Guidelines Are Not Rules: Characterizing Terminologies Around Visualization Design Guidelines

A common expectation in visualization research is that outcomes recommend how researchers and practitioners take action or make design decisions. We often express these as “guidelines.” Yet, the term “guideline” is both ambiguous and loosely defined, and what one researcher considers a guideline may be too broad, too loose, or too strict for another. We take a closer look at a broader set of terms that can express desirable results around visualization research, and untangle how these words are understood in the community in relation to other similar terms. We base our work on an exploratory study with experts, followed by a crowdsourcing study with a separate mapping phase (n=30) and rating phase (n=42) targeting input from the broader visualization community, and an analysis of the use of terminology in 3,877 IEEE VIS papers published from 1990 to 2024. Based on our findings, we call for more nuanced, precise discussions of research outcomes and their communication to the broader community, including practitioners and students.

Anna L. Chinni, Md Dilshadur Rahman, Bon Adriel Aseniero, Petra Isenberg, Kushin Mukherjee, Ghulam Jilani Quadri, Paul Rosen, Karen Schloss, and Daniel Weiskopf. Guidelines Are Not Rules: Characterizing Terminologies Around Visualization Design Guidelines. IEEE VIS BELIV Workshop, 2026.

@inproceedings{chinni2026guidelines,
  title = {Guidelines Are Not Rules: Characterizing Terminologies around Visualization
    Design Guidelines},
  author = {Chinni, Anna L. and Rahman, Md Dilshadur and Aseniero, Bon Adriel and
    Isenberg, Petra and Mukherjee, Kushin and Quadri, Ghulam Jilani and Rosen, Paul and
    Schloss, Karen and Weiskopf, Daniel},
  booktitle = {IEEE VIS BELIV Workshop},
  year = {2026},
  abstract = {A common expectation in visualization research is that outcomes recommend
    how researchers and practitioners take action or make design decisions. We often express
    these as "guidelines." Yet, the term "guideline" is both ambiguous and loosely defined,
    and what one researcher considers a guideline may be too broad, too loose, or too strict
    for another. We take a closer look at a broader set of terms that can express desirable
    results around visualization research, and untangle how these words are understood in
    the community in relation to other similar terms. We base our work on an exploratory
    study with experts, followed by a crowdsourcing study with a separate mapping phase
    (n=30) and rating phase (n=42) targeting input from the broader visualization community,
    and an analysis of the use of terminology in 3,877 IEEE VIS papers published from 1990
    to 2024. Based on our findings, we call for more nuanced, precise discussions of
    research outcomes and their communication to the broader community, including
    practitioners and students.}
}