produces insights through subjective, situated, and iterative design work. The paper proposes traceability instead: documenting the origin and development of contributions via rich sets of artifacts so others can retrace how claims arose. The authors explored this idea through their own multi-year collaborative reflection and by building the tRRRacer tool to test three practical tenets of traceability. If the approach holds, design-oriented visualization research could achieve rigor and openness without forcing its processes into scientific molds that do not apply. Readers who care about accountability in creative research fields would see a concrete way to surface rationale and evolution without requiring replication.

Core claim

We theorize traceability as the practice of surfacing the origin and development of research contributions through rich sets of artifacts that document the design process. Using a collaborative autoethnographic reflection and the tRRRacer tool as a testbed, we operationalize three tenets: record abundant annotated artifacts representative of activities, report curated research threads that articulate rationale and evolution, and read via interfaces that help retrace claims and assess their plausibility. This framework addresses the mismatch between traditional reproducibility and the inherently unreproducible nature of design-oriented visualization research.

What carries the argument

The three tenets of a traceable process (record, report, read) that turn design artifacts into retraceable research threads.

If this is right

  • Design contributions can be evaluated on the documented evolution of decisions rather than on reproducibility of results.
  • Rich artifact sets become the primary evidence for how subjective insights were reached.
  • Interfaces that support reading research threads make the iterative process visible to outsiders.
  • Rigor shifts from replication to the ability to retrace and judge the plausibility of the documented path.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same record-report-read structure could be adapted to other design-heavy areas such as interaction design or user experience research.
  • Adoption would likely require new community norms for what level of artifact annotation counts as sufficient for assessment.
  • A practical test would be to require traceable artifact packages in submission to design-oriented visualization venues and measure reviewer ability to evaluate claims.

Load-bearing premise

That abundant annotated artifacts and interfaces for retracing them will enable others to assess the plausibility of claims arising from subjective, situated, and iterative design work.

What would settle it

Independent researchers given the full set of annotated artifacts and threads from a completed visualization design project reach inconsistent or low-confidence assessments of the published claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14417 by Alexander Lex, Derya Akbaba, James Scott-Brown, Jen Rogers, Miriah Meyer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The tRRRacer desktop interface. (A) The detail view shows artifacts collected in the selected thread. When adding a piece of evidence to a thread, the researcher is encouraged to also provide a rationale for why it contributes to a given thread. (B) A list of all threads is shown in the sidebar, which can also be used to create new threads. (C) Researchers can copy an automatically generated thread citatio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The read-only tRRRacer Reader interface with a paper view. (A) The panel on the left shows relevant activities and artifacts for a selected citation. This example shows a tooltip explaining the rationale for artifacts’ inclusion in the research thread for the ‘Research Thread Concept’. (B) A reader can navigate by page, reading the manuscript in the view, or (C) they can explore with the side annotations f… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Decades of advocacy for reproducibility and replication have advanced open, transparent practices in the sciences. However, traditional notions of reproducibility fit poorly with design-oriented visualization research, where insights emerge through subjective, situated, and iterative work. So how can we ensure rigor and transparency in processes that are inherently unreproducible? To introduce transparency in design-oriented research, we propose to focus on traceability: surfacing the origin and development of research contributions based on rich sets of artifacts documenting the design process. We investigated traceability through a collaborative autoethnographic reflection that builds on several years of work exploring ways to make design-oriented research transparent. This exploration includes an experiment to build a tool to support traceability, which we called tRRRacer. The tRRRacer tool provided a testbed for us to operationalize the three tenets of a traceable process: (1) Record abundant, annotated artifacts representative of research activities; (2) Report curated research threads that articulate rationale and evolution of the process, allowing others to (3) Read via interfaces that help retrace claims and assess plausibility. Reflecting on our experiences, we contribute a theorization of traceability and reflections on how we might support it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that traditional reproducibility and replication practices do not suit design-oriented visualization research, where insights arise through subjective, situated, and iterative processes. It proposes 'traceability'—surfacing the origin and development of research contributions via rich sets of annotated artifacts—as a path to transparency. The authors investigate this idea through several years of collaborative autoethnographic reflection, including the construction of the tRRRacer tool as a testbed. They operationalize traceability via three tenets (record abundant annotated artifacts, report curated research threads articulating rationale and evolution, and read via interfaces that support retracing claims to assess plausibility) and contribute a theorization of traceability along with reflections on implementation.

Significance. If the proposal holds, traceability could provide a practical framework for increasing transparency and rigor in design-oriented visualization and HCI research without demanding replicability of inherently unreproducible processes. The authors' multi-year collaborative autoethnography and concrete tool-building experience with tRRRacer constitute a strength, offering an embodied example that the community can build upon. The work is timely given ongoing discussions of rigor in qualitative and design research.

major comments (2)
  1. [section on operationalizing the three tenets via tRRRacer] The central claim that the 'Read' tenet (interfaces enabling retracing to assess plausibility) will allow independent others to evaluate contributions rests on an untested premise. The manuscript provides no external user study, independent retracing exercise, or case in which a non-author successfully assessed the plausibility of a specific claim using the provided artifacts and threads; all supporting evidence derives from the authors' internal use of tRRRacer during their own autoethnography (see the section describing the three tenets and the tRRRacer experiment).
  2. [collaborative autoethnographic reflection and contributions] The theorization of traceability is derived directly from the authors' experiences building and using tRRRacer to embody the same ideas, creating a self-referential loop. This limits the ability to assess whether the framework generalizes beyond the authors' specific process; no additional external case studies or applications to other design-oriented projects are reported to test the tenets independently (see the collaborative autoethnographic reflection and contributions sections).
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and introduction of tenets] The term 'research threads' is introduced in the abstract and tenets without an early, standalone definition or example, which may hinder readers new to the concept.
  2. [reflections and discussion] The manuscript would benefit from an explicit limitations subsection that directly addresses the scope of the autoethnographic evidence and the absence of external validation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help us clarify the scope and contributions of our work on traceability in design-oriented visualization research. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the 'Read' tenet (interfaces enabling retracing to assess plausibility) will allow independent others to evaluate contributions rests on an untested premise. The manuscript provides no external user study, independent retracing exercise, or case in which a non-author successfully assessed the plausibility of a specific claim using the provided artifacts and threads; all supporting evidence derives from the authors' internal use of tRRRacer during their own autoethnography (see the section describing the three tenets and the tRRRacer experiment).

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not include an external user study or independent retracing by non-authors. Our evidence for the 'Read' tenet comes from our own use of tRRRacer in the autoethnographic process. The paper's contribution is a theorization of traceability based on this reflective practice, rather than a claim of validated efficacy for independent evaluation. We have revised the manuscript to more explicitly state the scope of our claims and to include a dedicated section on limitations and future work, where we discuss the need for external validation studies to test whether the interfaces enable others to assess plausibility. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The theorization of traceability is derived directly from the authors' experiences building and using tRRRacer to embody the same ideas, creating a self-referential loop. This limits the ability to assess whether the framework generalizes beyond the authors' specific process; no additional external case studies or applications to other design-oriented projects are reported to test the tenets independently (see the collaborative autoethnographic reflection and contributions sections).

    Authors: The self-referential aspect is inherent to the collaborative autoethnography method we employed, which was selected to deeply explore and embody the concepts through our own design process. This approach allowed us to operationalize the three tenets concretely via tRRRacer. We do not claim broad generalization in the current work; rather, we present it as a foundation for further research. In the revision, we have strengthened the discussion to outline how the tenets might apply to other projects and to call for independent applications and case studies by the community. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in proposal and reflection structure

full rationale

The paper proposes traceability as a framework for transparency in design-oriented visualization research and supports the proposal through collaborative autoethnography on the authors' own multi-year process, including development of tRRRacer as an operational testbed. This structure is a standard reflective contribution in HCI and does not reduce the central tenets or resulting theorization to a tautological input by construction. The three tenets are introduced as the proposed definition, then illustrated via the authors' experiences rather than being fitted or redefined from the tool output. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or renamed empirical pattern is present; the derivation remains self-contained as a conceptual suggestion grounded in documented reflection.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The proposal rests on the domain assumption that design-oriented work differs fundamentally from other sciences in its unreproducibility, plus the invented concept of traceability itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Traditional notions of reproducibility fit poorly with design-oriented visualization research because insights emerge through subjective, situated, and iterative work.
    This premise is stated directly in the abstract and motivates the entire proposal.
invented entities (1)
  • traceability no independent evidence
    purpose: To provide transparency by surfacing origins and development of contributions via artifacts.
    New concept introduced to address the gap left by reproducibility standards.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5513 in / 1184 out tokens · 45697 ms · 2026-05-10T12:04:47.250087+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry.original add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 i...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Akbaba, L

    Akbaba D., Klein L., Meyer M. : Entanglements for visualization: Changing research outcomes through feminist theory. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 31, 1 (2025), 1279--1289. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456171 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456171

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456171 2025

  4. [4]

    : Troubling collaboration: Matters of care for visualization design study

    Akbaba D., Lange D., Correll M., Lex A., Meyer M. : Troubling collaboration: Matters of care for visualization design study. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp. 1--15

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    : Thinking inside the box: Considerations for putting data physicalization workshops in a box

    Akbaba D., Svensson C., Torelli C., Callmeryd M., Meyer M. : Thinking inside the box: Considerations for putting data physicalization workshops in a box. to appear (2026)

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    : Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning

    Barad K. : Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    : Publishing Visualization Studies as Registered Reports: Expected Benefits and Researchers' Attitudes

    Besan c on L., Bezerianos A., Dragicevic P., Isenberg P., Jansen Y. : Publishing Visualization Studies as Registered Reports: Expected Benefits and Researchers' Attitudes . In Proceedings of the alt.VIS workshop (2021), IEEE VIS

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    : Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon

    boyd d., Crawford K. : Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society 15, 5 (2012), 662--679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878

    work page doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878 2012

  9. [9]

    : Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes

    Birks M., Chapman Y., Francis K. : Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing 13, 1 (Jan. 2008), 68--75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254 doi:10.1177/1744987107081254

    work page doi:10.1177/1744987107081254 2008

  10. [10]

    : The logic of annotated portfolios: Communicating the value of `research through design'

    Bowers J. : The logic of annotated portfolios: Communicating the value of `research through design'. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference ( San Francisco, CA, US , 2012), DIS '12, Association for Computing Machinery , pp. 68--77. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317968, https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317968 doi:10.1145/231...

    work page doi:10.1145/2317956.2317968 2012

  11. [11]

    : The research audit trail: enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry

    Carcary M. : The research audit trail: enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 7, 1 (2009), 11--24. URL: https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1239, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.18.2.008 doi:https://doi.org/10.34190/JBRM.18.2.008

    work page doi:10.34190/jbrm.18.2.008 2009

  12. [12]

    B., Ansaldo J., Lapenna L., Bezchinsky S., Barriga Rubio R., Garc \' a M

    Ciolfi Felice M., Feldfeber I., Glasserman Apicella C., Quiroga Y. B., Ansaldo J., Lapenna L., Bezchinsky S., Barriga Rubio R., Garc \' a M. : Doing the feminist work in ai: Reflections from an ai project in latin america. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2025), pp. 1--18

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    : Data visualization practitioners’ perspectives on chartjunk

    Cutler Z., Gadhave K., Lex A. : Trrack: A library for provenance-tracking in web-based visualizations. In Proceedings of IEEE VIS (2020), IEEE VIS, pp. 116--120. https://doi.org/10.1109/VIS47514.2020.00030 doi:10.1109/VIS47514.2020.00030

    work page doi:10.1109/vis47514.2020.00030 2020

  14. [14]

    : Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis

    Charmaz K. : Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, 2006

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    : Design research: A disciplined conversation

    Cross N. : Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues 15, 2 (1999), 5--10. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511837 doi:10.2307/1511837

    work page doi:10.2307/1511837 1999

  16. [16]

    A., He T., McNutt A., Harrison L., Lex A

    Cutler Z., Wilburn J., Shrestha H., Ding Y., Bollen B., Nadib K. A., He T., McNutt A., Harrison L., Lex A. : Revisit 2: A full experiment life cycle user study framework. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (VIS) 32 (jan 2026)

    work page 2026

  17. [17]

    M., Ribarsky W

    Chang R., Ziemkiewicz C., Green T. M., Ribarsky W. : Defining insight for visual analytics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 29, 2 (2009), 14--17

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    : Objectivity

    Daston L., Galison P. : Objectivity. Princeton University Press, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    D'ignazio C., Klein L. F. : Data feminism. MIT Press, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    : The stuff of bits: An essay on the materialities of information

    Dourish P. : The stuff of bits: An essay on the materialities of information. MIT press, 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    : Exploring reproducibility in visualization

    Fekete J.-D., Freire J. : Exploring reproducibility in visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 40, 5 (2020), 108--119. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2020.3006412 doi:10.1109/MCG.2020.3006412

    work page doi:10.1109/mcg.2020.3006412 2020

  22. [22]

    : Annotated portfolios

    Gaver B., Bowers J. : Annotated portfolios. Interactions 19, 4 (2012), 40--49. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212889 doi:10.1145/2212877.2212889

    work page doi:10.1145/2212877.2212889 2012

  23. [23]

    : Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture

    Geertz C. : Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The cultural geography reader. Routledge, 2008, pp. 41--51

    work page 2008

  24. [25]

    Gratzl, A

    Gratzl S., Lex A., Gehlenborg N., Cosgrove N., Streit M. : From Visual Exploration to Storytelling and Back Again . Computer Graphics Forum 35, 3 (2016), 491--500. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12925 doi:10.1111/cgf.12925

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.12925 2016

  25. [26]

    URL https://cacm.acm.org/research/ datasheets-for-datasets/

    Gebru T., Morgenstern J., Vecchione B., Vaughan J. W., Wallach H., III H. D., Crawford K. : Datasheets for datasets. Commun. ACM 64, 12 (Nov. 2021), 86–92. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723, https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723 doi:10.1145/3458723

    work page doi:10.1145/3458723 2021

  26. [27]

    : Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective 1

    Haraway D. : Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective 1. In Women, science, and technology. Routledge, 2013, pp. 455--472

    work page 2013

  27. [28]

    : Cracks in the success narrative: Rethinking failure in design research through a retrospective trioethnography

    Howell N., Desjardins A., Fox S. : Cracks in the success narrative: Rethinking failure in design research through a retrospective trioethnography. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 28, 6 (2021), 1--31

    work page 2021

  28. [29]

    G., Cabouat A.-F., Bonilla K., Cui Y., Ding Y., Rakotondravony N., Creamer M

    Lily W. G., Cabouat A.-F., Bonilla K., Cui Y., Ding Y., Rakotondravony N., Creamer M. M., Otto J. T., Hedayati M., Kwon B. C., et al. : An autoethnography on visualization literacy: A wicked measurement problem. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [30]

    S., Guba E

    Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. : Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic Inquiry 289 (1985), 289--327

    work page 1985

  30. [31]

    Lu C.-J., Shulman S. W. : Rigor and flexibility in computer-based qualitative research: Introducing the coding analysis toolkit. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 2, 1 (2008), 105--117. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.455.2.1.105 doi:10.5172/mra.455.2.1.105

    work page doi:10.5172/mra.455.2.1.105 2008

  31. [32]

    Meyer and J

    Meyer M., Dykes J. : Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 87--97. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934539 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934539

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934539 2020

  32. [33]

    National Academies Press, 2019

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine : Reproducibility and replicability in science. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17226/25303 doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/25303

    work page doi:10.17226/25303 2019

  33. [34]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =

    Nosek B. A., Ebersole C. R., DeHaven A. C., Mellor D. T. : The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 11 (2018), 2600--2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114 doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 2018

  34. [35]

    A Comparison of Radial and Linear Charts for Visualizing Daily Patterns

    Offenhuber D. : Data by proxy—material traces as autographic visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 1 (2019), 98--108. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934788 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934788

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934788 2019

  35. [36]

    D., Endert A., Sanyal J., Chen J

    Ragan E. D., Endert A., Sanyal J., Chen J. : Characterizing provenance in visualization and data analysis: An organizational framework of provenance types and purposes. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1 (2016), 31--40. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467551 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467551

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2015.2467551 2016

  36. [37]

    Rieger O. Y. : Sustainability: Scholarly repository as an enterprise. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 39, 1 (2012), 27--31. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2012.1720390110 doi:10.1002/bult.2012.1720390110

    work page doi:10.1002/bult.2012.1720390110 2012

  37. [38]

    H., Harmon L., Lex A., Meyer M

    Rogers J., Patton A. H., Harmon L., Lex A., Meyer M. : Insights from experiments with rigor in an evobio design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 1106--1116. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030405 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030405

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.3030405 2021

  38. [39]

    : Reproducibility in computing research: An empirical study

    Raghupathi W., Raghupathi V., Ren J. : Reproducibility in computing research: An empirical study. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 29207--29223. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3158675 doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3158675

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2022.3158675 2022

  39. [40]

    Rule A., Tabard A., Hollan J. D. : Exploration and explanation in computational notebooks. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2018), CHI '18, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1–12. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173606, https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173606 doi:10.1145/317357...

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173606 2018

  40. [41]

    Sch \"o n D. A. : The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge, 2017

    work page 2017

  41. [42]

    K., Errington T

    Soderberg C. K., Errington T. M., Schiavone S. R., Bottesini J., Thorn F. S., Vazire S., Esterling K. M., Nosek B. A. : Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour 5, 8 (Aug. 2021), 990--997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4 doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4 2021

  42. [43]

    T., Freire J., Callahan S

    Silva C. T., Freire J., Callahan S. P. : Provenance for visualizations: Reproducibility and beyond. Computing in Science & Engineering 9, 5 (2007), 82--89. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.106 doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.106

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.106 2007

  43. [44]

    : Knowledge P earls: Provenance-based visualization retrieval

    Stitz H., Gratzl S., Piringer H., Zichner T., Streit M. : Knowledge P earls: Provenance-based visualization retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (2018), 120--130

    work page 2018

  44. [45]

    Sedlmair, M

    Sedlmair M., Meyer M., Munzner T. : Design study methodology: Reflections from the trenches and the stacks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 12 (2012), 2431--2440. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.213 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2012.213

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2012.213 2012

  45. [46]

    Salehzadeh Niksirat K., Goswami L., S. B. Rao P., Tyler J., Silacci A., Aliyu S., Aebli A., Wacharamanotham C., Cherubini M. : Changes in research ethics, openness, and transparency in empirical studies between chi 2017 and chi 2022. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2023), CHI '23, Associa...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580848 2017

  46. [47]

    big-tent

    Tracy S. J. : Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16, 10 (2010), 837--851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121 doi:10.1177/1077800410383121

    work page doi:10.1177/1077800410383121 2010

  47. [48]

    : Forseti: A visual analysis environment enabling provenance awareness for the accountability of e-autopsy reports

    Wang B., Adachi N., Fujishiro I. : Forseti: A visual analysis environment enabling provenance awareness for the accountability of e-autopsy reports. Visual Informatics 6, 3 (2022), 69--80

    work page 2022

  48. [49]

    Guo, Robert DeLine, and Sumit Gulwani

    Wacharamanotham C., Eisenring L., Haroz S., Echtler F. : Transparency of chi research artifacts: Results of a self-reported survey. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020), pp. 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376448 doi:10.1145/3313831.3376448

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376448 2020

  49. [50]

    : Design exposition with literate visualization

    Wood J., Kachkaev A., Dykes J. : Design exposition with literate visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (2018), 759--768. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864836 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864836

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2864836 2018

  50. [51]

    : Survey on the analysis of user interactions and visualization provenance

    Xu K., Ottley A., Walchshofer C., Streit M., Chang R., Wenskovitch J. : Survey on the analysis of user interactions and visualization provenance. In Computer Graphics Forum (2020), vol. 39, Wiley Online Library, pp. 757--783. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14035 doi:10.1111/cgf.14035

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14035 2020

  51. [52]

    : The Role of Design Artifacts in Design Theory Construction

    Zimmerman J., Forlizzi J. : The Role of Design Artifacts in Design Theory Construction . Artifact 2, 1 (Nov. 2008), 41--45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17493460802276893 doi:10.1080/17493460802276893

    work page doi:10.1080/17493460802276893 2008