Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 85 references

Designing Within the Lines: Practitioners' Perspectives and Visualisation Tool Evaluation in the Arabic Context

T0 review · 3 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Popular visualisation tools force Arabic-script designers into heavy workarounds that shrink agency and encode LTR and geopolitical defaults as normal.

desk verdict Solid dual study on Arabic/RTL tool gaps and practitioner labour; the power framing is a fair reading but overclaims relative to what the audit actually shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24571 v1 pith:SM2O4QC6 submitted 2026-07-27 cs.HC cs.CY

Muna Alebri , Noëlle Rakotondravony , Yassine Bechqito , Georgia Panagiotidou , Lane Harrison , Hassan Aldhanhabi , Salem Alkaabi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords Arabicvisualisationsright-to-leftdesignpracticetoolcomparisonEasternnumeralsRTLmirroringdatavisualisationdefaultslocalisation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper shows that Arabic-speaking visualisation practitioners design under constant friction between right-to-left reading habits, assumed “universal” left-to-right chart norms, and tools that only half-support Arabic. An evaluation of seven mainstream GUI authoring tools with an Arabic dataset finds inconsistent RTL mirroring, weak handling of Eastern numerals, and map defaults that rename or redraw contested places without notice. Interviews with eleven practitioners in journalism, design, and analysis show the human cost: manual mirroring, multi-tool stitching, loss of interactivity, and strategic retreats to simpler charts or English. The authors argue these are not minor localisation gaps but ways tools operationalise linguistic and geopolitical power, constraining creativity and agency for over two billion Arabic-script users. The work matters because it turns a largely invisible labour tax into a concrete research and design agenda for RTL visualisation support.

What carries the argument

A paired method: analytical evaluation of seven popular GUI tools (Excel, Tableau, Power BI, Flourish, Datawrapper, Google Sheets, RAWGraphs) on an Arabic dataset for default RTL/numeral/map behaviour, plus thematic interviews with eleven Arabic-speaking practitioners whose reported tools overlap that set. Together they surface how LTR defaults and silent overrides structure everyday design decisions.

What would settle it

A controlled study with Arabic-script audiences comparing comprehension and trust for mirrored versus default LTR charts (and for native versus tool-default map labels) would show whether LTR defaults actually harm understanding or engagement, or whether practitioners’ fears and workarounds are largely habit and tooling friction without audience cost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Visualisation authoring tools and their defaults operationalise linguistic and geopolitical power in RTL contexts: fragmented support for Arabic text, Eastern numerals, RTL mirroring, and map labelling pushes practitioners into substantial multi-tool labour and compromises on language, interactivity, and chart type that limit agency and creativity.

Load-bearing premise

That the tool gaps, workarounds, and map labelling choices are best read as a reinforcing chain of cultural dominance rather than mainly incomplete internationalisation, market incentives, or school-taught Cartesian habits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tool makers should treat Eastern numerals and Arabic place names as native data types, expose consistent RTL mirroring controls, and surface silent conversions instead of overriding without notice.
  • Empirically tested RTL design guidance is needed so practitioners stop relying on personal assumptions about audience literacy and direction habits.
  • Visualisation literacy instruments and core perception studies should be replicated and validated with RTL script users rather than assumed transferable from LTR populations.
  • Map defaults that re-label or omit contested regions become political acts when non-experts accept them under time pressure; tools need disclosure and alternate framings.
  • Constrained outputs that circulate as “normal” Arabic charts risk design fixation, narrowing what future Arabic visualisations look like.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same default asymmetry likely taxes other RTL scripts (Persian, Urdu, Hebrew) even when the paper’s Arabic case is the only one studied; script-specific native support may beat one-size “RTL mode.”
  • Because LLM and auto-viz pipelines often inherit Matplotlib-style LTR/English defaults, Arabic chart generation failures will keep propagating unless reshaping and numeral support become first-class.
  • Paywalled advanced controls turn linguistic inclusion into a class issue: free tiers leave Arabic practitioners with more manual labour than English peers on the same product.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. The paper investigates how Arabic-speaking visualisation practitioners design for right-to-left (RTL) scripts, combining two studies: (1) an analytical evaluation of seven GUI-based visualisation authoring tools (Excel, Tableau, Power BI, Flourish, Datawrapper, Google Sheets, RAWGraphs) using an Arabic books dataset rendered in both Eastern and Western numerals, coded with an explicit deductive codebook by two native-Arabic-speaking coders; and (2) semi-structured interviews with 11 Arabic-speaking practitioners (journalism, design, data analysis) analysed via thematic analysis to saturation (26 codes, 4 themes). The main findings are: tool support for Arabic is fragmented and inconsistent, particularly for Eastern numerals (frequently parsed as text or silently converted), RTL mirroring (partial, heterogeneously labelled, never default), and map defaults (inconsistent treatment of contested regions such as Palestine and Western Sahara). Practitioners perform substantial manual labour (multi-tool workflows, manual mirroring, axis removal) and make strategic compromises on language, chart complexity, and interactivity. The discussion (§5.1–5.2) frames these findings as constrained agency and argues that tool defaults "operationalise linguistic and geopolitical power," closing with a research agenda (RTL replication of perception studies, RTL-adapted literacy instruments) and concrete design recommendations.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable contribution on two fronts. Empirically, it documents — with falsifiable, screenshot-verifiable evidence — that mainstream GUI visualisation tools fail on foundational tasks for Arabic-script work (Eastern numerals parsed as text, silent numeral conversion, no default mirroring, inconsistent map labelling), and triangulates this with practitioner accounts of the compensating labour (multi-tool workflows, manual mirroring, chart-type and language compromises). This triangulation between an artefact audit and lived practice is methodologically stronger than either alone. The paper ships an explicit codebook, dual independent native-speaker coding with reconciliation, a documented path from 26 codes to 4 themes with a saturation criterion, and OSF supplementary material including the Eastern-numeral dataset and all charts. The design implications in §5.3 (consistent controls, native numeral/city-name handling, transparency over silent overrides) are concrete and actionable for tool builders. The work also usefully extends the cross-cultural visualisation literature beyond perception studies to the authoring infrastructure itself. The interpretit

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 / Table 3] §5.2's claim that 'a single worldview is embedded in most visualisation authoring tools' is contradicted by the paper's own Table 3/§3.5.2 results: Tableau and Google Sheets recognise 'Palestine' while Excel and Datawrapper convert it to 'West Bank and Gaza', and Excel folds Western Sahara into Morocco while four other tools display it separately. This is multiple, divergent worldviews, not a single one. Relatedly, §5.2 presents the 'structurally reinforcing chain' of cultural dominance -> conventions -> defaults as the explanation, but most of the §3.5 findings (Eastern numerals parsed as text, absent mirroring, disconnected letter shaping, English-only UIs) are equally and more parsimoniously predicted by generic low-resource-script internationalisation debt, market-size-driven feature prioritisation, and inherited third-party geodata (e.g., Natural Earth boundaries). The paper never d
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 states that group meetings 'led to identifying and refining the themes to those supporting our research thesis.' As written, this suggests themes were selected for fit to a pre-held thesis rather than derived from the data, which is a rigor concern for a thematic analysis and is load-bearing for the interpretive Theme 4.2.4 (embedded power). Please clarify the analytic stance: was 'embedded power' an a priori sensitising concept (deductive element) or emergent? How were disconfirming cases handled (e.g., P1 and P8, who actively oppose mirroring and whose positions sit uneasily with the constraint narrative)? The discarded data-journalism theme is a good example of the kind of reporting needed; the wording should be corrected even if the underlying procedure was sound.
  3. [§4.1] The translation pipeline in §4.1 (standardise colloquial dialects to Modern Standard Arabic, machine-translate via Google Translate [70], revise by the first author) is reasonable in outline, but the verification rests on a single native speaker, and direct quotations carry substantial evidentiary weight in §4.2.4 (e.g., the P9/P10 'English is more elegant' quotes that anchor the colonial-legacy interpretation). Please describe an independent check — e.g., a second native speaker verifying a sample of translated excerpts, or participant member-checking of quoted passages — or acknowledge this as a limitation. This matters most where quoted material supports the paper's most contestable interpretive claims.
minor comments (9)
  1. [§3.5.2] §3.5.2: 'All the axis-based charts we rendered with default settings applied the LTR convention (e.g. RTL X-axis and Left-aligned Y-axis)' — 'RTL X-axis' here contradicts 'LTR convention'; presumably 'LTR X-axis' is meant. Please fix.
  2. [Tables 2–3] Tables 2 and 3: the encoding glyphs (checkmarks/crosses) did not render in this version, and Table 2's purple/blue colour coding is the sole carrier of category information, which will fail in grayscale print and for colourblind readers. Add a redundant symbol or label encoding. Also, with n=7 tools, phrases like 'above 71%' and 'above 57%' should be reported as counts (5/7, 4/7).
  3. [§1 / Abstract] The 'over two billion Arabic script users' figure ([3], a W3C page on RTL scripts) appears to cover users of all RTL scripts (Urdu, Persian, etc.), not Arabic-script users specifically; please either adjust the wording to match the source or cite a population figure that supports the claim as stated.
  4. [§5.3] Eastern (Arabic-Indic) numerals are not uniform across the Arab world — the Maghreb predominantly uses Western digits, which is visible in your own data (P10/P11 describe producing French/Western-numeral outputs in Tunisia). A sentence in the limitations acknowledging that 'Arabic visualisation' practice is itself internally heterogeneous would strengthen the generalisation discussion in §5.3.
  5. [§3.3–3.5] Tool evaluation: please report tool versions and the evaluation window explicitly (§3.3 mentions coders worked in the same period but no dates or versions are given). Tool behaviour — e.g., Google Sheets' silent Eastern-to-Western numeral conversion — is exactly the kind of finding that may change between versions, and versioning makes the audit reproducible and updatable.
  6. [§5.2] §5.2, final paragraph: the ChatGPT/Matplotlib disconnected-letter example is anecdotal (a single informal observation). Either soften the claim ('we cannot yet rely on generative AI...') or support it with the same default-settings procedure used in §3, applied to one or two LLM pipelines.
  7. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced for several distinct phenomena (mixed presentation, disconnected letters, map relabelling) but the caption is generic; please annotate subpanels so readers can locate each phenomenon.
  8. [References] References [36] and [37] are the same Huang et al. study listed twice (2022 and 2025 versions); consolidate.
  9. [§3.3] The tool-audit coding reports that the two coders reconciled disagreements by recreating charts; reporting the raw disagreement count (or an agreement statistic) before reconciliation would give readers a sense of codebook reliability without much additional space.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No derivation circularity: observational tool audit and interviews stand on new evidence; prior self-citation only frames the open question.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 1 RQs; Sec. 4.1 Method; citations to Alebri et al. [7]]
    "The interview addresses Alebri et al.[7]'s open research question about how designers reason about RTL adaptations in Arabic data-driven articles. ... Prior work [7] mapping the visualisation design space in Arabic data-driven articles has demonstrated ad-hoc adaptations, but these practices remain inconsistent and rarely grounded in empirical evidence."

    The paper's motivation and RQs are explicitly inherited from overlapping-author prior work [7]. This is ordinary sequential science and is not load-bearing for the new tool-audit or interview findings (those rest on independent screenshots and transcripts). Flagged only as minor framing dependence, not as a reduction of the central claim to an unverified self-citation.

full rationale

This is an empirical HCI paper (tool screenshots under default settings + thematic analysis of N=11 interviews), not a fitted-parameter or uniqueness-theorem derivation. The load-bearing results—fragmented RTL mirroring, Eastern-numeral misrecognition, map label/boundary overrides, and practitioner multi-tool labour—are produced by the new analytical evaluation (Sec. 3) and interview study (Sec. 4), not by re-labelling a prior fit. Self-citation to Alebri et al. [7] supplies the open research question, dataset lineage, and prior observation of ad-hoc RTL adaptations; it does not force the tool-audit outcomes or interview themes by construction. The Sec. 5.2 power/colonial-legacy framing is interpretive synthesis of those observations, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs. No self-definitional equations, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. Minor framing dependence on prior co-authored work warrants at most a 1, not a higher circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

This is an empirical HCI paper, not a formal derivation. Load-bearing premises are methodological and interpretive: that default GUI outputs plus practitioner self-report adequately reveal how tools shape RTL design; that thematic saturation on N=11 supports the four themes; and that design-justice / critical-vis theory is an appropriate lens for reading defaults as power. No fitted physical parameters; 'invented entities' are analytical constructs (themes, evaluation criteria), not new ontological objects in nature.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Default, unmodified chart outputs under a fixed Arabic dataset are a valid proxy for how tools support or constrain RTL authoring in practice.
    Sec. 3.3–3.5 evaluate bar/line/map with defaults only; practitioners may use non-default settings, plugins, or code paths not captured.
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis of 11 native Arabic-speaking practitioners who design Arabic visualisations, stopped at claimed saturation, yields transferable themes about RTL design labour and tool limits.
    Sec. 4.1 recruitment and analysis; authors note gender imbalance and flourishing-but-small professional community.
  • domain assumption GUI-based authoring tools (excluding code-first stacks and pure editors) are the right primary locus for studying everyday Arabic visualisation practice.
    Sec. 3.1 selection from DVS 2024 survey and prior Arabic article tooling; some interviewees still use Python/R/D3.
  • domain assumption Habitual reading direction and cultural conventions can conflict with LTR Cartesian chart norms and thereby matter for design and interpretation.
    Background Sec. 2.2 cites cognitive/cross-cultural psychology; underpins RQ1 and mirroring debates.
  • ad hoc to paper Tool defaults and missing controls can be read as exercising linguistic and geopolitical power (design justice / critical vis), not only as neutral product incompleteness.
    Sec. 5.2 synthesizes Costanza-Chock, Monmonier, Winner, Freire with interview and map findings; this framing is chosen by the authors rather than independently measured.
  • standard math Standard qualitative methods (Braun & Clarke thematic analysis; dual coding of tools) are appropriate evidence standards for the claims made.
    Sec. 3.3 and 4.1; ordinary HCI methodology, not a novel formal system.
invented entities (2)
  • Four interview themes (Designing Within Constraints; Practitioners’ literacies and decisions; Assumptions about audiences; Embedded power in defaults)
    purpose: Organize practitioner accounts into the paper’s explanatory structure linking tools, labour, and power.
    Derived via thematic analysis in Sec. 4.2; useful analytic clusters, not independently measured latent variables with external validation.
  • RTL/Arabic tool-evaluation codebook (tool characteristics, community support, default-chart directionality/text/numeral/map criteria) independent evidence
    purpose: Make Arabic/RTL support comparable across seven GUI tools where no prior language-direction rubric existed.
    Sec. 3.3–3.4; assembled deductively from prior tool-eval and RTL UI work; reusable but paper-specific operationalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Within the Lines: Practitioners' Perspectives and Visualisation Tool Evaluation in the Arabic Context." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SM2O4QC6

@misc{pith2026260724571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Within the Lines: Practitioners' Perspectives and Visualisation Tool Evaluation in the Arabic Context},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SM2O4QC6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24571}
}
read the original abstract

Design guidelines and best practices serve as references that support designers throughout the visualisation design process. While considerable effort has identified the elements that contribute to effective data visualisations, little attention has been paid to how language (scripts and reading direction), tool support, and cultural context also shape design decisions. As a result, assumptions of homogeneity persist, with visualisation practices predominantly benefiting users of English and left-to-right (LTR) scripts while overlooking the needs of over two billion Arabic script users. We investigate how Arabic-speaking visualisation practitioners design for right-to-left (RTL) scripts. We report on an analytical evaluation of seven popular GUI-based visualisation authoring tools using an Arabic dataset complemented by interviews with 11 Arabic-speaking practitioners across journalism, design, and data analysis. Our findings reveal that visualisation practitioners constantly negotiate tensions between Arabic reading conventions, "universal" LTR visual norms, and limited tool support for Arabic text, Eastern numerals, and maps. They engage in substantial labour, such as manually mirroring charts, fixing alignment issues, and stitching together multi-tool workflows, while making strategic compromises in language choice, interactivity, and chart type. Our tool analysis further reveals fragmented, inconsistent support for RTL mirroring, poor numeral rendering, and map defaults that encode geopolitical assumptions. In light of these findings, we discuss how RTL visualisation work is carried out under many constraints that affect agency and creativity. We argue that visualisation tools and defaults operationalise linguistic and geopolitical power in RTL contexts, and offer research directions and design implications that more robustly support RTL practitioners.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A snapshot of the challenges faced by practitioners using visualisation authoring tools with Arabic scripts and how they [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [70]

    Y . M. N. Sabtan, M. S. M. Hussein, H. Ethelb, and A. Omar. An evalua- tion of the accuracy of the machine translation systems of social media language.International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 12(7), 2021. doi: 10.14569/IJACSA.2021.0120746 5

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    https:// m3.material.io/foundations/layout/understanding-layout/ bidirectionality-rtlAccessed on 2023-04-18

    Material Design: Layout Basics, Bidirectionality & RTL. https:// m3.material.io/foundations/layout/understanding-layout/ bidirectionality-rtlAccessed on 2023-04-18. 2

    2023

  3. [2]

    https://www

    Structural markup and right-to-left text in HTML, 2021. https://www. w3.org/International/questions/qa-html-dir Accessed: Mar. 20, 2026. 2

    2021

  4. [3]

    https://www.w3.org/ International/questions/qa-scripts Accessed: Jan

    Languages using Right-to-Left Scripts, 2023. https://www.w3.org/ International/questions/qa-scripts Accessed: Jan. 30, 2026. 1, 9

    2023

  5. [4]

    F. Abed. Cultural influences on visual scanning patterns.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(4):525–534, 1991. doi: 10.1177/ 0022022191224006 2

    1991

  6. [5]

    Afsari, A

    Z. Afsari, A. Keshava, J. P. Ossandón, and P. König. Interindividual dif- ferences among native right-to-left readers and native left-to-right readers during free viewing task.Visual Cognition, 26(6):430–441, 2018. doi: 10. 1080/13506285.2018.1473542 1

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Ajani, E

    K. Ajani, E. Lee, C. Xiong, C. Nussbaumer Knaflic, W. Kemper, and S. Franconeri. Declutter and Focus: Empirically Evaluating Design Guidelines for Effective Data Communication.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(10):3351–3364, 2021. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2021.3068337 2

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Alebri, N

    M. Alebri, N. Rakotondravony, and L. Harrison. Design patterns in right- to-left visualizations: the case of arabic content. In2024 IEEE (VIS), pp. 251–255. IEEE, 2024. doi: 10.1109/VIS55277.2024.00058 2, 3, 5, 8, 9

    arXiv 2024

Show all 85 references
  1. [8]

    Alharthi

    D. Alharthi. Jamalon arabic books dataset. Kaggle, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/dareenalharthi/ jamalon-arabic-books-dataset. 2, 3

    2021

  2. [9]

    H. S. Andrianarivony, T. D. Raharison, I. T. Rakotoniaina, M. T. Ra- marokoto, N. Rakotondravony, and L. Harrison. Investigating the Use of Native and Secondary Language with Data Visualization in Madagascar. IEEE VIS Posters. Oklahoma City, 2022. 9

    2022

  3. [10]

    Arunkumar, L

    A. Arunkumar, L. M. Padilla, and C. Bryan. Lost in translation: How does bilingualism shape reader preferences for annotated charts? In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–22, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713380 1, 2

    2025

  4. [11]

    Aykin.Usability and internationalization of information technology

    N. Aykin.Usability and internationalization of information technology. CRC press, 2004. doi: 10.1201/b12471 2

    2004 doi

  5. [12]

    B. Bach, Z. Wang, M. Farinella, D. Murray-Rust, and N. H. Riche. Design patterns for data comics.Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2018-April:1–12, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3173574. 3173612 2

    2018 doi

  6. [13]

    Baigelenov, P

    A. Baigelenov, P. Shukla, and P. Parsons.How Visualization Designers Per- ceive and Use Inspiration, vol. 1. Association for Computing Machinery,

  7. [14]

    Batziakoudi, F

    K. Batziakoudi, F. Cabric, S. Rey, and J.-D. Fekete. Lost in magnitudes: Exploring visualization designs for large value ranges. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–18, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713487 9

    2018

  8. [15]

    Behrisch, D

    M. Behrisch, D. Streeb, F. Stoffel, D. Seebacher, B. Matejek, S. H. Weber, S. Mittelstädt, H. Pfister, and D. Keim. Commercial visual analytics systems–advances in the big data analytics field.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 25(10):3011–3031, 2018. do...

    2018

  9. [16]

    Braun and V

    V . Braun and V . Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qual- itative Research in Psychology, 3(2):77–101, 2006. doi: 10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa 5

    2006

  10. [17]

    A. Chua. How the English Language Conquered the World, 2022. 1

    2022

  11. [18]

    W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill. Graphical perception: Theory, exper- imentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. The American Statistical Association, 79(387):531–554, 1984. doi: 10. 2307/2288400 9

    1984

  12. [19]

    Costanza-Chock

    S. Costanza-Chock. Design Justice: towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice.DRS2018: Design as a catalyst for change, pp. 25–28, 2019. doi: 10.21606/drs.2018.679 8

    2019 doi

  13. [20]

    Data and V

    T. Data and V . Society. Data Visualization State of the Industry Survey. Technical report, The Data Visualization Society, 2024. 3

    2024

  14. [21]

    Diehl, A

    A. Diehl, A. Abdul-Rahman, M. El-Assady, B. Bach, D. A. Keim, and M. Chen. VisGuides: A Forum for Discussing Visualization Guidelines. InProc. of Eurographics Conf. on Visualization, EuroVis Short Papers, pp. 61–65, 2018. doi: 10.2312/eurovisshort.20181079 2

    2018 doi

  15. [22]

    M. Dörk, C. Collins, P. Feng, and S. Carpendale. Critical InfoVis: Ex- ploring the Politics of Visualization.Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2013-April:2189–2198, 2013. doi: 10. 1145/2468356.2468739 8, 9

    2013

  16. [23]

    Dourish and S

    P. Dourish and S. D. Mainwaring. Ubicomp’s colonial impulse.Ubi- Comp’12 - Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, (March):133–142, 2012. doi: 10.1145/2370216.2370238 7

    2012

  17. [24]

    Engelke, A

    U. Engelke, A. Abdul-Rahman, and M. Chen. Visupply: A supply-chain process model for visualization guidelines. In2018 International Sympo- sium on Big Data Visual and Immersive Analytics (BDVA), pp. 1–9, 2018. doi: 10.1109/BDV A.2018.8534029 9

    2018

  18. [25]

    Fagard and R

    J. Fagard and R. Dahmen. The effects of reading-writing direction on the asymmetry of space perception and directional tendencies: A comparison between French and Tunisian children.Laterality: y: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition ISSN:, 8(1):39–52, 2003. doi: 10.1080/71...

    2003 doi

  19. [26]

    E. E. Firat, A. Joshi, and R. S. Laramee. Interactive visualization literacy: The state-of-the-art.Information Visualization, 21(3):285–310, 2022. doi: 10.1177/147387162210818 9

    2022 doi

  20. [27]

    Freire.Pedagogy of the Oppressed

    P. Freire.Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30 ed., 2005. 9

    2005

  21. [28]

    Fuhrman and L

    O. Fuhrman and L. Boroditsky. Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive science, 34 8:1430–51, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010. 01105.x 1, 2

    2010

  22. [29]

    L. W. Ge, Y . Cui, and M. Kay. CALVI: Critical Thinking Assessment for Literacy in Visualizations. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581406 9

    2023

  23. [30]

    Gibson, R

    E. Gibson, R. Futrell, J. Jara-Ettinger, K. Mahowald, L. Bergen, S. Rat- nasingam, M. Gibson, S. T. Piantadosi, and B. R. Conway. Color naming across languages reflects color use.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(40):10785–107...

    2017 doi

  24. [31]

    S. M. Göbel, K. McCrink, M. H. Fischer, and S. Shaki. Observation of directional storybook reading influences young children’s counting direction.Journal of experimental child psychology, 166:49–66, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.001 2

    2018 doi

  25. [32]

    Gorelik and N

    B. Gorelik and N. Sulieman. Reading direction shapes data visualization perception: Insights from right-to-left and left-to-right user studies.ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 23(1), article no. 3, 13 pages, Oct. 2025. doi: 10. 1145/3759155 2

    2025

  26. [33]

    S. Hao, Z. Wang, B. Bach, and L. Pschetz. Design Patterns for Data-Driven News Articles. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu, HI, USA, 2024. doi: 10. 1145/3613904.3641916 2

    2024

  27. [34]

    M. A. Hearst. Show it or tell it? text, visualization, and their combination. Commun. ACM, 66(10):68–75, 8 pages, Sept. 2023. doi: 10.1145/3593580 2

    2023 doi

  28. [35]

    Henrich, S

    J. Henrich, S. J. Heine, and A. Norenzayan. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(1):29, 2010. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X 1

    2010 doi

  29. [36]

    Huang, S

    H. Huang, S. Ravi, T. Warrington, H. Cui, C. Wang, M. McCreary, B. Lauffer, and C. Lu. A comparison of data visualization tools: a case study in health-related research. 24(1):62–78, 2022. doi: 10.1177/ 14738716241270206 3

    2022

  30. [37]

    Huang, S

    H. Huang, S. Ravi, T. Warrington, H. Cui, C. Wang, M. McCreary, B. Lauf- fer, and C. Lu. A comparison of data visualization tools: A case study in health-related research.Inf. Vis., 24(1):62–78, 2025. doi: 10.1177/ 14738716241270206 2, 3

    2025

  31. [38]

    J. Hullman. Why Authors Don’t Visualize Uncertainty.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):130–139, 2020. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2019.2934287 8

    2020

  32. [39]

    Hullman and N

    J. Hullman and N. Diakopoulos. Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in narrative visualization.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 17(12):2231–2240, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.255 2, 8, 9

    2011 doi

  33. [40]

    D. G. Jansson and S. M. Smith. Design fixation.Design Studies, 12(1):3– 11, 1991. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F 8

    1991 doi

  34. [41]

    A. Jena, M. Butler, T. Dwyer, K. Ellis, U. Engelke, R. Kirkham, K. Mar- riott, C. Paris, and V . Rajamanickam. The Next Billion Users of Visualiza- tion.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 41(2):8–16, 2021. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2020.3044071 1, 9

    2021

  35. [42]

    Kennedy, R

    H. Kennedy, R. L. Hill, G. Aiello, and W. Allen. The Work That Vi- sualisation Conventions Do.Information Communication and Society, 19(6):715–735, 2016. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1153126 8

    2016

  36. [43]

    H. Kim, J. Oh, Y . Han, S. Ko, M. Brehmer, and B. C. Kwon. Thumbnails 10 © 2026 IEEE. This is the author’s version of the article that has been published in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. The final version of this record is available at: xx.xxxx/TVCG...

    2026 doi

  37. [44]

    Koesten, A

    L. Koesten, A. Saske, S. M. Starchenko, and K. Gregory. Encountering Friction, Understanding Crises: How Do Digital Natives Make Sense of Crisis Maps?Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713520 9

    2025

  38. [45]

    H.-K. Kong, Z. Liu, and K. Karahalios. Frames and Slants in Titles of Visualizations on Controversial Topics. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, Apr. 2018. doi: 10.1145/3173574.3174012 9

    2018

  39. [46]

    Lauer and S

    C. Lauer and S. O’Brien. How People Are Influenced by Deceptive Tactics in Everyday Charts and Graphs.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 63(4):327–340, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2020.3032053 8

    2020

  40. [47]

    Lavanya, S

    A. Lavanya, S. Sindhuja, L. Gaurav, and W. Ali. A comprehensive review of data visualization tools: features, strengths, and weaknesses.Int. J. Comput. Eng. Res. Trends, 10(01):10–20, 2023. doi: 10.22362/ijcert/2023/ v10/i01/v10i0102 3

    2023 doi

  41. [48]

    S. Lee, S. H. Kim, and B. C. Kwon. VLAT: Development of a Visual- ization Literacy Assessment Test.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1):551–560, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016. 2598920 9

    2017 doi

  42. [49]

    Lousa, I

    A. Lousa, I. Pedrosa, and J. Bernardino. Evaluation and analysis of busi- ness intelligence data visualization tools. In2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), pp. 1–6. IEEE, 2019. doi: 10.23919/CISTI.2019.8760677 3

    2019

  43. [50]

    Maass and A

    A. Maass and A. Russo. Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: Nature or culture?Psychological science, 14(4):296–301,

  44. [51]

    A. Marcus. Global/intercultural user interface design. InHuman-Computer Interaction, pp. 45–70. CRC Press, 2009. 2

    2009

  45. [52]

    G. G. Méndez, U. Hinrichs, and M. A. Nacenta. Bottom-up vs. Top-down: Trade-offs in efficiency, understanding, freedom and creativity with infovis tools.Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2017-May:841–852, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3025453.3025942 8

    2017

  46. [53]

    Monmonier.How to Lie with Maps

    M. Monmonier.How to Lie with Maps. 1991. 8

    1991

  47. [54]

    Morais, Y

    L. Morais, Y . Jansen, N. Andrade, and P. Dragicevic. Showing Data about People: A Design Space of Anthropographics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(3):1661 – 1679, 2020. doi: 10. 1109/tvcg.2020.3023013 2

    2020

  48. [55]

    A. Negi, L. Tripathi, S. Prabha, and C. Azad. Charting the future: an in-depth review of cuttingedge big data visualization tools for 2025. In2025 12th International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), pp. 01–06. IEEE, 2025. doi: 10.23919/ IN...

    2025

  49. [56]

    Omelchenko, O

    O. Omelchenko, O. Konopatska, P. Khomenko, and T. Kharin. Cross- linguistic and cultural adaptation of the mini-vlat: A study on visualization literacy assessment in ukrainian. 2025. doi: 10.2312/evs.20251079 9

    2025 doi

  50. [57]

    A. Ottley. Consensus and contradictions: A cross-organizational analysis of visualization style guides. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’26, article no. 442, 21 pages. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, ...

    2026

  51. [58]

    Pandey, I

    A. Pandey, I. Sharma, A. Sachan, and D. P. Madhavan. Comparative study of data visualization tools in big data analysis for business intelligence. IJRASET, 10:2592–2600, 2022. doi: 10.22214/ijraset.2022.44400 3

    2022

  52. [59]

    P. Parsons. Understanding Data Visualization Design Practice.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):665–675,

  53. [60]

    Parsons, Y .-H

    P. Parsons, Y .-H. Hung, A. Baigelenov, and C. Schrank. What Design Methods do DataVis Practitioners Know and Use? InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems-Late Breaking Work, pp. 1–8. Honolulu, HI, USA, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3334480 .3383048 2

    2020 doi

  54. [61]

    Parsons and P

    P. Parsons and P. Shukla. Data Visualization Practitioners’ Perspectives on Chartjunk. InProceeding of IEEE VIS - short paper, pp. 1–5. IEEE, Utah, 2020. doi: 10.1109/VIS47514.2020.00049 2

    2020

  55. [62]

    Parsons, P

    P. Parsons, P. Shukla, and C. Park. Fixation and creativity in data visualiza- tion design: Experiences and perspectives of practitioners. In2021 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS), pp. 76–80, 2021. doi: 10.1109/VIS49827. 2021.9623297 8

    2021

  56. [63]

    E. M. Peck, S. E. Ayuso, and O. El-Etr. Data is Personal: Attitudes and Perceptions of Data Visualization in Rural Pennsylvania. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12. ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, May 2019. doi: 10.1145/3290605. ...

    2019 doi

  57. [64]

    G. J. Quadri and P. Rosen. A survey of perception-based visualization stud- ies by task.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(12):5026–5048, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3098240 9

    2022

  58. [65]

    Rakotondravony, P

    N. Rakotondravony, P. Dhawka, and M. Bancilhon. Beyond english: Centering multilingualism in data visualization.Workshop on Visualization for Social Good, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.06659 2

    2023 doi arXiv

  59. [66]

    Rakotondravony, Y

    N. Rakotondravony, Y . Ding, and L. Harrison. Probablement, wahrschein- lich, likely? a cross-language study of how people verbalize probabilities in icon array visualizations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):1189–1199, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.20...

    2023 doi

  60. [67]

    S. Rauf, K. Vinit, and C. Sougata. Evaluating LLMs for visualization generation and understanding.Discover Data, (April), 2025. doi: 10. 1007/s44248-025-00036-4 9

    2025

  61. [68]

    L. Ravi, Q. Yan, S. M. Dascalu, and F. C. Harris Jr. A survey of visualiza- tion techniques and tools for environmental data. InProceedings of the 2013 Intl. Conference on Computers and their Applications (CATA 2013),

    2013

  62. [69]

    Reinecke and A

    K. Reinecke and A. Bernstein. Improving performance, perceived usability, and aesthetics with culturally adaptive user interfaces.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 18(2):1–29, 2011. doi: 10. 1145/1970378.1970382 2

    2011

  63. [71]

    J. Schmidt. Usage of visualization techniques in data science workflows. In A. Kerren, C. Hurter, and J. Braz, eds.,Proceedings of the 15th Inter- national Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications, VISIGRAPP 2020, Volume 3: IVA...

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    Segel and J

    E. Segel and J. Heer. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 16(6):1139– 1148, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.179 2

    2010 doi

  65. [73]

    H. M. Shakeel, S. Iram, H. Al-Aqrabi, T. Alsboui, and R. Hill. A com- prehensive state-of-the-art survey on data visualization tools: Research developments, challenges and future domain specific visualization frame- work.IEEE Access, 10:96581–96601, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2...

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    M. Solen. Scoping the future of visualization literacy: A review. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Visualization for Communication (VisComm), IEEE VIS 2022. Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 2022. doi: 10. 31219/osf.io/eypgm 9

    2022

  67. [75]

    Stokes, V

    C. Stokes, V . Setlur, B. Cogley, A. Satyanarayan, and M. A. Hearst. Strik- ing a balance: Reader takeaways and preferences when integrating text and charts.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):1233–1243, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209383 2

    2023

  68. [76]

    Data Visualization Glossary, 2024

    The KPI Institute. Data Visualization Glossary, 2024. Accessed: Mar. 17,

    2024

  69. [77]

    Tory and T

    M. Tory and T. Möller. Human factors in visualization research.IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 10(1):72–84, 2004. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2004 .1260759 9

    2004 doi

  70. [78]

    Tversky, S

    B. Tversky, S. Kugelmass, and A. Winter. Cross-cultural and developmen- tal trends in graphic productions.Cognitive psychology, 23(4):515–557,

  71. [79]

    L. Winner. Do artifacts have politics?Computer Ethics, pp. 177–192,

  72. [1991]

    doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90005-9 2

    doi

  73. [2003]

    doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.14421 2

  74. [2013]

    doi: 10.4236/ti.2023.143009 2

    2023

  75. [2017]

    doi: 10.5040/9798216385448.ch-17 8 11

    doi

  76. [2022]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114959 2

    2021

  77. [2025]

    doi: 10.1145/3706598.3714191 2, 8

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.