What is Visualization for Communication? Analyzing Four Years of VisComm Papers

Ab Mosca; Vedanshi Chetan Shah

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

What is Visualization for Communication? Analyzing Four Years of VisComm Papers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A survey of four years of VisComm papers claims that visualization for communication is defined as audience-centered and communication-focused, yet only 3 of 37 papers make concrete remarks on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

desk verdict Useful first synthesis of VisComm's literature and a real DEI gap, but the paper overstates the contrast by reading 'accessible to wide audiences' as an inclusivity commitment. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14339 v1 pith:DUUHWPS4 submitted 2025-05-20 cs.HC

Vedanshi Chetan Shah , Ab Mosca This is my paper

classification cs.HC

keywords visualizationforcommunicationVisCommworkshopgroundedtheorythematicanalysisdiversityequityandinclusionaudience-centereddesignguidelinespositionpapers

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

The paper analyzes all 37 papers accepted to the VisComm workshop from 2018 to 2022 and argues that they define visualization for communication as a practice centered on the audience, on communication, and on understandability. Using grounded theory, it sorts the papers into guideline, new visualization, position, and theory categories and finds that iterative design and attention to end users recur across all of them. The central finding is a gap: although the definitions emphasize inclusivity and accessibility, only three of the 37 papers make concrete remarks about diversity, equity, and inclusion. If correct, this shows that the field's stated values are not yet matched by its published practice, and it gives the community a concrete place to focus future work.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a grounded-theory thematic analysis of the 37 workshop papers. In the first pass, each paper is classified as a guideline paper, a new-visualization paper, a position paper, or a theory paper; in the second, recurring themes are identified within and across these categories. The units of comparison are the papers' own definitions of visualization and their key takeaways, and the finding that produces the central result is the contrast between the audience-centered, inclusive language in those definitions and the small number of concrete DEI-related remarks in the papers themselves.

What would settle it

Re-running the coding of the same 37 papers and finding more than three with concrete DEI remarks—or sampling the broader visualization-for-communication literature and finding DEI practice routinely present alongside audience-centered definitions—would undermine the claimed gap between stated values and published practice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across the 37 VisComm papers, visualization for communication is defined with a consistent emphasis on centering the audience, on communication itself, and on understandability: seven papers describe reaching broad audiences or engaging wide populations, five explicitly frame visualization as a way to communicate, and five stress that it should be quickly understandable and accessible. Grouping the papers into guideline, new visualization, position, and theory categories, the authors find that iterative design and consideration of the end user appear across all groups, while each group adds its own concern (audience tailoring, narrative, and revision in guidelines; user experience in new visualizations; designer intuition in position papers; and conveying information, stories, or complex concepts in theory papers). The paper's sharpest claim is the DEI gap: despite the audience-centered and inclusive language in the definitions, only three papers offer concrete remarks on diversity, equity, and inclusion. The authors present this as evidence that the field's theoretical commitments are ahead of its actual practice.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 37 VisComm papers accepted from 2018 to 2022 are a representative sample of visualization-for-communication research, so the themes and the DEI gap are treated as describing the field rather than only one workshop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the definitions and themes identified here hold, visualization-for-communication research is already aligned around audience, communication, and understandability, which gives future work a shared vocabulary.
The four-category scheme (guideline, new visualization, position, theory) offers later surveys and literature reviews a tested classification to build on.
The DEI gap means that adding explicit diversity, equity, and inclusion steps to design guidelines and evaluation criteria would be a measurable improvement, not a change of direction.
Workshop calls and author guidelines could ask for explicit DEI statements, and reviewers could check for them, because the corpus shows such statements are currently rare.
The recurring themes of iterative design and end-user consideration suggest that usability-style evaluation is already common and could be the natural entry point for DEI work.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the authors leave implicit is that the 3-of-37 count is specific to this workshop's papers, so it may not describe visualization-for-communication research in other venues with different reporting norms.
Applying the same grounded-theory coding to a wider sample of visualization papers would produce a comparable DEI baseline for the field as a whole.
The distinction between papers that merely mention inclusivity and papers with concrete DEI remarks suggests a testable extension: define concrete DEI practice (inclusive recruitment, accessibility evaluation, equity-aware design choices) and measure its presence in a larger corpus.
A practical extension would be to turn the paper's categories into a submission checklist for VisComm, pairing audience-centered definitions with explicit DEI practice in every category.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read it. The genuinely useful part: they actually read all 37 VisComm papers from 2018 to 2022, sorted them into four sensible buckets, and pulled out recurring themes. The 3-of-37 count for concrete DEI remarks is a new observation, and it is the kind of simple inventory a workshop community can act on. The paper is clearly written and honest that this is a first step.

The soft spot is the framing. The Introduction and Discussion say the field's own definitions emphasize 'inclusivity,' and then the DEI gap 'stands in direct contrast' to that. But the definitional evidence in Section 3 is about 'broad audiences,' 'communicate,' and 'quickly understandable and accessible to wide audiences.' That is audience comprehension, not DEI. Only in Section 4.3 do they mention two papers about intellectual and developmental disabilities, plus the Schwabish and Feng racial-equity paper. So the gap is real, but it is not a contradiction between stated inclusive values and practice; it is a gap between audience-orientation and explicit DEI. That is a weaker claim, and they should say it that way.

Methodologically, this is grounded theory but reported at a high level. No codebook, no inter-rater reliability numbers, no excerpt-level examples showing how themes were assigned. The paper says disagreements were resolved in discussion, which is fine, but the audit trail is thin. For a 37-paper corpus you could reasonably provide the coding scheme and a few representative quotes. Without that, the theme counts are hard to verify. The corpus is also just VisComm, so the general conclusions about 'visualization for communication' should be scoped as 'this workshop's papers.'

None of this kills the paper. The analysis is plausible and the DEI finding is worth airing. It just needs a more careful frame and a bit more methodological transparency. I'd send it to review; a serious referee would ask for the codebook and a rewrite of the inclusivity language, but this is a legitimate contribution to a niche community.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes all 37 accepted IEEE VisComm workshop papers from 2018 through 2022. Using a two-round categorization followed by a thematic analysis described as grounded theory, the authors assign papers to four types (Guideline, New Visualization, Position, Theory), identify definitional themes of audience-centeredness, communication, and understandability, and report cross-cutting themes of iterative design and user consideration. The headline finding is that, despite what the authors call an emphasis on inclusivity in definitions, only three of the 37 papers make concrete remarks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The manuscript is a short empirical survey and does not include a codebook, coding data, or excerpt-level evidence.

Significance. If the descriptive claims are accurate, the paper offers a useful community checkpoint: it inventories four years of VisComm output and articulates a potential gap between stated audience-focused values and explicit DEI practice. Its main strengths are the census-like coverage of the workshop and the falsifiability of the reported counts, which could in principle be checked and extended. Its main weaknesses are the absence of an audit trail (codebook, excerpts, agreement data) and the conflation of 'accessible to wide audiences' with 'inclusivity,' which currently overstates the central discrepancy. Because the manuscript presents qualitative counts rather than new methods or theory, its significance is that of a scoping study for future work on visualization for communication.

major comments (3)

[Section 3 and Section 5] The evidence presented as 'definitions of visualization' is not clearly definitional. The cited examples ('geared towards broad audiences,' 'a way to communicate,' 'quickly understandable and accessible to wide audiences') are statements about purpose or design goals, not formal definitions of visualization. More importantly, none of these phrases entails inclusivity or DEI, so the Introduction's claim that 'many papers defining visualization for communication with an emphasis on inclusivity' is unsupported. The Discussion's 'direct contrast' between audience-centered definitions and the observed DEI gap is therefore overstated. Please either provide actual definitional quotes, separate definitions from design goals, and restate the finding as a gap between generic audience orientation/comprehensibility and explicit DEI, or provide direct evidence of inclusivity language.
[Section 2] The analysis process is described at a high level: one author categorized each paper, the second author reviewed the categories, disagreements were resolved, and themes were condensed 'through several rounds.' No codebook, theme definitions, inclusion or exclusion criteria for 'concrete DEI remarks,' inter-rater reliability coefficients, or excerpt-level evidence are reported. As a result, all counts in Sections 3 and 5, including the headline 3/37, are not independently auditable. Please provide the coding instrument, a table of representative quotes for each theme and for each DEI-positive paper, and agreement data, or explicitly label the counts as illustrative rather than systematic.
[Section 3] The section reports that seven, five, and five papers mention the three definitional themes, but it never states how many of the 37 papers offered any definition of visualization at all. Without this denominator, and without reporting the overlap among the three lists, the reader cannot determine whether the 'particular emphasis' characterizes a majority of the corpus or a minority. The three lists in Section 3 appear to cover at most 10 unique papers, which further undermines the word 'many' in the Introduction. Please report the total number of papers that define visualization, the overlap among the theme lists, and the threshold used to call an emphasis 'particular.'

minor comments (5)

[Affiliations] The affiliation line contains a typo: 'Univeristy' should be 'University.'
[Section 5] The phrase 'principle components' should be 'principal components.'
[Reference list] References [11] and [31] are missing author initials and are inconsistent with the other reference entries in IEEE style.
[Methodology] The second author is also an author of one of the analyzed papers ([28]); please add an explicit positionality or conflict-of-interest statement for transparency.
[Sections 4.1 and 4.3] The terms 'DEI guidelines' and 'inclusive visualization design' are used without a shared definition; please align the terminology with the proposed codebook so that the 3/37 count is clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the survey's themes and DEI counts are emergent from the corpus, not derived from its own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper is a grounded-theory survey of 37 VisComm proceedings. Its claims—definitional emphases on audience, communication, and understandability; shared themes of iterative design and end-user consideration; and only 3 of 37 papers offering concrete DEI remarks—are descriptive summaries of the corpus, not predictions obtained by fitting a parameter and then reusing it. There are no equations that reduce to inputs, no fitted parameter renamed as a finding, and no uniqueness theorem imported from prior work. The only self-reference is that one surveyed paper [28] is co-authored by one of the present authors, but the analysis does not depend on that paper's claims being true; it is simply one data point in the corpus, and its inclusion does not force any theme or count. The skeptical reading that 'accessible to wide audiences' may not mean DEI accessibility is a construct-validity concern, not circularity: the conclusion is not equivalent to its inputs by definition, even if one disputes the coding. The explicit counts and cited paper numbers make the analysis auditable. Therefore the derivation is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative meta-analysis, so there are no numerical free parameters or invented entities. The analysis depends on methodological axioms: grounded theory is suitable for this corpus, the corpus is representative, and the two-author consensus coding accurately captures paper content. None of these are independently verified.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Grounded theory is an appropriate method for deriving themes from a corpus of published workshop papers.
The authors adopt grounded theory from [38] as the analytical lens; the suitability of this method for meta-analytic literature review is assumed, not justified.
domain assumption The 37 VisComm papers from 2018 to 2022 are representative of visualization for communication research.
All generalizations in Sections 3-5 about the field rest on this corpus; no comparison to other venues is made.
ad hoc to paper The two authors' consensus categorization accurately reflects the papers' content.
Section 2 describes only that disagreements were resolved through discussion; no reliability metric, independent audit, or codebook is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What is Visualization for Communication? Analyzing Four Years of VisComm Papers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUUHWPS4

@misc{pith2026250514339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What is Visualization for Communication? Analyzing Four Years of VisComm Papers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUUHWPS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14339}
}

read the original abstract

With the introduction of the Visualization for Communication workshop (VisComm) at IEEE VIS and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been renewed interest in studying visualization as a medium of communication. However the characteristics and definition of this line of study tend to vary from paper to paper and person to person. In this work, we examine the 37 papers accepted to VisComm from 2018 through 2022. Using grounded theory we identify nuances in how VisComm defines visualization, common themes in the work in this area, and a noticeable gap in DEI practices.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

Accessed: 2021-03-30

Visualization for communication (viscomm). Accessed: 2021-03-30

work page 2021
[2]

Amabili and N

L. Amabili and N. Sultanum. Paper maps: Improving the readability of scientific papers via concept maps, Aug 2021

work page 2021
[3]

A. Arcia. Colors and imagery in tailored infographics for communi- cating health information to patients and research participants, Aug 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Asgari and T

M. Asgari and T. Hurtut. A design space for visualization onboarding in data-driven stories, Oct 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Benda, B

N. Benda, B. Zikmund-Fisher, M. Manoj Sharma, and J. Ancker. Mak- ing numbers meaningful – improving how we communicate numbers to patients and the public, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

D. M. Berube. Visual communication and heuristics: Challenges and directions from across the disciplines, Sep 2019

work page 2019
[7]

M. Brath. Automated annotations, 2018

work page 2018
[8]

S. Card, J. Mackinlay, and B. Shneiderman. Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision To Think. 01 1999

work page 1999

Show all 44 references

[9]

Coelho, H

D. Coelho, H. He, M. Baduk, and K. Mueller. Eating with a conscience: Toward a visual and contextual nutrition facts label, Aug 2020

2020
[10]

Corbeil, F

J.-P. Corbeil, F. Daudens, and T. Hurtut. Data visualization + scrol- lytelling for election news stories : Challenges and perspectives, Sep 2019

2019
[11]

Bridging computation and visual communication of change using levels of abstraction, 2018

Dasgupta. Bridging computation and visual communication of change using levels of abstraction, 2018

2018
[12]

V . A. Filipov, T. Wien, D. Ceneda, M. Koller, A. Arleo, and S. Miksch. The circle of thrones : Conveying the story of game of thrones using radial infographics. 2018

2018
[13]

Flack, K

S. Flack, K. Ponto, T. Tangen, and K. B. Schloss. Lego as language for visual communication, Aug 2019

2019
[14]

P. Hung. Affective engagement for communicative visualization: Quick and easy evaluation using survey instruments, 2018

2018
[15]

S. Janicke. Time-based impact mosaics, 2018

2018
[16]

J ¨anicke

S. J ¨anicke. A visualization course for journalism students, Aug 2019

2019
[17]

D. Keim, G. Andrienko, J.-D. Fekete, C. G ¨org, J. Kohlhammer, and G. Melanc ¸on. Visual analytics: Definition, process, and challenges. 03 2008

2008
[18]

Kumar, M

A. Kumar, M. Burch, L. A. Castelijns, F. Ritchi, N. Timmermans, and K. Mueller. Eye tracking for exploring visual communication differences. 2018

2018
[19]

Kumar, M

A. Kumar, M. Burch, D. Kurbanismailova, U. Kloos, and K. Mueller. Petalvis-floral visualization for communicating set operations. 2018

2018
[20]

S. Liu, E. Wall, S. A. Patel, and Y . Park. Covid-19 health equity dashboard - addressing vulnerable populations, Aug 2020

2020
[21]

M. A. Livingston and D. Brock. Position: Visual sentences: Definitions and applications, Aug 2020

2020
[22]

L´evesque, L

F. L´evesque, L. Godbout, M. Robert-Angers, and T. Hurtut. How do taxes, benefits and public spending evolve for a taxpayer during their lifetime ?, Aug 2020

2020
[23]

Q. Ma. Unfolding the decision-making dynamics of news visualization production in china, Aug 2021

2021
[24]

Ma and B

Q. Ma and B. Millet. Analyzing dorian twitter data to understand how hurricane risk communication changes as threats unfold, Aug 2020

2020
[25]

Mangal, M

S. Mangal, M. R. Turchioe, L. Park, Y . Hai, A. C. Myers, L. Dug- dale, P. Goyal, L. G. Liu, and R. M. Creber. Know your audience: Comprehension of health information varies by visual format, Aug 2021

2021
[26]

Matzen, K

L. Matzen, K. Divis, M. Haass, and D. Cronin. Variable biases: A study of scientists’ interpretation of plot types commonly used in scientific communication, Aug 2020

2020
[27]

Millet, A

B. Millet, A. Cairo, S. Majumdar, C. Diaz, S. D. Evans, and K. Broad. Beautiful visualizations slain by ugly facts: Redesigning the national hurricane center’s ‘cone of uncertainty’ map, Aug 2020

2020
[28]

Ottley, and R

Mosca, A. Ottley, and R. Chang. Does interaction improve bayesian reasoning with visualization?, Aug 2020

2020
[29]

Nightingale

F. Nightingale. Diagram of causes of mortality in the army of the east, 1858
[30]

M. J. Parker. Visualizing student behavior and performance in an online course, Aug 2021

2021
[31]

Conceptual metaphor theory as a foundation for communica- tive visualization design, 2018

Parsons. Conceptual metaphor theory as a foundation for communica- tive visualization design, 2018

2018
[32]

Riahi and B

M. Riahi and B. Watson. Aesthetics for communicative visualization: a brief review, Aug 2021

2021
[33]

L. J. Rosenblum. Scientific visualization : advances and challenges. 1994

1994
[34]

Schwabish

J. Schwabish. Categorizing and ranking graphs in the american eco- nomic review over the last century, Aug 2018

2018
[35]

Schwabish and A

J. Schwabish and A. Feng. Applying racial equity awareness in data visualization, Aug 2020

2020
[36]

J. Snow. On the mode of communication of cholera. 1855
[37]

Stoiber, F

C. Stoiber, F. Grassinger, M. Pohl, H. Stitz, M. Streit, and W. Aigner. Visualization onboarding: Learning how to read and use visualizations, Aug 2019

2019
[38]

Y . C. Tie, M. Birks, and K. Francis. Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine , 7:2050312118822927, 2019. PMID: 30637106

2019
[39]

P. Vardhan. Tile narrative: Scrollytelling with grid maps, Aug 2020

2020
[40]

Wakita and K

K. Wakita and K. Arimoto. Guiding readers to the focus and context of industrial statistical reports, Sep 2019

2019
[41]

A. Wu, B. K. Ku, F. Cheng, X. Shu, A. Puri, Y . Wang, and H. Qu. Pulse: Toward a smart campus by communicating real-time wi-fi access data. ArXiv, abs/1810.00161, 2018

2018 arXiv
[42]

K. Wu, S. Tanis, and D. Szafir. Designing communicative visualization for people with intellectual developmental disabilities, Aug 2019

2019
[43]

L. Yang, H. C. Ang, and S. Wang. Customized visualizations for audience-oriented communication in covid-19 tracking story, Aug 2020

2020
[44]

Zhang, Y

Y . Zhang, Y . Sun, L. Padilla, S. Barua, E. Bertini, and A. G. Parker. Mapping the landscape of covid-19 crisis visualizations, Aug 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Accessed: 2021-03-30

Visualization for communication (viscomm). Accessed: 2021-03-30

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Amabili and N

L. Amabili and N. Sultanum. Paper maps: Improving the readability of scientific papers via concept maps, Aug 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

A. Arcia. Colors and imagery in tailored infographics for communi- cating health information to patients and research participants, Aug 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Asgari and T

M. Asgari and T. Hurtut. A design space for visualization onboarding in data-driven stories, Oct 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Benda, B

N. Benda, B. Zikmund-Fisher, M. Manoj Sharma, and J. Ancker. Mak- ing numbers meaningful – improving how we communicate numbers to patients and the public, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

D. M. Berube. Visual communication and heuristics: Challenges and directions from across the disciplines, Sep 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

M. Brath. Automated annotations, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

S. Card, J. Mackinlay, and B. Shneiderman. Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision To Think. 01 1999

work page 1999