pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05200 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Investigating Ethical Data Communication with Purrsuasion: An Educational Game about Negotiated Data Disclosure

Krisha Mehta , Sami Elahi , Alex Kale
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords ethical data communicationvisualization gamedata disclosuresatisficingauthorial intenteducational gamevisualization authoring
0
0 comments X

The pith

Difficulties envisioning an ideal visualization solution lead to satisficing in visualization authoring and difficulties attributing authorial intent.

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

The paper introduces Purrsuasion, an open-source game that lets participants negotiate ethical data disclosure by playing as visualization designers working under constraints and as information seekers who request details and award contracts. Deployment in an undergraduate data science class with 27 students produced gameplay logs and reflections that the authors analyze to surface patterns in how people handle partial disclosure. The central finding is that trouble imagining the best possible visualization leads designers to accept weaker solutions and makes it hard for others to correctly read the intent behind those choices. To address evaluation, the work develops a heuristic rubric that combines technical checks with judgments about social context. This setup makes otherwise hidden negotiation processes observable for study and teaching.

Core claim

Purrsuasion demonstrates that when data providers must design visualizations subject to constraints on full disclosure, they often satisfice by creating visualizations that fall short of ideal solutions, and data seekers have trouble correctly inferring the authors' intent behind those choices.

What carries the argument

Purrsuasion, the open-source game in which one player designs visualizations under disclosure limits while the other requests information and awards a contract, to observe real-time ethical judgments and communication.

If this is right

  • Visualization courses should include exercises that help students practice envisioning optimal disclosure solutions before they begin authoring.
  • Evaluation of student work in ethics contexts requires a rubric that blends adherence checks with sociotechnical context rather than automated metrics alone.
  • Games simulating provider-seeker negotiation can surface trust formation and problem-solving dynamics that are hard to observe in traditional assignments.
  • Authoring tools might incorporate prompts or previews that reduce the cognitive load of imagining full-disclosure alternatives.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If visualization software offered quick ways to compare constrained designs against fuller versions, satisficing might decrease even outside educational settings.
  • The same negotiation patterns could appear in other constrained decision domains such as privacy settings or report redaction.
  • Longer-term classroom use of the game could test whether repeated exposure reduces intent attribution difficulties over time.

Load-bearing premise

The classroom game mechanics and undergraduate student sample produce behaviors and judgments that generalize to professional ethical data disclosure negotiations.

What would settle it

A study in which professional data practitioners play the same game and show no satisficing or intent attribution problems would directly challenge the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05200 by Alex Kale, Krisha Mehta, Sami Elahi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In Purrsuasion, students (1) navigate a set of data communication scenarios represented by show-hide puzzles, and (2) ideate potential design solutions in an attempt to balance an information need with a disclosure constraint. (3) Instructors use a heuristic rubric to evaluate the visualization’s success in balancing the conflicting, situated requirements of the puzzle. Abstract— Data communication entails… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A trio of students play a round of Purrsuasion. 3.1 How to Play the Game The game is played in groups of three and consists of two roles: data providers that we dub senders and data seekers that we dub receivers. Each round of the game has two senders and one receiver. The receiver’s goal is to obtain visual evidence that addresses a given information need (e.g., identify peaks in pollution data in [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example student-authored visualizations across all three puzzles in our deployment. Each visualization is annotated with the heuristics used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: S33’s chart creation sequences up to their sent visualizations. trustworthiness harder to judge, leading receivers to seek clarification. 5.2 Sender Problem Solving Our analysis surfaced evidence of a “gulf of envisioning” [45] in senders’ visualization authoring. Students exhibited design fixation that we interpreted as a struggle to ideate optimal solutions to meet dis￾closure goals. Further, students un… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: For each round winner (grouped by puzzle) we show: participant id, mark type, disclosure adherence per signal, and disclosure tactics used. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Data communication entails ethical dilemmas where situational constraints forbid full disclosure of source data. Whereas visualization research and pedagogy often frames ethics as a matter of individuals making deceptive design choices or being misled, disclosure problems involve negotiation between pro-social actors. To provide observability into these situated judgments, we contribute Purrsuasion, an open-source visualization game where participants play the roles of (i) data providers designing visualizations subject to disclosure constraints and (ii) data seekers requesting information and awarding a contract. We deploy Purrsuasion in an undergraduate data science class (N = 27), gathering gameplay data to support a mixed-methods analysis of students' communication dynamics, problem solving, and trust formation. We find that difficulties envisioning an ideal visualization solution lead to satisficing in visualization authoring and difficulties attributing authorial intent. Given these challenges, we approach scoring student solutions by developing a heuristic rubric that supports sociotechnical judgments of disclosure adherence.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Purrsuasion, an open-source game in which players alternate between data-provider and data-seeker roles to negotiate visualization-based disclosure under situational constraints. Deployed in a single undergraduate data-science class (N=27), the work collects gameplay logs, reflections, and rubric scores to perform a mixed-methods analysis of communication dynamics, problem solving, and trust formation. The central empirical claim is that difficulties envisioning an ideal visualization solution produce satisficing in authoring and difficulties attributing authorial intent; a heuristic rubric is developed to support sociotechnical scoring of disclosure adherence.

Significance. If the observational patterns hold under broader testing, the contribution is a concrete, observable platform for studying negotiated (rather than unilateral) ethical dilemmas in data visualization, together with an open-source artifact and a rubric that could be reused in pedagogy and research. The shift from individual deception to pro-social negotiation is a useful reframing for the visualization-ethics literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods / Deployment: The study rests on a single classroom deployment with N=27 undergraduates and no control condition, baseline comparison, professional cohort, or external validation of the heuristic rubric. Because the central claims about satisficing and intent attribution are drawn directly from these observational logs and reflections, the absence of any contrast leaves open whether the reported behaviors are inherent to negotiated disclosure or artifacts of low-stakes student incentives and limited domain expertise.
  2. [Analysis] Analysis: No inter-rater reliability, inter-coder agreement statistics, or validation of the heuristic rubric against expert judgments are reported. Since the mixed-methods findings and the scoring of disclosure adherence depend on this rubric, the lack of reliability evidence is load-bearing for the trustworthiness of the quantitative component of the analysis.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states the sample size and key finding but does not mention the absence of controls or the exploratory nature of the rubric; adding one sentence on scope would help readers calibrate expectations.
  2. [Game Design] Game description: The precise mechanics by which disclosure constraints are enforced (e.g., what information is hidden from which role) could be clarified with a short example or table so that readers can judge whether the observed satisficing is driven by the constraint design itself.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion: The manuscript could more explicitly temper the generalizability claim by stating that the patterns are observed in an educational setting and require further testing with practitioners.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating revisions where appropriate to strengthen the manuscript while preserving the exploratory nature of the study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods / Deployment: The study rests on a single classroom deployment with N=27 undergraduates and no control condition, baseline comparison, professional cohort, or external validation of the heuristic rubric. Because the central claims about satisficing and intent attribution are drawn directly from these observational logs and reflections, the absence of any contrast leaves open whether the reported behaviors are inherent to negotiated disclosure or artifacts of low-stakes student incentives and limited domain expertise.

    Authors: We agree that the single-classroom deployment with N=27 limits generalizability and that the absence of controls or external cohorts leaves open questions about whether the observed patterns are specific to this educational context. The study was intentionally designed as an initial, naturalistic exploration to generate observable data on negotiated disclosure using the Purrsuasion artifact. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated Limitations section that explicitly discusses the single deployment, lack of baseline comparisons, potential effects of low-stakes incentives, and student expertise levels. We will also outline concrete plans for future work with professional cohorts and controlled designs to test broader applicability. The current contribution centers on the open-source game and heuristic rubric as reusable tools rather than on definitive causal claims. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Analysis] Analysis: No inter-rater reliability, inter-coder agreement statistics, or validation of the heuristic rubric against expert judgments are reported. Since the mixed-methods findings and the scoring of disclosure adherence depend on this rubric, the lack of reliability evidence is load-bearing for the trustworthiness of the quantitative component of the analysis.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit reliability reporting would improve transparency for the heuristic rubric. The rubric was developed iteratively by the authors through repeated review of gameplay logs and reflections to support sociotechnical scoring. In the revision we will expand the Methods section with a detailed description of the rubric's iterative development process and will compute and report inter-coder agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa) on a sample of the scored data to quantify consistency. We note that the rubric's interpretive elements make perfect agreement unlikely, but the added statistics will allow readers to better assess its application. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical observations drawn directly from study data

full rationale

The paper describes the design and deployment of an educational game (Purrsuasion) in a classroom setting, followed by mixed-methods analysis of gameplay logs, student reflections, and rubric scores. No equations, fitted parameters, predictive models, or derivation chains appear in the provided text. Central claims about satisficing and intent attribution are presented as direct findings from the N=27 participant data rather than reductions to prior self-citations or self-definitions. The study is self-contained against its own empirical inputs with no load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard HCI assumptions about game-based learning and the validity of mixed-methods classroom studies; no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond the game itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5460 in / 990 out tokens · 25093 ms · 2026-05-10T18:36:46.168358+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rensink, Enrico Bertini, and Jean-Daniel Fekete

    E. Adar and E. Lee-Robbins. Roboviz: A Game-Centered Project for Information Visualization Education.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):268–277, Jan. 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2022.3209402 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg 2023

  2. [2]

    Adelberger, O

    P. Adelberger, O. Lesota, K. Eckelt, M. Schedl, and M. Streit. Iguanodon: A code-breaking game for improving visualization construction literacy. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(9):5713– 5725, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3468948 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3468948 2025

  3. [3]

    Akbaba, L

    D. Akbaba, L. Klein, and M. Meyer. Entanglements for visualization: Changing research outcomes through feminist theory.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):1279–1289, Jan. 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456171 2, 8

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456171 2025

  4. [4]

    R. Amar, J. Eagan, and J. Stasko. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. InIEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005., pp. 111–117, 2005. doi: 10.1109/ INFVIS.2005.1532136 2, 12

    work page arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    S. Bai, K. F. Hew, and B. Huang. Does gamification improve student learn- ing outcome? evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts.Educational Research Review, 30:100322,

  6. [6]

    doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322 2

    work page doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322 2020

  7. [7]

    Brandt and J

    E. Brandt and J. Messeter. Facilitating collaboration through design games. InProceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices - Volume 1, PDC 04, pp. 121–131. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2004. doi: 10.1145/1011870.1011885 2, 9

    work page doi:10.1145/1011870.1011885 2004

  8. [8]

    J. D. Camba, P. Company, and V . L. Byrd. Identifying deception as a critical component of visualization literacy.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 42(1):116–122, 2022. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2021.3132004 2

    work page doi:10.1109/mcg.2021.3132004 2022

  9. [9]

    M. Correll. Ethical dimensions of visualization research. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, pp. 1–13. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300418 2

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300418 2019

  10. [10]

    Correll, E

    M. Correll, E. Bertini, and S. Franconeri. Truncating the y-axis: Threat or menace? InProc. CHI, pp. 1–12. ACM, New York, 2020. doi: 10. 1145/3313831.3376222 1, 2

    work page arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Correll and J

    M. Correll and J. Heer. Black hat visualization. InWorkshop on Dealing with Cognitive Biases in Visualisations (DECISIVe), IEEE VIS, vol. 1, p. 10, 2017. https://idl.cs.washington.edu/files/2017-Bla ckHatVis-DECISIVe.pdf. 1, 2, 5

    2017

  12. [13]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2025)

    Z. Cutler, J. Wilburn, H. Shrestha, Y . Ding, B. Bollen, K. A. Nadib et al. Revisit 2: A full experiment life cycle user study framework.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 32(1):13–23, 2026. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3633896 3

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3633896 2026

  13. [14]

    V . Dibia. LIDA: A tool for automatic generation of grammar-agnostic visu- alizations and infographics using large language models. In D. Bollegala, R. Huang, and A. Ritter, eds.,Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations), pp. 113–126. Association for Computational Linguistic...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-demo.11 2023

  14. [15]

    M. Dörk, P. Feng, C. Collins, and S. Carpendale. Critical infovis: exploring the politics of visualization. InCHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’13, pp. 2189–2198. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2013. doi: 10.1145/ 2468356.2468739 2

    work page arXiv 2013

  15. [16]

    Ehmel, V

    F. Ehmel, V . Brüggemann, and M. Dörk. Topography of violence: consid- erations for ethical and collaborative visualization design. InComputer Graphics Forum, vol. 40, pp. 13–24. Wiley Online Library, 2021. doi: 10. 1111/cgf.14285 2

    2021

  16. [17]

    M. F. A. R. D. T. (FAIR)†, A. Bakhtin, N. Brown, E. Dinan, G. Farina, C. Flaherty et al. Human-level play in the game of <i>diplomacy</i> by combining language models with strategic reasoning.Science, 378(6624):1067–1074, 2022. doi: 10.1126/science.ade9097 2

    work page doi:10.1126/science.ade9097 2022

  17. [18]

    Friedman, P

    B. Friedman, P. H. Kahn, A. Borning, and A. Huldtgren. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel, and M. E. Gorman, eds.,Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, pp. 55–95. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,

  18. [19]

    doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4 9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4

  19. [20]

    L. W. Ge, Y . Cui, and M. Kay. Calvi: Critical thinking assessment for literacy in visualizations. InProc. CHI, art. no. 815, 18 pages. ACM, New York, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581406 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581406 2023

  20. [21]

    L. W. Ge, Y . Cui, and M. Kay. Avec: An assessment of visual encoding ability in visualization construction. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25, art. no. 1166, 16 pages. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713364 2

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713364 2025

  21. [22]

    Ghoshal and S

    S. Ghoshal and S. Dasgupta. Design Values in Action: Toward a Theory of Value Dilution. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’23, pp. 2347–2361. Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/3563657.3596122 9

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3596122 2023

  22. [23]

    D. G. Jansson and S. M. Smith. Design fixation.Design Studies, 12(1):3– 11, 1991. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F 5

    work page doi:10.1016/0142-694x(91)90003-f 1991

  23. [24]

    S. H. Kerns and J. B. Wilmer. Two graphs walk into a bar: Readout- based measurement reveals the bar-tip limit error, a common, categorical misinterpretation of mean bar graphs.Journal of Vision, 21(12):17–17, 11

  24. [25]

    doi: 10.1167/jov.21.12.17 1

    work page doi:10.1167/jov.21.12.17

  25. [26]

    Kim and J

    Y . Kim and J. Heer. Assessing effects of task and data distribution on the effectiveness of visual encodings.Computer Graphics Forum, 37(3):157– 167, 2018. doi: 10.1111/cgf.13409 2, 12

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.13409 2018

  26. [27]

    Y .-S. Kim, K. Reinecke, and J. Hullman. Data through others’ eyes: The impact of visualizing others’ expectations on visualization interpretation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):760– 769, 2018. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745240 7

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2017.2745240 2018

  27. [28]

    Kindlmann and C

    G. Kindlmann and C. Scheidegger. An algebraic process for visualization design.IEEE Trans. Visual Comput. Graphics, 20(12):2181–2190, 2014. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346325 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2014.2346325 2014

  28. [29]

    Lee, S.-H

    S. Lee, S.-H. Kim, and B. C. Kwon. Vlat: Development of a visualization literacy assessment test.IEEE Trans. Visual Comput. Graphics, 23(1):551– 560, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598920 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2016.2598920 2017

  29. [30]

    Lee-Robbins and E

    E. Lee-Robbins and E. Adar. Affective learning objectives for communica- tive visualizations.IEEE Trans. Visual Comput. Graphics, 29(01):1–11, jan 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209500 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209500 2023

  30. [31]

    L. Y .-H. Lo, A. Gupta, K. Shigyo, A. Wu, E. Bertini, and H. Qu. Misin- formed by visualization: What do we learn from misinformative visualiza- tions? InComput. Graphics Forum, vol. 41, pp. 515–525. Wiley Online Library, 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14559 2

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14559 2022

  31. [32]

    Long and M

    S. Long and M. Kay. To cut or not to cut? a systematic exploration of y-axis truncation. InProc. CHI, CHI ’24, art. no. 207, 12 pages. ACM, New York, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642102 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642102 2024

  32. [33]

    Maddigan and T

    P. Maddigan and T. Susnjak. Chat2vis: Generating data visualizations via natural language using chatgpt, codex and gpt-3 large language mod- els.IEEE Access, 11:45181–45193, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023. 3274199 8

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2023 2023

  33. [34]

    T. W. Malone. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction.Cog- nitive Science, 5(4):333–369, 1981. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2 2

    work page doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2 1981

  34. [35]

    Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach

    A. McNutt, G. Kindlmann, and M. Correll. Surfacing visualization mi- rages. InIn Proc. CHI, pp. 1–16. ACM, New York, 2020. doi: 10.1145/ 3313831.3376420 1, 2

    work page arXiv 2020

  35. [36]

    Mehta, G

    K. Mehta, G. Kindlmann, and A. Kale. Designing for disclosure in data visualizations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 32(1):1317–1327, 2026. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3634781 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3634781 2026

  36. [37]

    Moritz, C

    D. Moritz, C. Wang, G. L. Nelson, H. Lin, A. M. Smith, B. Howe et al. Formalizing visualization design knowledge as constraints: Actionable and extensible models in draco.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):438–448, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018. 2865240 4

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018 2019

  37. [38]

    Pandey and A

    S. Pandey and A. Ottley. Mini-vlat: A short and effective measure of visualization literacy.Computer Graphics Forum, 42(3):1–11, 2023. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14809 2

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14809 2023

  38. [39]

    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 5

    work page doi:10.1109/vis49827 2021

  39. [40]

    P. C. Parsons and P. C. Shukla. Beyond problem solving: Framing and problem-solution co-evolution in data visualization design.IEEE Transac- tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 32(1):24–34, 2026. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3633866 9

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3633866 2026

  40. [41]

    Priyanka, B

    N. Priyanka, B. Johes, H. Xi, H. Jessica, and R. Jennie. Visualizing privacy- utility trade-offs in differentially private data releases.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2022(2):601–618, 03 2022. doi: 10. 2478/popets-2022-0058 2

    2022

  41. [42]

    N. H. Riche, C. Hurter, N. Diakopoulos, and S. Carpendale.Data-driven storytelling. CRC Press, 2018. doi: 10.1201/9781315281575 2

    work page doi:10.1201/9781315281575 2018

  42. [43]

    Riegelsberger, M

    J. Riegelsberger, M. Sasse, and J. D. McCarthy. The researcher’s dilemma: evaluating trust in computer-mediated communication.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6):759–781, 2003. Trust and Technology. doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00042-9 2

    work page doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00042-9 2003

  43. [44]

    Sarikaya and M

    A. Sarikaya and M. Gleicher. Scatterplots: Tasks, data, and designs.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):402–412,

  44. [45]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744184 2, 12

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2017.2744184 2017

  45. [46]

    Shneiderman

    B. Shneiderman. The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. InThe Craft of Information Visualization, Interactive Technologies, pp. 364–371. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco,

  46. [47]

    doi: 10.1016/B978-155860915-0/50046-9 2, 8, 12

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-155860915-0/50046-9

  47. [48]

    S. L. Star and J. R. Griesemer. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39.Social Studies of Science, 19(3):387–420,

    1907

  48. [49]

    doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001 9

    work page doi:10.1177/030631289019003001

  49. [50]

    Subramonyam, B

    H. Subramonyam, B. Lee, S. O’Modhrain, and E. Adar. Data dialog: Fa- cilitating collaborative decision making through data-driven conversations. InProceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, pp. 440–443. ACM, Barcelona Spain, May 2017. doi: 10.1145/3154862.3154921 9

    work page doi:10.1145/3154862.3154921 2017

  50. [51]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24)

    H. Subramonyam, R. Pea, C. Pondoc, M. Agrawala, and C. Seifert. Bridg- ing the gulf of envisioning: Cognitive challenges in prompt based interac- tions with llms. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, art. no. 1039, 19 pages. Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2024. doi: 10. 1145/3...

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    Tanner, D

    C. Tanner, D. Schmocker, J. Katsarov, and M. Christen. Educating moral sensitivity in business: An experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of a serious moral game.Computers & Education, 178:104381, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104381 9

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104381 2022

  52. [53]

    Y . Tian, W. Cui, D. Deng, X. Yi, Y . Yang, H. Zhang et al. Chartgpt: Leveraging llms to generate charts from abstract natural language.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(3):1731–1745,

  53. [54]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3368621 8

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3368621 2024

  54. [55]

    Tufte.The Visual Display of Quantitative Information

    E. Tufte.The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, Conn., 1983. https://www.edwardtufte.com/book/the -visual-display-of-quantitative-information/. 1

    1983

  55. [56]

    Wilkinson and G

    L. Wilkinson and G. Wills. Scagnostics distributions.Journal of Com- putational and Graphical Statistics, 17(2):473–491, 2008. doi: 10.1198/ 106186008X320465 2, 12

    2008

  56. [57]

    Wu and R

    E. Wu and R. Cheng. Design-specific transformations in visualization. IEEE VIS BELIV Workshop, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06404 1, 5

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.06404 2024

  57. [58]

    J. Ye, Y . Li, W. Zou, and X. Wang. From awareness to action: The effects of experiential learning on educating users about dark patterns. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25, art. no. 224, 22 pages. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713493 2

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713493 2025

  58. [59]

    Zacks and B

    J. Zacks and B. Tversky. Bars and lines: a study of graphic communication. Memory & cognition, 27(6):1073–1079, 1999. doi: 10.3758/BF03201236 1

    work page doi:10.3758/bf03201236 1999

  59. [60]

    Zhang, J

    D. Zhang, J. Hartline, and J. Hullman. Designing shared information displays for agents of varying strategic sophistication.Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact., 8(CSCW1), art. no. 42, 34 pages, Apr. 2024. doi: 10. 1145/3637319 2 A APPENDICES A.1 Show-Hide Puzzle Prompts and Data Generation Designing puzzles at an appropriate difficulty level was highly iter...

    2024